PC Party of Alberta–Proving Einstein and Churchill Right?

If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. – Albert Einstein

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. - Albert Einstein

However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results. - Winston Churchill

[Author note: A sequel to this blog post can be found here - PC Party of Alberta–Who Will Bell the Cat?]

When the PC Party of Alberta announced a candidate for the upcoming by-election in Calgary-Foothills, I was curious:

What has the PC Party learned from the election loss in May and what would their candidate do differently as a result of those lessons?

With that in mind, I posed a simple question on the Facebook pages of the candidate and the PC Party.  The question was this:

On what platform will he run? Have we admitted our weaknesses yet, why we lost and what we need to do to regain the confidence of the people? No nasty answers please - this is an honest question from someone who would like to understand if stuff from the past has been resolved.

I thought the question to be fair, legitimate and respectfully asked.

The candidate never answered the question as of the time this post was published.

However, on the PC Party wall, I was blessed with this fascinating interaction (click on the image for an easier-to-read version).

“Clowns like me”.  We’re off to an excellent, cerebral start in our exchange.

The interaction continued ….

Now I’m a “clueless clown”.  I’m having trouble keeping up with the elevated intellectual level of the exchange but I feel I must persevere despite my obvious shortcomings.

Mr. June’s rant continued before the PC Party finally addressed my question and I responded:

Note that they did not attempt to refute his comments at all – a curious thing.

However, in a desire not to feel left out of the exchange, Mr. June re-entered the conversation:

Clearly I am not worthy of the intellect of this individual and I disengaged before embarrassing myself further.

The reality is that there are always idiots (Individuals Derogatorily Opining Trite S**t) out there who can’t wait to share their weak, fact-less, disrespectful opinions on the Web.  I feel bad for anyone whose lives are limited in such ways – it must be a dark, frustrating, powerless way to live.

However, what I am fascinated by is that the PC Party did not attempt to silence the individual or publicly disassociate themselves from his opinions.  Even though it is THEIR forum, they are allowing others to shout down anyone who dares to engage in public discourse for the sole reason of making something better and they are not making any comment to the contrary.

And when someone speaks on someone else’s behalf and the latter chooses not to refute what was said, you have to wonder if they agree with what was said or if they don’t care what the potential result could be if they don’t refute it.

The difficulty here is that what we don’t condemn today, we accept tomorrow …..

….. and what we accept today, we embrace tomorrow.

Does the PC Party know what it may be embracing with such a hands-off attitude regarding the comments of the dull and the ignorant?

Does the PC Party care?

Perhaps the PC Party prefers that difficult questions not be asked.

I can’t tell – they don’t answer them but they do allow others to be the hammer in an effort to squelch public discourse, potentially presenting a desirable outcome for the PC Party since someone else gets to play the heavy when the questions are awkward to answer.

Again, I don’t know and can’t guess if an answer is not forthcoming from anyone except the people who have little to share and a lot of energy to do it with.

Interestingly enough, only one individual by the name of Maxim pointed out that the response to me was unfair.  Such little response suggests that others agree with intimidation tactics, no one cares about the interaction, no one cares to take action when they see something wrong, no one cares enough about the PC Party in general or they have better things to do with their Life.

None of these things send a positive message to the PC Party or to the people who might observe or participate in such interactions.

Voter influence is all about perception and so far, the campaign in Calgary-Foothills is off to a bad start from my perspective.

The fact that people prefer me to be in their camp instead of attempting to drive me to the opponent’s camp through intimidation or indifference is a subject for a different day.

The Bottom Line

You should never allow someone else to define who you are with their own message on your behalf.  It may be the last or only message that others receive and you may fall victim to the reputation that becomes attached to you if the message is not a positive one or one that properly reflects what you represent (or at least what you want it to represent).

If you don’t like what that reputation is, then do something about it.

Because if you don’t do something about it, maybe you agree with the message being promoted or if nothing else, you may be perceived as agreeing with it.

Either way, the perception of the recipient will be the same whether you like it or not.

Do you care what reputation is defined for you by others?

Does it matter?

How do you know?

What are you willing to do about it?

For the PC Party, failure to shut down the ignorant who define the reputation of the Party may be proving Einstein and Churchill to be right.

I wonder if they care.

In service and servanthood,

Harry

[Author note: A sequel to this blog post can be found here - PC Party of Alberta–Who Will Bell the Cat?]

