Poor Strategy

Another newspaper got crumpled into a little ball this morning chez Breadbin and tossed into the fires that power my fingers. This time, it's the Waterloo Chronicle, a free rag more befitting a town of 10,000 than a city ten times that size. Its main purpose is to serve as wrapping paper for a dozen or so weekly flyers.

This time, it's not a letter to the editor that has my knickers a-twist: it's a political ad.

On page 4--and you'll have to take my word for this, since I can't find a reproduction anywhere online--is a full page ad for Andrew Telegdi, the once (and future, he hopes) MP for my riding. Last election, he was dethroned by all of seventeen votes: the closest outcome in the country. All reports I've read suggest this riding is, again, too close to call.

Before I lambaste this ad, let me say I have no personal opinion one way or the other about Mr. Telegdi. My wife does, and hers is not favourable, based on one less than pleasant interaction. Be that as it may, it's his advertisement I have a real problem with.

It consists of a series of testimonials from former candidates for the Greens and the NDP, all essentially saying the same thing: vote NDP or Green and you may as well vote Conservative. Got that, Kitchener-Waterloo? Unless you want a Harper majority, you have no choice but to vote Liberal. Quick, somebody tell Bill Brown, the guy who's running for the NDP here. He's wasting his time. Ditto Cathy MacLellan of the Greens.

This ad hits my doorstep in the midst of a historic surge from the New Democrats. It started in Quebec, and while Dipper support in Ontario isn't quite so red-hot (thanks, I'm sure, to former Premier Bob Rae, who is now, ironically enough, a federal Liberal)--Layton's party stands to more than double its seat count if the recent flurry of polls are to be believed. Ignatieff's Liberals, meanwhile, are in free fall nationally, although they do retain support in Ontario. How much of that support derives from ads like Telegdi's, convincing the ABC (anyone but Conservative) voters they don't have another choice?

Strategic voting is little better than voting for None Of The Above, as far as I'm concerned. I understand the impulse, I really do. When there are two or more parties splitting the vote on your side of the political spectrum, it makes sense--on the surface--to throw your vote behind whichever party has the best chance of winning. Until we get electoral reform, some system of proportional representation, people are going to vote strategically, because they're convinced that's the only way their vote will count.

But suppose the party they're screwing out of votes is the only party that supports electoral reform.

Then what? It's pretty obvious there's no great love for Michael Ignatieff, even in Ontario. I think most Liberal voters here are voting that way not out of conviction but out of circumstance, fuelled by ads like Mr. Telegdi's. We'll never see meaningful political change if these attitudes are encouraged.

Let's look at the big picture, here. If the polls hold up, there's a distinct possibility Layton's NDP will form the Opposition in a Harper minority. Give Layton enough seats and he'll be able to form a (hear me out) coalition without the need for support from the separatists.

If you don't want a Harper government, contrary to what Telegdi says, you should vote NDP.

Now, as I've said, I don't support everything in the NDP platform. (Though I do agree with a fair chunk of it, and I believe its priorities are by and large in the right place.) But the knee-jerk arguments I've heard against them only serve to solidify my support. Chief among those: "they'll bankrupt the country!"

I doubt it. Most of the NDP provincial governments have been--surprise!--a whole hell of a lot more fiscally prudent than, say, Harper's Conservatives have shown themselves to be. (Layton comes from municipal politics in Toronto: balanced budgets at that level are mandated by law.) Even boogeyman Rae could be argued to have been more a victim of a global recession than anything else. Admittedly, his first impulse (spend his way out of it) didn't turn out too well...but how is it Harper gets a free pass for doing essentially the same thing?

So there's my endorsement, for what little it's worth. As I've said, I couldn't in good conscience bring myself to vote for Harper even if I was still a rabid Conservative. The Liberal brand still needs a serious refresh. I intend to give Jack a chance. Strategically speaking, it just makes sense.