Counsel PA

Welcome to the latest in our series of Policy Conversations between Counsel Public Affairs Senior VP John Delacourt and Counsel PA Account Director Will Shelling about the 2024 US presidential election. John is a veteran Liberal strategist, longtime Policy contributor and novelist, and Will is a Vegas-raised, Vancouver-based NDPer. This is their fourth exchange in the series.

Will Shelling: Something on my mind this week has been health care, especially after reading this article from Elizabeth Warren (who is one of my favourite policymakers, for the record). In it, she details Trump’s record on health care, with the repeated attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA), and details the harrowing story of how the late Senator John McCain was the deciding vote to prevent the repeal of the ACA. It’s something that he actively campaigned against in 2008. McCain’s memoir detailed how former President Barack Obama also called him to thank him, in a heartfelt moment of statesmanship between two politicians, once against each other.

There’s a bunch of “election” issues at play this time around. We’ve got the right to choose, affordability, housing, and oddly, health care has faded toward the background of issues that votes know about, but are not tuned into. Trump says that he has “concepts of a plan” while Harris is leaning into erasing medical debt. Do you think voters care as much about health care this time around, or is their collective attention divided?

John Delacourt: Will, I think there was only one other meme-worthy moment that came out of the debate for the Harris-Walz campaign than this “concepts of a plan” health care line (the pet eating one, of course has taken on a life of its own, but there’s nothing more to be said about it). “Concepts of a plan” regarding the Republicans’ commitment to health care, reminded me of Mitt Romney’s “binders full of women” line from his ill-fated presidential debate with Obama. Romney, as with Trump, was exposed as too vague by design on an issue that became an effective wedge. Given this precedent, I think you’re astute to raise health care as an issue that still might have the potential to move some votes the Democrats’ way.

It’s interesting how the Democrats have framed health care, because what could be considered a policy plank for “big” government has been transformed into one that aligns with the larger message of freedom: freedom to have good health care, to choose the best options for one’s family without being penalized for having limited financial resources. As with the right to choose, this has to be polling internally for them as a strong issue, high on the affordability spectrum, which is a dominant theme.

The obvious parallel with our own current government is the issue of pharmacare. The legislation, the tabling of which was one of the signature achievements of the ill-fated CASA agreement, is now in jeopardy. And as we approach what might be an early election campaign, my sense is that the reason there will be more game left to play on the field is because both the NDP and the Liberals need a marquee affordability win to campaign on, and we’re still weeks away from that bill receiving royal assent.

The two parties might also have an opportunity to suggest that no “concepts” of any kind of plan for affordable pharmacare would be coming from a Conservative government. Harris has done a great job of exposing vagueness on affordability issues as an inherently deceptive ploy by Trump and the Republicans; the Liberals and NDP will need to do the same.

Shelling: I totally agree with you. I think there’s still so much runway on what additions to a national formulary, or additions to what “pharmacare” would look like in a specific Canadian context. I think this gives both parties, the LPC and NDP, who have both gone to the wall to support this legislation, room to move and grow. Conversely, they’re going to look for any way to showcase that those concepts of a plan so to speak, are actually a complete reversal of their work, and will cost Canadians. British Columbia is having its own moment right now with their provincial election, and the provincial NDP are already moving to frame the new BC Conservatives as aiming to cut and gut the medical system.

Delacourt: Totally, there’s room to move, even now in the Senate, but also within the larger future election. My first question for you this week relates to this overall framing of all Democrat messaging. Observing from this side of the border, “freedom” has the power of something like dogma in the US: authoritative, beyond question. Yet, watching this campaign as an American, do you think such framing will continue to resonate through to the final days of the campaign?

Shelling: I think the limitations of “freedom” have been well posited by better men than me, namely, Jeff Daniels as Will McAvoy in The Newsroom. I think instead, the framing of “we’re not going back” has been the most impactful pivot that could have been put forward from the Harris campaign. There was a moment when Harris first said those words, and it all clicked for her that this was going to be the line of the campaign. I think Harris’ core staff realized that saying “we’re not going back” is not so much about finding or granting freedom, but a solemn oath to not return to a time when you didn’t have it.

Something I keep thinking about, especially as a Black American, is the power of seeing someone like you. When Harris says “we’re not going back”, she’s intrinsically referencing how the growth of racial violence (anti-Asian and anti-Black, to name examples) took place under Trump, and how we need to remain on the path toward equality.

The power of representation/Kamala Harris Facebook

I had the pleasure of meeting and sharing space with Ta-Nehisi Coates during a seminar in 2020, and I remember speaking with him about his book, We Were Eight Years in Power, about the Obama presidency. The final essay in the book, My President was Black, described Obama in terms of the power of representation, and how his example showed that it was “possible to be smart and cool at the same damn time,” as the actor Jesse Williams had put it at a White House farewell party. Harris is now — at a time when her opponent is trafficking in racist propaganda — reviving the possibility of a person of colour occupying the White House, and reminding people of the value of that distinction across issues and demographics. The power in the framing of “we’re not going back” is that we do not want to lose ourselves as a people once more, and I think that framing could keep the Democrats in this.

