Greg Clark–A Refreshing Change Or Just Another Politician?

One of the reasons people hate politics is that truth is rarely a politician's objective. Election and power are. - Cal Thomas

Divide and rule, the politician cries; unite and lead, is watchword of the wise. - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

In order to become the master, the politician poses as the servant. - Charles de Gaulle

On Wednesday night past, I took a moment to pop over to the candidates debate in the riding of Calgary Elbow for the upcoming Alberta by-election. Whether I am a sucker for punishment or I still seek hope that caring, competent, public-serving politicians can still be found remains to be determined but there was something that intrigued me in what I witnessed.

Susan Wright, representing the Liberal Party was well spoken and served her Party well at the event.  It wouldn’t surprise me if she does very well in the upcoming by-election.

Stephanie McLean, representing the NDP, trotted out the typical agenda-less bashing (some of it personal), referring to the government as “corrupt” and a “regime” (with clear use of the word in the derogatory sense) and even going as far as suggesting that her PC Party opponent had entered politics for personal gain.

Gordon Dirks of the PC Party left me shaking my head as to how he could claim that “yes, the PC Party has screwed up many times in the past but now that Jim Prentice and I are in town, we are going to fix everything pronto”.  Miracles happen but when one has much of the same team … well …. you know.

John Fletcher of the Wildrose Party left me wondering how one could stumble through a supposed strategy that suggested that he would slash budgets wildly while investing more than any other party.  Mr. Dirk’s description of this as a “fiscal fairyland” made me laugh.

Yup …. three of the four candidates offered much of the same old garbage that is always trotted out in debates.

And then there was Greg Clark of the Alberta Party.  He answered questions without political rhetoric, techno-jargon, clichés and the like.  When it came to answering the question about where the money would come from for future projects, he was the only one who actually stated where it would come from instead of using the typical voodoo, magic, mass hypnosis or rips in the space-time continuum that are often trotted out in such debates.

I gasped when he was so open and honest about what was needed (and he was right).  Could it be that there was actually someone in the political arena who was willing to say what might be unpopular but which was actually needed in the Province of Alberta and could do so intelligently, strategically, competently and eloquently?

Could this be the refreshing change that is needed in Alberta politics (and politics in general), presenting a strong blend of public focus and business acumen to lead the Province moving forward?

Just as I thought that Clark did not (refreshingly) represent politics as usual, I saw this on his Facebook feed.

In a single statement, he shifted from promoting a strong agenda to resorting to the land of personal bashing that is so typical of candidates who have nothing else to leverage, promote or fall back on.

Could it be that in the land of democracy, a political candidate was attempting to tell another what he should do and that that person should be considered less of a person just because he didn’t want to do that which was being demanded by another?

If this happened in a school yard, we would call this bullying.

So much for role models.

As someone who has many gay friends whom I love, support and respect, I also wouldn’t appreciate it if someone said “wear this in support of them otherwise you don’t like them”.  I have a right to choose who or what I publicly support when I wish to.  If I don’t wear such a pin or sticker, it does not mean I don’t support or like them. 

In fact, I’m not aware of a direct correlation between not wanting to wear something in support of a cause and proof that I do not support or I am actively against such a cause.  To suggest otherwise is a weak-minded supposition on someone’s part …. or is politically useful.

And besides, this is a democracy after all.

So on the one side, Clark seems to represent a refreshing change that is needed while on the other, he falls back to the same old divisive, negative politics that has been part of the US landscape for years and which is now becoming more and more common in the Canadian political arena.

Could it be that Clark is being strongly influenced by the juvenile, self-serving thoughts and musings of Stephen Carter, his campaign strategist?

I hope not.  When someone of immense potential taints their offering with the same old negative campaign stuff that others without hope fall back on, it reminds me of splitting an atom.

Do it well and one can produce positive energy forever.

Do it poorly and one produces this:

Unfortunately, explosions this large tend to take out the innocent as well as the guilty, the ignorant and the stupid.

Mr. Clark’s sharp, intelligent responses the other night offer hope that politicians can still be of the people and for the people and to be able to do so intelligently and strategically.

Meanwhile his Facebook post suggests that he has an alter-ego that does not serve all the people so eloquently or intelligently.

I wonder which side, the refreshing side or the same-old same-old side, will come to bear should he get elected.

The Bottom Line

It is not easy to offer one’s self for public service and I commend anyone who has the courage to step up and do so.

However, that being said, once one has stepped forward, the kudos and attaboys should quickly fall second to the important questions of “what needs to be done”, “why are we doing it”, “how are we going to get it done” and “how do we know”.