---

Addendum: A member of the PC Party, after observing the interaction, texted me this thought:

The PC response is pathetic: we’ll get to a platform when we stop being so busy.  How do you commit to run without a platform?

An interesting thought indeed.

---

Addendum 2 – A Response From the PCAA

The PC Party Twitter account sent me this tweet in response to my observations:

A few observations regarding their response:

1. It addresses the subject without really addressing it, since it doesn’t reject the comments as not reflecting the position of the Party or the candidate.  While entertaining all opinions is noble, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand when some participants are abusive and should be banned. 
2. The tweet takes the politically correct stand of “we don’t want to say a specific person was naughty” so we will generalize it to be “some people” which technically could include me for refusing to accept the aggressive nature of others.  Meanwhile, last time I checked, “some people” were still continuing their abuse of the opinions of others.  Convenient?
3. If one does not have a policy for healthy discourse in 2015, one is seriously behind the times.  Beg, borrow or steal someone else’s – there are many to choose from.  “Grow a set” as the expression goes and know when it is obvious to shut down those who merely seek to shut down discourse for their own misguided reasons.  We can’t be everything to everyone, otherwise we end up standing for nothing.

The Bottom Line

The damage is done – my question went unanswered by the Party and by the candidate and others have expressed a lack of interest in speaking up as a result.  Is this a deliberate act under the guise of “we don’t have a policy for healthy discourse”?  This would be very convenient if true.

Not much appears to have changed since the Party attitude, poor perception of what the voter wanted and lack of strategic foresight brought the Party down in May of 2015.

Oh wait, many PCAA members still don’t believe that they really lost that election and maybe that’s the problem.  This is especially true given that many PCAA members keep citing the strange, unrelated statistic that since the PC Party and the Wildrose Party combined took more popular votes than the NDP, then it means that the NDP didn’t really win.

To those people, I ask them to look at who sits on the Government side of the Legislature.  That is the only answer that matters.

Those people remind me of the belief of some that if someone dies in a violent way, their ghost remains where the person died, unaware that they have actually died.

A pompous attitude when you are “on top of the pile” is not appropriate.

A pompous attitude when you are not is not intelligent.

One causes you to lose.

One prevents you from winning.

Is there any difference between the two in the end?

The Real Problem With the LGBTQ Debate in Alberta

One of the most sincere forms of respect is actually listening to what another has to say. - Bryant H. McGill

I remind myself every morning: Nothing I say this day will teach me anything. So if I'm going to learn, I must do it by listening. - Larry King

The Twitterverse is alive with rhetoric in Alberta in the last few days as Bill 10, the Gay-Straight Alliance Bill, was put on hold by the Alberta Government and once again, misinformed and malformed brains demonstrate how one goes about putting the Twit in Twitter.

And while some people lament about how their rights are being crushed while others complain that some people have too many rights already, a darker issue quietly (or not so quietly) rides the undercurrent of the debate.

The darker issue is found in the lack of respectful dialog - the ability to discuss and debate one’s point without driving it down someone else’s throat, the ability to not condemn someone for daring to disagree (or not agree, which is subtly different) and the ability to avoid the temptation of using a difficult issue as a tool to conveniently promote one’s own agenda as some politicians are doing right now.

If you are pro-LGBTQ, recognize that if someone doesn’t support your cause, that does NOT automatically mean they are against you as some claim.  If a legislator doesn’t want to enact a bill immediately because of the complexities contained therein, know that thousands of children aren’t condemned to be beaten in the dark recesses of the playground as you imply.  You should also use data appropriately without exaggeration or wilful distortion as I requested in Bullying and the REAL Crisis In Alberta (and elsewhere) and The Problem With the LGBTQ Agenda.

If you are anti-LGBTQ, recognize the needs and sensitivities of others, recognize that their past may have been difficult because of their orientation and recognize that if someone feels threatened in any way, they will promote their needs with vigour and passion.  Also recognize that if there is an imbalance in the rights of others, then such imbalances must be corrected without question, complaint or hesitation.

And for both sides, remember that there are other serious things happening in the world that must not be forgotten lest a small victory be won but the war be lost in terms of larger issues that affect all of us.  Beware also the politician who often couldn’t care less about the people but who seek to leverage contentious issues for their own gain.

