In March, one of three candidates will be elected to represent the Conservative Party in the next fedral election in the riding I represented, West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky Country. I’ll be the area’s “former MP” as long as I live, but someone else will become the “candidate of record.” That’s the term reserved for a person most recently nominated by a political party – any party – to represent it in a general election.
No one needs my advice, but it may be opportune to share my experience on a question that is typically on people’s minds: “When should a candidate go negative?”
“Going negative” is when a candidate stops communicating about her or his positive attributes and plans; instead, focusing on the shortcomings of the opponent. We increasingly take it for granted that political candidates will “go negative” in a campaign. Is that really necessary? Does it help in the short term? How does it impact the person’s long-term political career? Besides winning and losing, what are the consequences for the party, the volunteers, the family members, and others implicated in a political race?
Go negative – yes or no?
I’m writing because, based on my anecdotal experience, it’s possible for politicians to be both positive and successful. Many today would dispute that.
The question arose immediately in my first of five general elections I contested. People accused my main opponent of various integrity breaches – failure to pay business debts, misappropriating family funds, breaching Elections Canada rules, and other matters. All of these things were subsequently reported in the media so none of them are revelations.
Many were the arguments for me to raise these things publicly. Other people did, either to pursue their own interests or because they thought the issues were relevant to my opponent’s fitness for office. At such moments, it’s really easy to jump to the conclusion that pinning negative associations to an opponent makes the revealer look better by comparison.
But Peter Kvarnstrom and others had a different take on “going negative.”
Then part owner and publisher of Glacier Media, Peter was responsible for a large number of community newspapers in B.C., Alberta, and Saskatchewan. In many small communities, Peter’s paper would compete against one other newspaper in a small town. His approach? In public commentary, ignore the competitor. Concentrate only on the best you could become. Let the opponent embroil itself in negative communications.
That approach, Peter said, concentrated your team and you on a path of constant improvement. You might privately learn best and worst practices from the opponent. On the other hand, stooping to contumely only squandered your resolve to pursue excellence.
St. Paul taught another reason to avoid public conflict with a fellow team member – and, remember, a contest like the current nomination contest in my riding is a contest among members of the same political party. The victor has to assemble a team, relying heavily on the electors who participate in the nomination contest.
In Chapter 6 of his letter to the Corinthians, Paul wrote that, as soon as you bring your private conflict into the public eye, in the eyes of the public, you’re a loser. You should therefore solve conflicts privately and with trusted third parties, not in the public square.
So what happened in an election where I generally focused on positive things I thought I had to offer, and avoided public comment on my opponent’s shortcomings?
I lost by 1.5 per cent of the vote. Only a few vote changes in my favour would have given me the victory in my first outing as a federal election candidate. Undaunted, I announced the next day I would continue, and won the next two elections.
But what would have happened in the short term if I had slammed the opponent instead of focusing on positive things I set out to accomplish? We can never tell if I would have ended up with the margin of victory. Those persuaded to vote for me by my positive approach may have stayed home, or even voted for the other guy.
Secondly, the opponent soon “blew up” politically. The issues he struggled with came home to roost and he was ousted by his political party. Meanwhile, I stuck to my approach, continued to attract a like-minded team, kept all my volunteers, and increased my circle of voters. In the long term, the approach succeeded, and I won the second and third elections I contested.
The analysis is admittedly simplistic. The greatest influence on MP elections is the role of the party and its leader; not the posture of the individual candidate.
But as someone new prepares to become the next candidate for the party I represented in my riding, I continue to believe positive is better than negative. And I think that positive campaigning is a long-term winner.
John Weston served as MP for West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky Country from 2008 to 2015.