Because if we can’t do this proactively, strategically and intelligently, then we end up with more of the same old same old, with more valuable time passing by without solutions being offered, with potentially more problems being created and with the electorate becoming more disenfranchised with the political arena.

Many politicians throw many things at the side of the barn to see what will stick and to see if what sticks will resonate with the electorate.

Hopefully what Mr. Clark offers is a refreshing change in the political arena and he is not in fact throwing something else commonly found on the farm.

I think we need the type of refreshing change that Mr. Clark has the potential to represent.

What do you think?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

This musing continues here …. Greg Clark–Politicians and the Importance of Optics.

PS This blog is not an endorsement of any candidate present at the debate.  However, it is important that we apply an appropriate level of discernment to what political candidates offer otherwise we end up with a variant of this:

If we don’t apply an appropriate level of discernment in candidate selection, we can’t blame them for the results they produce because just as our finger of accusation points at them, our other three fingers are actually pointing back at ourselves.

Addendum – Stephen Carter responds – October 11, 2014

In fairness to people named in my blog, I always share responses that they make.

Stephen Carter shared this:

Personally, if I were responding to this blog post, I would have taken the moment to say something like “we believe that the attributes that you noted about Greg will propel him to victory in the upcoming by-election”.  Such a response would have been strategically and politically astute.

However, such a flippant response deserved a flippant reply and therefore I couldn’t resist this little note.

I guess I shouldn’t be too surprised.  During a discussion on Twitter a couple of weeks ago regarding the number of student spaces available in Alberta, I asked a serious question regarding how the Alberta Party would pay for their promises regarding education.

My question produced this exchange with Stephen Carter:

Two points come to mind here:

1. We should always seize every opportunity to promote or advance our agendas when provided with said opportunity and not cripple our efforts or the efforts of others.
2. For Greg Clark – we are the company that we keep.  For a politician, making a poor choice can be very expensive, even if the resource detracting from his efforts is “free” as Mr. Carter claims to be.

Addendum – Alberta Party Comes Up Empty – October 29, 2014

The Alberta Party came up empty in all 4 by-elections in Alberta.  Oftentimes bravado is better directed towards more strategically positive thoughts, words and actions.

I wonder how honest the Alberta Party will be in its post mortems or if it will get distracted by the “second place is a win” mantra that many people embrace.

Unfortunately, in politics, there is only first place.  Discussion of trends, changing momentum and such is often irrational, unjustified, wishful thinking on the part of those who didn’t finish first.

Are Newfoundland Liberals Values Chameleons?

To me, consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects. - Margaret Thatcher

At a press conference held by the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador today, two former NDP party members, Dale Kirby and Christopher Mitchelmore, were welcomed as they officially announced they were changing party affiliations.

There were a couple of fascinating comments made by Mr. Kirby that really struck me.

In responding to comments regarding how he may have walked away from his principles, he responded by saying to supporters today:

“My values are also your values”.

As a literalist, I interpret this to mean:

“My values will align with anything you want as long as it gets me elected.”

Why do I believe this?

My personal values in a number of areas are well defined and well known.  I do not bend those values for anyone or anything.  If you don’t like my values, you always have the choice of going elsewhere for whatever it is you seek.  As a public person, if I bent the definition of who I am for everyone who demands it, not only would you not know who I am but it is highly likely that I wouldn’t know either.

When a politician admits that his values are whatever you want them to be, then what you have is a politician for sale, willing to be bent or modified to suit the needs of specific people as long as the politician also gets what they want – to be elected.  In such a situation, are they representing the needs of the people or the needs of a select few?

As for Mr. Ball, the leader of the Liberal Party, he indicated the following in accepting these two new members:

"The Liberal party does have an open door policy, and we will not close that door on anyone who is seeking a nomination, looking to make a change for the better or questioning previous decisions."

To Mr. Ball, I say:

When it comes to strong leadership, sometimes what is equally important to accepting anyone is being firm in whom you will not accept, especially those whose values seem to depend on the direction of the political wind.

Otherwise, you appear desperate or selfish, sacrificing your own values to achieve personal gain.

And besides, a political knife in someone else’s back yesterday may be in yours tomorrow.  This not only reflects desperation or selfishness but a potentially low score in strategic and tactical intelligence as well.

Finally, when Mr. Kirby was asked if he would try to bring significant elements of the NDP camp to the Liberal camp, he replied, "I'd like to bring as many of them as possible."

