On bubble politics

"Political leaders should never go anywhere which has not been carefully staged by their handlers because..."

"Political leaders should avoid appearing near people who have not been vetted because..."

"Political leaders should constantly look over their shoulders for their competitors' operatives because..."

No, I don't think the above sentences have reasonable endings from the standpoint of what kind of politics we want our leaders to practice. But one party on Canada's federal scene - or at least a number of its prominent supporters - owe us all either an explanation as to how they can be reasonably completed, or an apology for doing their best to build a wall between political leaders and the public.

The Photo Op

There's been plenty of rightful criticism this fall of the Cons' use of a combination of public and party money to blast out a consistent message at volumes which are bound to overshadow the capacity of any party which doesn't have the federal government apparatus behind it. And rightly so, as the battle of ideas which is supposed to be found in a democratic system is bound to be diminished where one side is able to drown out others.

But there's been an even more damaging turn which doesn't seem to have received much public outcry at all. I won't bother linking to the photo since it's been present in plenty of reporting over the past few weeks, but Kady set the context in liveblogging Jack Layton's meeting with Stephen Harper a month ago: having dared to make the public aware that he'd be going to Langevin, Layton was followed at a seeming distance of about half a foot by Lib operatives holding signs reflecting their party's message.

Now, it's hardly a new development for a leader's image in still form to be converted to another party's use - and indeed Canada's political history is rife with examples where that strategy has succeeded (the Dion shrug) or failed (the PC's 1993 ads against Chretien). But it seems to me to be an entirely new step to intrude on a leader's physical space in order to force one's own message into their image.

And it's also worth noting that unlike any non-astroturf protest, the Libs' signs weren't focused on any actual issue of substance. Instead, they carried two of their party's preferred messages for the fall to try to intrude on any attempt by Layton to define himself: a narrative of "NDP + Conservative" (keep in mind, this is at a time when exactly one party - and not the NDP - had voted with the Cons on confidence matters in the previous two years), and a narrative of Layton as power-hungry.

In terms of the impact on public debate, this was roughly the visual equivalent of shrieking "you lie!" in the middle of a public speech (or Warren Kinsella's attempts to avoid letting Brad Lavigne get a good point in edgewise) - only it may have been even more harmful since it tossed in physical cornering and appropriation of image to go with the mere disruptive effect. But nobody outside of a few NDP bloggers seemed to even question whether something might have been amiss.

From the Libs' standpoint, the tactical impact probably exceeded their expectations. Not only did most media outlets make their contrived photos into the defining image of Layton's meeting with Harper that day, but some media outlets used the same picture to represent Layton for several days after the fact - ensuring that even as Layton's words spread the NDP's message in print, the Libs' intrusive visual about him would be presented as the first impression for readers.

So what can be done in response?

The Response

Presumably the quick answer is based on a party's self-interest: it should avoid any situation which might result in an embarrassing photo being taken for the same reason the Cons have won more praise than criticism for replacing their candidates with tape-recorded versions of their party's message. While I'm not aware of any Canadian politicians going to quite the lengths that, say, George W. Bush did in ensuring ideological uniformity in his audiences, most parties already seem to go to awfully great lengths to make sure that their leaders appear in only the most positive of settings. And surely for the sake of avoiding embarrassing visuals, they can find some way to limit their exposure - by limiting public notice about their appearances, by vetting audience members ala Bush, or by ensuring that the party's actual leader never appears next to a backdrop which hasn't been fully set up by staffers.

But there are a couple of serious problems with this answer.

First, it doesn't deal with the question of what parties ought to be doing on anything but the most superficial level. And indeed an effort to keep anybody but confirmed party supporters away from a leader will only make it more difficult to draw in anybody who isn't already involved in politics.

Of course, we know that Stephen Harper is perfectly happy staying in a bubble for himself - in large part precisely because his strategy is based on keeping a modest base motivated and trying to make the rest of the electorate so sick of politics as to stay home and give him a majority. But don't the Libs need to try to encourage public involvement to try to counter that effect? And doesn't that make their effort to force other parties to put up a wall between themselves and the public just as counterproductive as it is damaging to the concept of a free competition of ideas?

Similarly, the second major problem has both ethical and strategic ramifications: even if one assumed that they were otherwise legitimate, the Libs' tactics are doomed to fail against a party with the Cons' resources.

With a security detail laying out Stephen Harper's every step, he'll never have to worry about similarly damaging images. Indeed, the best the Libs can do is get pictures of themselves outside the Cons' selected sites. And even that step (which they've taken a few times since) gives the Cons an excuse for stunts like delivering budget reports two provinces away from the national capital in order to avoid the gangs of roving Liberal operatives just waiting to interpose themselves into the same frame as Harper's photo ops.

So the tactic doesn't serve as any check on the powerful. But the NDP, which doesn't have the state apparatus working to spread its partisan message - and which might actually feel some pinch in redirecting resources from engaging with the public to trying to insulate its leader? The Libs definitely taught them a lesson alright. And the next time the Libs showed up with an astroturf protest against Jack Layton, the NDP found a way to keep him from once again having his image appropriated for the Libs' uses.

The Challenge

But if the NDP has now made changes to Jack Layton's accessibility for the sake of trying to preserve its public image, it's all the more worth asking whether the Libs' move to force those changes can possibly be justified. So I'll invite Lib supporters - particularly those who have spread (and in some cases continue to spread) the images generated by their effort to intrude on Jack Layton's image and personal space - to fill in the blanks.

"Political leaders should never go anywhere which has not been carefully staged by their handlers because..."

"Political leaders should avoid appearing near people who have not been vetted because..."

"Political leaders should constantly look over their shoulders for their competitors' operatives because..."

If the Libs are prepared to try to justify why they're encouraging a form of politics which creates massive disincentives for public engagement, then they're free to do so. But if they recognize that we're best off with a political system where "shouldn't" replaces "should" in the above statements, then it would seem to be an essential step to stop making use of the fruit of their own poisoned tree - and maybe to apologize for doing their utmost to force other parties toward exactly the same types of politics that have rendered the Harper government so odious.

(Edit: fixed wording.)