Counsel PA

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

September 5, 2024

Will Shelling: Hope you had a good Labo(u)r Day weekend, John. With the extra day off I was more or less forced to go outside and not scroll my politics-filled social media, but I ended up thinking about politics anyway. Specifically, about how the Harris-Walz campaign is engaging voters, especially Gen Z, in a way that some are viewing as “cringe”. I’m sure you’ve seen a couple of these memes, ranging from “Kamala is brat” to the infamous “coconut tree” meme (frankly, they both still get a laugh out of me). This campaign has really leaned into the pop-culture zeitgeist — so much so that the two I just mentioned are already old by the internet’s standards.

You’re a communications guy — what’s your take? Overdone? Winning young people? Part of the “secret stuff” giving fire to this campaign?

John Delacourt: Will, it seems to be working based on Harris’s support among young people, and I can’t help but think of historical precedents right here at home. It was probably the “politics of joy” phrase that first rang a bell. The first time I read it was in Christina McCall-Newman’s book “Grits,” about the history of the Liberal Party (up to the eighties – indispensable reading for anyone who wants to understand the era from Pearson to Turner). The phrase was first used by Keith Davey, campaign director for Lester Pearson in 1962, who intuited some fundamental truths about how momentum gathers for a candidate. He famously said “elections aren’t won on policy; they’re won on issues.” Pearson didn’t win that election in ’62 against Diefenbaker, but he made up significant ground and paved the way for his eventual victory just a year later.

My contemporary translation of Davey’s quote is to suggest that by “issues,” what the kids who truly understand “brat” would call a vibe. It’s the aggregate of concerns that set a national mood. The Harris-Walz campaign has tapped into that desire for optimism and hope to counter head on the dystopic worldview of the Trump campaign.

Shelling: That’s a fascinating take. I think Davey was correct that a campaign has to take hold of the zeitgeist and translate that into an actual vision, which is something the Democrats have done surprisingly well, and to our joint dismay, the Conservatives. The CPC have done the Can-con equivalent of “American carnage” with “Canada is broken”, and other parties have balked at providing an alternative.

Delacourt: Definitely. Harris’s first interview about her campaign with Dana Bash was received with nothing like the enthusiasm of her convention speech. Notable, but unsurprising. If she does pull this off, she’s not going to do it, per Davey, with issues. What she articulated in her convention speech was something else: a vision, based on foundational beliefs that were tested through experience and small triumphs … through adversity and loss … through, well, life. I think both Harris and Walz have realized that joy is infectious and restorative – and I can imagine Davey, somewhere in the political afterlife, nodding and smiling in agreement.

Shelling: I hear you. I think the vision above the 49th parallel is bleak, and we do need others like Trudeau and Singh to provide a compelling vision of what Canada can look like. I’m reminded of how Harris’ DNC speech was very clear about the issues faced by the American public, ranging from disarray in the left to polarization in politics, and she offered a vision that we maybe cannot see right now, but can imagine.

Delacourt: Will, one of the challenges emerging in Canada, with all parties on the political spectrum, is how to keep factionalism under control and maintain unity and momentum. We’ve seen this play out with BC politics at the provincial level last week (with BC United’s implosion), and federally, the Trudeau “movement,” the Liberal rebranding that was intended to rebuild party membership by foregrounding progressive values that appealed to younger voters, (downplaying the brokerage politics of the party’s heritage), has begun to show signs of fissures that may prove to be beyond repair: e.g. the open letters of protest regarding the party’s pulling out of Ottawa Pride and the party’s position on the conflict in Gaza.

The Obama-era Democrats were the pioneers in rebranding the party as a movement because of his historic candidacy. Harris and Walz face similar challenges in maintaining party unity, yet they seem to be navigating these troubled waters better than parties to the north, which may simply be a case of, in politics, nothing focuses the mind like an impending election. Given your insight as an American voter who witnessed firsthand the birth of the Obama movement, do you think there are lessons Trudeau’s Liberals can take from their approach? And, can Harris hold the party together until Election Day?

Shelling: I think Harris and Walz can hold the party together until Election Day. The smartest thing the Democrats have done this cycle is say “Project 2025” over and over again in many iterations and forcing people to see the linkages between that plan and the Republican Party. It gives the Left something tangible to fight against. With the first Trump term, it was more difficult to argue that he “really wanted” to roll back protections for women, stack the Supreme Court, or deregulate entire industries. Now, the Democrats have the smoking gun. This gives the left the ability to hold themselves together, at least until the mail-in ballots are counted. I know many in activist circles are “alright with Kamala”, and are planning on pushing her toward the left in whatever fashion should she win.

This isn’t 2015 anymore. In Canada, there isn’t the kind of discontent against Harper to play off, and there’s a deeper revolution against democratic institutions because of deep-seated anger about how various governments handled the COVID-19 pandemic for instance. What the Obama campaign did very well was acknowledging peoples’ fear, anger, and tough emotions surrounding what was happening, and translating this into action. For people who didn’t have insurance, he had a policy-based solution in the Affordable Care Act. For those who were traumatized from serving in the Iraq War, he had expanded coverage with the VA.