All of this tells me that not only are Mr. Kirby’s values fluid but in fact the values of the entire Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador are fluid, being open to being chameleons that may become indistinguishable from the NDP.

I guess it comes down to being willing to do or be anything just to win.

We shouldn't be surprised that the values of these people are so fluid since they are politicians after all.

However, I am curious what it says about our values.

What does it say about your values?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

Addendum – February 4, 2014

I made an observation in social media today regarding politicians who cross the floor and it was censored (translation: it was deleted).

And so I offer it here for your musing and amusement:

People elect a person for one or more reasons, including but not limited to:

1. It's a beauty contest
2. They like the candidate
3. They like the party
4. They like the party leader
5. All options frighten them - the lesser of many evils is chosen

When a politician crosses the floor, they probably don't know the reason they were originally elected (I don't care how many doors they claim to have knocked on or what they believe they were told at the door).  The ballot also does not have "reason for choice" written on it.

For this reason, politicians cannot claim to be representing their constituents when they cross the floor since the constituents may have elected them for reasons 3, 4 or 5.

So when someone crosses the floor, only a by-election can determine the will and support of the people.  Without the by-election, only the will of the politician and the party that is accepting them is known.  The rest is a mystery until the next election.

This is NOT democracy.

The only people who believe that this is democracy are the people who benefit from the move or from the politician, people with close personal ties to the politician or the recipient political party and the recipient political party itself.

Whether the politician and the recipient political party actually benefit or not is not truly settled until the next election.

I wonder if the Liberals, in embracing events such as what transpired today, are about to snatch failure from the jaws of victory and hand a “gimme” election back to the Progressive Conservatives.

Only the constituents really know.

Passion is Great … Most Times

I have been watching the Canadian election unfold on Facebook, Twitter and other media and frankly, the process that is evolving is somewhat disappointing.

The passion that both candidates and voters are exhibiting is quite cool.  Having a passion for what one does and believes in is an essential part of Life.  In some parts of Canada, such as my native Newfoundland and Labrador, politics is right up there with religion as a way of Life.

However, once one gets past the passion in search of the facts that can make a voter an informed one, things become a little murky.

I have asked different people in various forums to explain how a policy by insert federal leader name here would be paid for or is better than an opponent’s idea and in over 90% of the cases the result is the same.

No matter whose policy I name, the people defending that person deliver a litany of personal remarks against the followers of any of the other leaders.

But alas, very rarely does anyone just answer the question in a fact-based way.

This suggests that the rabid followers of the different political parties don’t know the facts (either that or the facts are so secret that the rest of us aren’t privy to them).

It has often been said that people who don’t know the facts or run out of facts or justification for an opinion often resort to personal attacks or insults with the hope of bullying their opponent into submission.

This happens in business, politics and Life itself – a sad, unfortunate truth that prevents us from reaching our ultimate potential in so many aspects of society.  Many times, the loudest person carries the day over the smartest one.

The great challenge is that when we use passion alone to steamroll over people instead of choosing to be informed and using this knowledge to convince others, there’s a good chance we turn many people away whom we may have convinced to become a partner or collaborator with us.

When this happens, the result we are trying to bully others into creating for us becomes even more elusive.

And instead of creating a desired result, we may end up creating the very result that we complained so hard about needing to avoid in the first place.

Ahhhhhhh …. I really am a dreamer, am I not … to be trapped in the belief of a utopian world where:

• We seek knowledge to be informed and educated …
• We use logic and facts to respectfully make a point or to convince an opponent …
• We value the opinions of others, even when we disagree with them …
• We embrace the notion that no matter what happens, we are all in this together, to make our world a better one for all of us …
• We find a way to wrap passion around all of this so that we push ourselves and others to be the best we can be without wasting our potential by crushing each other.

I guess I am more an idealist than I thought. :-)

As a Canadian who has lived abroad for a long time, the one thing I worry about is the level of disrespect I see between Canadians who are passionately promoting their choice while using their passion to trash the opposition.

Facts are often absent or seem irrelevant – steamrolling others seems to carry more weight.

Canadians often espouse their passion but also their humility, pointing at their neighbors to the south and saying “thank goodness we don’t act like them at election time”.  Hmmmmm …. are we sure about that?

I believe that the longer one stays uninformed about the workings of the world, the greater the chance the world will move in a direction that we may not be happy with.  By not choosing to understand it, our ability to influence it diminishes over time.

And this above all, worries me.

How about you?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

My Musings-in-a-Minute entry for “Passion is Great … Most Times” is the same as this entry and can be found here.