On distractions

In the wake of Dr. Dawg's question about the goal of Stephen Harper's NAC gala stunt and subsequent conclusion that he answered wrong, I'll take a moment to provide my own theory about what the performance would seem to have been calculated to do.

Simply put, I don't buy the argument that the appearance was a high-risk, high-reward step which could or did radically reshape how the general public sees Harper. Instead, it looks more like an attempt to avoid allowing anybody else to get traction in defining Harper - a measure which could still have succeeded had Harper's actual performance not impressed anybody, but which also doesn't carry the same degree of accomplishment.

How do I reach that conclusion? Let's note first what the Cons' obvious communication strategy has been in dealing with Lib leaders. With both Stephane Dion and Michael Ignatieff, the Cons have relentlessly thrown money and air time at making a single negative impression stick to their main perceived opponent, with devastating effects in terms of each leader's ability to win the confidence of voters.

It only stands to reason that to the extent they recognize and apply that as their primary strategy toward the Libs, they'd want to make sure that the opposite effect would apply to their leader. But what actually is the "opposite effect" to making a single negative message stick?

While the Cons have released the occasional kitten photo or blue sweater ad to try to improve Harper's public perception, those have been met with enough derision to be set aside as the key element of the Cons' goals in presenting Harper. So the Cons have instead combined their relentless message control with a strategy of presenting Harper in enough different lights that no single negative theme actually crystallizes around him.

Of course, the opposition parties have done their best to try to counter the misdirection. But they've rarely succeeded in making much stick to Harper - and I'd argue that it's the Cons' ability to avoid having their leader tied to any fatal flaw by juggling conflicting impressions (sometimes even negative ones) which has allowed them to build the case for the status quo which has resonated disturbingly well with the general public in recent months.

Looked at in that light, the NAC performance figured to be a success no matter what happened. Even if Harper had utterly muffed his performance, the negatives associated with that (klutziness? lack of preparation?) would have been so thoroughly at odds with Harper's public image that they wouldn't have been likely to do any particular damage - while of course the chance for positive perceptions was obviously in play. But what's more important is the fact that Harper was able to guarantee several days worth of stories out of the performance, ensuring that the media's attention would be distracted from any lines of attack which anybody else tried to present in the meantime.

In sum, I strongly suspect that the Cons' goal in presenting Harper in a surprising setting like the NAC gala was less to make him seem more human than to make him seem ever more difficult to pin down at all. And judging from the response so far, the opposition parties all have plenty to learn in not allowing themselves to feed into that cycle.