Judge not lest ye be judged … well … except in the case of some politicians.

The inability of people to be able to dialog respectfully, the unwillingness to be able to listen (not just hear) before speaking and the inability to be able to reflect on what the other person is saying while not merely waiting for them to stop talking so that a counter-argument can be offered immediately are all turning every important dialog into another opportunity to walk all over others who disagree with them.

What kind of example are we setting for our youth – that (s)he who shouts loudest or threatens the sharpest carries the day?

And so when it comes to demanding respect as one promotes an idea, such respect starts with earning it and giving it no matter what side of a debate someone finds themselves on.  If one leans towards the tactics of bullying in order to accomplish one’s agenda, then one deserves much less respect than is being requested.

In fact, in such situations, the person demanding respect by intimidation deserves none.

The Bottom Line

A time is coming when the ability to passionately but respectfully debate and solve serious issues will be a critical skill to have.  If during this time, we haven’t acquired the skill, the ability or the will to discuss difficult issues with data, respect and understanding, then it won’t matter what we are arguing about and we will all go down together.

In the meantime, I think we need to take the time to practice a more civil form of dialog (sprinkled with passion) in order to make the world a better place.

Maybe the LGBTQ debate provides such an opportunity.

What do you think?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

PS In negotiation and debate, don’t assume that everything you demand will be given to you nor should you assume that you can get away with giving away too little.  By the same token, do not demand too little nor give away too much.  Somewhere in all of that, there is a balance that works for all.  Only through fair and respectful debate, with knowledge, wisdom and data to back it up, can the balance be found.

Addendum – An Example - December 17, 2014

John Carpay, a Calgary lawyer, had this to say in a National Post op-ed last week - Parents — even Alberta ‘hillbillies’ — have a right to make choices about their children’s education.

The article triggered this comment by Kristopher Wells to which I responded (click on image for larger version):

Which then produced this response from a bystander:

Which led to this conversation (click on image for larger version):

And this (click on image for larger version):

Too bad … another opportunity for two sides to understand each other comes to a crashing halt.

Their loss.

I personally prefer to seek allies over antagonists and if an alliance is not possible, I would rather leave someone neutral rather than antagonize them.

Unfortunately, not everyone shares such a belief nor the belief in respectful dialog.

Kindness–The Ultimate Antagonist

Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain

Beginning today, treat everyone you meet as if they were going to be dead by midnight. Extend to them all the care, kindness and understanding you can muster, and do it with no thought of any reward. Your life will never be the same again. - Og Mandino

Those who know me well know that I often end conversations, whether it be in person, on social media or in emails, with one of several phrases:

Create a great day (or weekend).

Create a great day (or weekend) for yourself and others.

Create a great day, because merely having a great day is too passive an experience.

Create a great day for yourself and others, because merely having a great day is too passive an experience.

The phrases often draw interesting responses from people.  As my friend Sara K. noted today on LinkedIn:

I like it when you say that. Makes me feel powerful.

My friend Steve B. had this to say about the phrase:

I like the invitation to create something meaningful. You are giving credit to me for having talent and capability.

My friend Mark C. suggested in fun that perhaps I should offer a different, less intimidating variant such as:

Today is a gift. Don’t screw it up.

However, some people exhibit a different response to the phrases.  As an example, I am inviting a guest writer to share his thoughts on the phrase.  This person, a resident of Calgary, shared his musings on Twitter in crisp, poignant form today in response to my request to create a great day.

As a long time Wall St’er, I’ve never been accused of being a hippie before. Other than that, name calling on Wall St. is quite common although he missed some of our favorite phrases.

As background, I had responded to a remark by Danielle Smith, head of the Wildrose Party and the Official Opposition in the Alberta Legislature, when she claimed that she never blocks anyone on Twitter unless they are disrespectful.  When I remarked that people like myself had been blocked by her for asking for data to support assertions made by her, I was blessed to have an interaction with this gentleman.  After a few exchanges with him, I expressed my usual signoff and the afore mentioned tweets were his response.

Explaining “Create a Great Day”

When I ask people to “Create a great day”, I am sincere about it.  My greatest desire for those around me is that they have the opportunity to create the greatest experience possible for themselves and for others.  Merely “having a great day” implies that one will wait for a good day to arrive (hopefully) whereas creating one increases the odds of experiencing a great day or if a great day is already being experienced, then perhaps there is an opportunity to make it even better.

