I don't like to be told what to do. I don't like telling other people what to do. Most specifically, I don't like putting up large, brightly coloured signs that issue orders to any stranger who happens to be walking by my house/facebook page/left shirt lapel. Not to mention, I'm pretty arrogant. If I vote for someone, I want to think it was my own idea, and not the idea of a plastic sign. Having said that, I now present you with my opinion, one of many, about the upcoming election.
Part One: Mayoral Candidates
Rhetoric lead-up: Two years ago, I was enrolled in a highly influential class on Rhetoric**. It was in this class that I began to internalize the popular theory that it's not really what you say so much as how you say it. We did a lot of work on the topic of Hot-Buttons: finding the issues that your audience cares about and putting those issues at the forefront. Essentially, learning where your audience's buttons are (the good buttons, I mean) and pushing them.
Post-Modern View: Can we rely on the narrative voices of those who describe our Mayoral Candidates? What is truth? Is anything in these candidates' platforms factual, or are we, the readers, governed by feelings, but conflicting viewpoints, and multiple truths? How can we make weighty political decisions when the reliability of our multiple narrators is constantly called into question? Am I one of those narrators? Am I questioning myself? Is this version of the Mayoral Candidates Forum that I am about to present to you true, or is it one of many conflicting truths?
Say what you will about elections, but a candidate's success does ride, to a great extent, on his or her ability to hit the right 'buttons' for voters, and, more importantly, hitting them in the correct order, at the right frequency, and in the right way. Popularity has a lot to do with being connected to your voters and being able to pick up on what they want you to say (regardless of whether you really believe what you're saying).
Take the On-Campus Mayoral Candidates Forum I went to today. Not being much for politics, I was surprised to discover that we do, in fact, have 4 candidates running for office. Let's see how they measured up.
Brad Gross: A man very passionate about real-estate and taxes, Brad treated us like Boston Tea Party rioters; slamming the government for 'excessive taxation' seemed to be the only plot point of his platform, which begs the question, how stupid does he think we are? Or, conversely, do I really know that little about taxes?***
From what I understand, we're already running a deficit here, and basically any promised programs the government presents us with rely on some sort of funds that have to come from somewhere (read: taxpayer's pockets). So, when Mr. Gross lists the city's taxed services as if they are crimes against humanity, promises tax rebates for virtually every student and their grandmothers, and then goes on to promise 24-hour daycare programs for all single parent families, I begin to question the validity of his statements. How exactly will he be funding 24-hour daycare? Or any other initiative, for that matter?
Rav Gill: Oddly enough, I can't actually remember a whole lot of what Rav said. Shall we blame this failure on me and my wandering mind, or the fact that I'm already fairly biased in Judy's favour? Of course. However, if you want someone to vote for you, you should be able to hold their interests somewhat. What I mostly remember about Rav is that he is young and from the inner city and so am I, and that, of the candidates I saw, he had the majority of responses that were lambasting the other candidates outright (ironic, seeing as how the Rav Gill For Mayor site celebrates his platform as 'not anti-Katz or anti-Judy, but pro-Winnipeg.')
Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Judy's ability to pick up on the issues that were actually near and dear to the audience makes her the star of this Forum. Of course, I was biased towards her. I was biased from the moment I saw her taking the stage, dressed in a bright purple blouse, with a purple flower at her lapel****.
Amy, are you really basing your vote on a woman's wardrobe choices? Well, whether by accident or design, Wasylycia-Leis was the only candidate lucky enough to fit in with the crowd of purple-attired university students. Yes, today is the day where everyone who is against homophobic bullying is supposed to show solidarity by wearing purple. So, whether she opened up her facebook page this morning and saw the reminder (as I did), or got a tip-off from her son, or just happened to pick something purple out of her closet, Judy immediately stood out as someone who knew what was going on at the University. Whether or not she actually cares about homophobic bullying is, of course, open to debate, but she cares enough about our opinions of her to present herself as such, and, measured against other attendees (or, more importantly, absentees (see below)), that's worth something.
I will also give her props for not actually calling attention to the colour of her shirt (which makes it seem less like a grab at popularity), for bringing up the Veolia debacle, for appealing to student's eco-conscious attitudes, for discussing Winnipeg as a whole (rather than as a taxation project), and for in general talking to the students like she actually knew what the students were about, and for telling Rav Gill to actually answer the questions and stop harassing her.
Sam Katz: I will have to give Katz bonus points for being the only candidate arrogant enough to not show up at all. Is that 5 Forums he's missed, or does this make it number 6? The thing is, in order to make voters think you care about them, you have to actually show up and make it appear as though you do. Judy was criticized today for 'throwing a hipster dance party' for young voters (Get Your Vote On). What do dance parties have to do with voting? About as much as On-Campus Mayoral Candidate Forums do to Mr. Katz, it would appear.
**You know, the class where I managed to demonstrate my complete inability to maintain my dignity in front of my professor (read: the infamous locker room incident, the Rush Limbaugh incident, the imposter professor incident, and others that are, mercifully, not available for public viewing).
***well...yes...
****Okay, so my bias actually begins in grade 11, when she came to discuss feminism and politics, and is compounded by the fact that she is the only politician who I've actually met on more than one occasion (which is, of course, helped by the fact that her son was the grade below mine and we share a few of mutual friends).
Amy, I love you.
ReplyDelete