Lisa Laflamme worries that the Leaders only have about 20 minutes to introduce themselves to the voters in the debate. If you cannot explain yourself and your merits and the demerits of your opponents in 20 minutes, you're in the wrong profession and it is not being a barrister. Most people will have problems tolerating listening to these people for FIVE minutes.
Laflamme pointed out how the participants have been warned that they'll be instantly nailed for getting their facts wrong. This surely misses the point. If you're an opposition leader, especially Scheer, and you let yourself get mired in reciting facts, you will be schmeared by a PM and his willing Press who have never let facts bother them when it came time to defend the Liberal Government. Andrew must show passion and maybe, occasionally, another facial expression. Passion, not facts or issues (unless presented passionately) is what wins elections in great countries. And the People are angry and they do not know why the Opposition Leader cannot articulate their anger without seeming like an opportunistic partisan.
For example, Mulroney, in the most famous debate encounter of all time made Turner, who after all was PM, the issue in 1984 by confronting him about the Patronage Scandal. But, even better, the famous "You had an option" moment came as a result of the hapless Turner saying,"I had no option." It looks at first like serendipity that Mulroney then was able to turn the tables on Turner using his own words against him on the spot, seemingly ad lib. But, no. You can bet that, being the trained lawyer he was, Mulroney had already figured out several ways to do this to Turner even if he had not obliged with his feeble riposte. But none of it would have worked without passion and yes, God help me for saying this: genuine authentic sincerity.
Similarly, Scheer, if given a chance to confront Trudeau on his corruption scandal directly should ask him:"Why did you stop the RCMP investigating SNC?" JT:"As you know, I had to because of cabinet secrecy..." AS:"Wait I thought it was the decision of the Clerk of the Privy Council." JT:"Well...I had to, you see..." AS:"No, you did not "have" to. You could have ordered the govt. to open up the books to the RCMP so that we could all have the transparent govt. you promised us in 2105, and you did not. You chose to block out the people who you work for and own the govt - the People of Canada (turns directly to the camera) On October 21, vote for me and I will help you take your govt. back!" Will it work exactly that way? No. But, there must be literally thousands of combinations and permutations of how to get across the same point and above all with passion.
If the self righteous pompous liberal factota known as the moderators sidle over to insurance licenses and Yankee passports, you say the following:"(deep sigh and face of sorrow) I have already answered that question but I will take the next minute to repeat my answer and pretend yours is a serious question but then I'm going to ask on behalf of the Canadian People that we stop playing the Liberal Trudeau game of arguing over nothing so as to avoid the woeful record of my friend the PM and stick with the issues that Canadians care about. I hope that my colleagues will agree with me that that's the best way to use our sadly limited time." Is it bold, daring maybe even arrogant? Yes. But the other side acts like that all the time for far less noble purposes. Millions will cheer and thousands will need to take their heart pills just from the shock of Scheer saying something so tart!
Does showing passion mean you have to come across like a maniac? No. As McCain found. But McCain had the rhetorical subtlety of a battering ram. Reference re Reagan and his "There you go again" v. Carter or Harris and his smooth, gentle voice backed up by a placid face as they no less passionately explained their (for the times) radical conservative positions. Above all, they made sure to address the people directly and into the camera.
No comments:
Post a Comment