So my use of the phrase could be considered to be equivalent to Namaste (the divine in me honors the divine in you), God be with you, have fun, have a blast, good luck, best wishes, aloha, serve others, love Life, grab a pizza with friends and whatever else you wish to embrace …. all rolled into one.

Friends of mine observing this interaction today had some interesting things to say about it.  My friend Doug P. had this observation when people were discussing the possibility of an underlying, hidden issue within some people (my emphasis added):

Yes, there are probably some hidden issues. I think those same issues would come into play with "have a good day" if it were not a ubiquitous, empty platitude. Your formulation is uncommon. People have to think a little about it. When angry people think, their anger goes on display.

Some people don’t like kindness or don’t know how to deal with it.

There are, sadly, people who don’t know how to respond to respect, civility and kindness.  Many such people miss some of the greatest joys in Life because they are too busy being unhappy and they are content to bring others down to share in their darkness.  While it is unfortunate that they should be so unhappy, it is unfair and inappropriate that they choose to impose their lack of joy, respect and civility onto others.

They go through Life steamrolling over others until they run into people like me.  Unfortunately for them, while I don’t seek trouble, I do not step aside when trouble is before me, since I know that if I step aside, the trouble that stands before me will continue their agenda of steamrolling and destroying others.  In such situations, some soften their approach when their attempts to intimidate and bully are met with respect and an interest in exchange. Others exhibit behavior like my guest writer above.

Sometimes you find such people in clusters

I find it intriguing that oftentimes when I ask for clarity from the Wildrose Party or I challenge an assertion made by them (requesting data to back up their assertion) I am often beset upon by someone like the person noted above.  Curiously enough, when I challenge other parties for clarity, I am not beset upon in the same way.  It was my experience with such angry people in the past that inspired me to write Anger: Setting Yourself Up For Manipulation.

Now in fairness, I have had some GREAT interactions with passionate supporters of the Wildrose Party, including people like Vitor M., Rick N. and Dave W. (you know who you are) and others.  They are passionate, intelligent people who, while possessing different political beliefs than I do, can listen, share, object, agree and give and take respectfully and intelligently.  They are as passionate about creating a better future for themselves, their families and their province as I am and this, above all, means that we agree and disagree our way towards a common goal – the creation of a greater tomorrow!

But there remains many people out there who are on simmer all the time and when respectful people like me come along with no agenda other than to learn, to share, to verify information (mine and others) and to collaboratively create a better world, they assume there MUST be an agenda and so they go on the offensive.

And sadly, the Wildrose Party, often referred to as the “angry party”, still has a number of such people circulating within and around the Party.  And while there is something to be said about the company that one keeps, the difficulty of being surrounded by such people and not discouraging their attacks on others is this:

Attacking reveals your weaknesses as well as your strengths.
Choose your battles carefully.

The Bottom Line

We must always strive to meet obstinance, intimidation, bullying and the like with as much kindness, civility and respect as we can muster. That being said, for some bullies, turning the other cheek or ignoring their presence will not solve the situation at-hand and may inadvertently condone or strengthen their forceful nature.  Force must sometimes be met with equal force or be gently redirected – always respectfully and kindly.

Eventually the bullies will see a better way and will change.

Or they will pick up their toys (and their negative intentions) and go home.

Or someone else (maybe you) will take their toys (and their power) away from them and send them home.

In all cases, kindness, civility and respect will still carry the day. 

Anger, when redirected, refocused and retasked into energy intent on making positive change can produce great results.  Anger when uncontrolled or misdirected merely hurts randomly or creates confusion.

It’s like splitting an atom.  Doing it well can produce relatively clean energy for a Lifetime. Doing it poorly can kill thousands or millions in a single flash.

It all comes down to personal choice of intention and execution.  Being separated by the distance and perceived anonymity that social media affords should not be a licence or excuse for people to treat each other with less respect than if they were standing face to face nor should one strive to be the twit in Twitter.

In a world of ever-increasing complexity and beauty simultaneously where technology often trumps humanity, I think there is still a strong need for some basic human values.

What do you think?

In service and servanthood.  Create a great day for yourself and others, because merely having a great day is too passive an experience.

Harry

PS For those who struggle with others merely because they resent or envy them in some way, I offer this amusing poster from the great folks at Despair.com.