Another topic we need to address is the frankly absurd fact that I now share a “political tent” with former Vice President Dick Cheney, Taylor Swift (this was expected, frankly), and podcaster Joe Rogan. Following Rogan’s show this week, he’s made it clear that he’s keen on her debate performance and how she deftly mocked Trump.

Delacourt: Celebrity endorsements still seem to work on both sides of the border because being a low-information voter does not necessarily mean someone is also oblivious to popular culture. Quite the contrary. And there are a lot of class and diversity factors involved with civic literacy, as I think the research in your area of expertise only confirms. All of this means most voters are rightly skeptical of Trump’s and Vance’s dismissal of high falutin’ Hollywood people. And such rhetoric becomes even more threadbare when a Rogan or a Cheney make their endorsements known.

There’s a principle at work here: a figure with high definition strongly codifies a kind of voter.

I’m old enough to remember Harper hosting Nickelback at 24 Sussex, and of course, more recently, the late Gord Downie praising the Prime Minister for his work on reconciliation. An implicit Venn diagram is created when these moments happen, with the hope that there will be quite a few from the fan circle of the celebrity who’ll stray into the zone with the voter circle of the party.

A high-definition figure like Rogan – or Cheney – does something more for a party though: it’s high contrast with other, more predictable celebrity endorsements, implicitly suggesting that the voter pool for the Democrats has the potential to expand far more than could have been predicted when Biden was running for this job again. I think you’ve hit upon one of those incremental turning points over the last two weeks, creating momentum that will be hard to arrest or reverse for the Trump campaign.

Shelling: 100%. I think the voting universe for the Democrats is wider than we realize, especially because their winning moves will be in getting low-information voters off the bench. Switching gears here, I don’t think you or I are in the business of giving Trump or Vance pointers on how they should handle their debates, but the vice-presidential debate is coming up on October 1st. We’ve got two men facing off who both clearly have media training, are hugely at odds on a whole list of fundamentals but also are hailing from a similar part of the country. What are you going to be looking for with this one?”

Delacourt: I think, with both Trump and Vance, ego fragility is a major liability for these debates. Vance reacts differently in media interviews when this vulnerability is exposed, getting tetchy and tightening up. With Trump, he can’t resist taking the bait when his ego is threatened, and he gets completely derailed. With Vance, he can’t help “misspeaking,” as he did when he spoke of “creating” the story about Haitian migrants and this pet eating nonsense.

Harris had an impressive ability to get under Trump’s skin, time and time again. If Walz can do the same with Vance, the effect could be devastating.

We have talked before about Walz’s ability to communicate effectively to American men – younger ones in particular. Do you think this might be a factor for this last debate?

Shelling: The next debate is going to be a real case study in policy communication for JD Vance and Tim Walz. We’re going to see two very different men providing their cases for the future of the country, mainly as they have both been delegated to specific roles in their respective campaigns. Both can speak to men, playing to different factions, but Walz has the upper hand. He’s reaching out to those who would normally be considered GOP supporters already.

JD Vance is the policy communicator. He’s the one taking post-debate interviews, participating in videos, and acting as the somewhat sober, outward face of the Trump campaign. Tim Walz is a convenor. He has a record of delivering progressive policies within his state and a history of moving Republican districts to believe in different policies.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Vance immediately goes on the offensive, lashing out at Walz’s record in the Army National Guard or his family’s experience with IVF. Walz will likely get a sound bite or two off about Vance’s record with women here and there, but I’m expecting him to focus in on policy. I’m expecting him to act as an extension of Harris as she’s only had the opportunity to put her vision of America forward in one debate, compared to the usual three. This means the pressure will be on Walz to touch on key points for viewers and remain ready to attack beyond just calling him “weird”.

I know you’re a dog owner, so let me make an analogy. If Vance is a Dachshund, Walz is a Poodle. A true gun dog ready to bring back game from the hunt.

I mean, he’s doing debate prep with Mayor Pete, for goodness’ sake.

John Delacourt is a Senior VP at Counsel Public Affairs. He has served in a number of portfolios in three federal Liberal governments, as well as in communications and stakeholder relations in Opposition. He is the author of five novels and a regular contributor to Policy magazine. 

Will Shelling is an account director at Counsel PA and New Democrat who specializes in justice, equity, diversity and inclusion, Indigenous affairs, climate change, and Canadian culture. He is a director for White Ribbon Canada, a national non-profit dedicated to ending gender-based violence. He was raised in Las Vegas, and now lives in Vancouver, BC.

John and Will will be conversing weekly until November.