The Liberals are working against their own record, for good and bad, and must show some big moves that will have an immediate effect on Canadians, like what Obama could do on major issues. If I were Trudeau, I wouldn’t stop talking about the School Lunch program and how many people would be better off, especially as that’s a unique policy that is both immediately helpful, with long term economic effects.

Another thing on my mind is the video of Tim Walz on “Subway Takes” (above) a popular TikTok page and contributor of absolutely hot takes. In this video, Walz isn’t asked about politics at all but about home improvement and how to maintain gutters. To me, this is just another way that Walz is proving he’s more of an “everyman”, dispensing knowledge like your buddy who “just happened” to do the same thing you wanted to do to your home just a week before. It also puts him firmly in the “normal” and “grounded” word cloud as opposed to the “weird” and “crazy” Trump one.

And Walz and Harris are popping up just about everywhere you wouldn’t expect politicians to be on their recent bus tours. From the Minnesota State Fair to Runza’s, to high schools, these two are meeting voters where they are and live, rather than in rallies or at Party fundraisers. It’s another contrast to the Trump-Vance campaign, decidedly more open and accessible, and seems to demonstrate a willingness to listen. While these are planned, do you think these events have an impact on voters that can help pick up swing states?”

Delacourt: I think it’s the tour version of Walz and Harris “reading the room,” being attentive to tone and slyly, obtusely, addressing issues through means by subverting any expectation of “virtue signaling,” and of playing to Trump’s frame, as scattershot as it currently seems, that the Democrats are all about some “Communist” creation of a nanny state, limiting the freedoms of his cult of disgruntled millionaires convinced there’s some deeper conspiracy afoot led by George Soros and Klaus Schwab.

These clips are, consistent with sound narrative construction, primarily about showing, not telling. Walz and Harris are implicitly affirming the possibilities of a tolerant, inclusive vision for their country by depicting moments when generational divides are crossed (as in that home repair tutorial) rural and urban perspectives don’t clash as much as they meet and are negotiated with humour and grace. You could say the conversations in these clips are trivial – not even about Davey’s “issues.” But I would argue there are issues implicitly addressed here: polarization, the reduction of perspectives to caricatured positions. The joy in these clips is generated by surprise moments of recognition, of common feeling and common ground.

Shelling: You reminded me of one of my favourite ideas; that we’re all not really strangers and that there is more linking us than dividing us, especially when it comes to finding mundane discussions like Walz’s interesting.

Delacourt: Absolutely. I’d just add that these have the feel of spontaneity, and of authenticity. These are qualities that our progressive parties here, earnestly hoping to bottle and replicate some of this magic, should be mindful of. Without these qualities, any attempt at importing this politics of joy would come off as woefully misjudged.

Going back to the idea of the centre not holding, now that we can speak in the past tense regarding the CASA agreement, I thought the NDP would stand to benefit from what’s happening with the Liberals and experience a shift of progressive support toward them over this summer. Yet that hasn’t occurred.

Shelling: Right wing populism is surging right now because it has all the earmarks of what people, especially marginalized voters, would want from a political leader. They claim to be anti-establishment and “for the people”, they seem to campaign against excess. They’re good at getting groups of people riled up about something. The Canadian left doesn’t have a unified front right now because there is constant infighting within different factions. This hinders a progressive populist response within Canadian politics and especially against the CPC.

Jagmeet Singh, because of the policy wins the agreement secured, might be the most influential and effective NDP leader since Layton, moving the dial on pharmacare, dental care, and a school food program. But this good momentum was limited because of the lack of a unified progressive populist response within the left.

You see the same challenge south of the border. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (AOC), someone who is a self-described democratic socialist, is now accused of being a “sellout” because of her primetime speech to the DNC. I think this was an admission of fault by the Democrats that her prior exclusion harmed them and divided the left. By bringing her in, they were able to use her capital as a staunch leftist to unify the party in a very effective way. In Canada however, we don’t have that luxury of unity right now. I think we will because we’ll have to develop the trust, capacity, and support between organizers stretching down to the local level.

AOC also said in a recent Instagram story that the job of the progressive is to be effective, and I think Singh and the NDP have done exactly that. And to expand on that, we need to unify in a way that does not exclude, but that listens to what others have to say to find a way forward. I know for me, I’ve been having those conversations at the local level, and it’s going in the right direction.

Recognized as one of the top 100 Lobbyists in Canada by the Hill Times for five consecutive years, John Delacourt leads the federal advocacy team for Counsel Public Affairs, where he is a Senior Vice President. John served in a number of portfolios in three federal Liberal governments, as well as in communications and stakeholder relations in Opposition. He is also the author of five novels and is a regular contributor to Policy magazine. 

Will Shelling is a government relations consultant and New Democrat who specializes in justice, equity, diversity and inclusion. His primary areas of focus are Indigenous affairs, climate change, and Canadian culture. He is also a director for White Ribbon Canada, a national non-profit dedicated to ending gender-based violence by engaging men and masculine people. He was raised in Las Vegas, NV but now lives in Vancouver, BC.