What The Liberal Party Can Learn From David And Goliath

In the May issue of the New Yorker* Malcolm Gladwell wrote an article where he uses the biblical story of David and Goliath as the perfect example of a weak player besting a stronger opponent by: refusing to play by the opponents rules, admitting weaknesses/recognizing strengths, committing a “socially horrifying” act and taking full advantage of the element of surprise.

Historical evidence shows that when Davids put in the extra effort they beat Goliaths the majority of the time. Gladwell also draws on the examples of T.E. Lawrence fighting against the Turks, a Naval War games simulation and a National Junior Basketball team in Silicon Valley.

From David and Goliath we learn:
- When the underdogs acknowledged their weakness and chose an unconventional strategy they would beat Goliaths 63.6% of the time.
- David attacked Goliath with a slingshot and staff because those were the tools of his trade.
- Goliath possesses strength but also "the full force of social convention."

From Lawrence of Arabia we learn:
- It is more efficient to attack your opponent where they are weak.
- Utilizing strengths is important but speed can beat power.
- As one of my friends said to me once: "Sometimes a fight isn't about who is stronger but who is more crazy."
- The underdog way is the hard way.
- T.E. Lawrence was a leader who was the farthest thing from a leader ("a dreamy poet" and intellectual.)

From Doug Lenat's Navy War-Games simulator we learn:
- Sometimes you need to "sink your own ship" to maintain and advantage.
- Don't do what other teams are doing because that is how it is done in the past.
- Assumptions may be supported by everyone else but they sometimes slow you down/add unnecessary weight to your strategy.

From Vivek Ranadive's coaching/the full court press we learn:
- Persistence/effort trumps ability.
- The world runs in real time.
- Retreating, which is a large part of basket, is where your team loses.
- Each member of one team shadowed a member of the opposite team.
- Players who have movement, endurance, individual intelligence and courage can play against players with better technical skill and win.
- The underdog still has to practice and stay in shape.
- Being the insurgent doesn't always guarantee victory.
- When you rattle someone’s nerves he is even easier to keep them scared.

As someone obsessed with Canadian politics I wondered how to apply this to a Canadian Federal Election (specifically, how the Liberal Party of Canada could apply these observations.) This raises many questions. The first of which being: "Is the LPC the underdog?" The answer is Yes for many reasons: The Goliath the Liberal Party faces is the four other parties who have candidates in the 308 ridings in Canada. The Conservative Party is a Goliath in the that they have consolidate all there power/message in one person, in their presence in West, in terms of money, in terms that they are in government and there willingness to divide Canadians. The NDP is a Goliath in voter mobilization, in big cities, in British Columbia, and also in consolidation in their leader. The Bloc is a Goliath in that they only need to run 75 candidates, they have the first-past-the-post advantage, they get all there funding from the government and they have also consolidated there power/message in their leader. The Green Party is not a Goliath.


As the David, the Liberal part must: recognize its strengths, utilize its tools, try twice as hard and attempt a Canadian "full court press." This means:
- The "full court press" has already begun with the 308 riding strategy the Liberals have adopted. But the party must have "working candidates." A working candidate is one who puts 100% effort into campaign. They make speeches, knock on doors and campaign every day in the election in full.

- Attacking the Conservatives where they are weak, cities. This seems counterintuitive as the Liberals don't want to be just the party of cities but this strategy is a Western one. The Liberals should focus on ridings in the capitals of B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba as well as other large cities in Alberta/B.C.

- Using the tools of Ignatieff's trade. The Liberal leader was a professor and journalist. He should pull a Barack Obama and give longer speeches that are wonk (in terms of policy) and write more op-eds. The media will cover him/publish him because he is the leader of a major party.

- The opposition critics need to be more visible. This is another part of the press. The Liberals should double this up and have a back-bencher team up with the critic to publicly critique policy proposals (emphasis on the publicly.)

- Mr. Ignatieff should challenge Stephen Harper to a one-on-one debate. The Conservatives greatest strength is also a huge weakness. The Liberal party has many all-star candidates, the Conservatives only have one. If Mr. Ignatieff debated Harper it would take away the advantage Harper has in the all candidates debate as the Bloc/NDP gang up on the Liberals to win votes. The Liberals could justify this by having Mr. Ignatieff debate the other leaders. This would frame the election the proper way Liberal versus Conservative.

- Compliment the Green party (but not like Stephane Dion.) This can fall under "socially horrifying." The Liberals should either compliment the Green party in a backhanded way by saying "there Green policy is good but all policy should be sustainable, you need be a party of many ideas not just one." The Liberals need to wins votes on the left and voters are wasting theirs by voting Green/NDP. By being civil to Jack Layton/Elizabeth May the Liberals can win over some votes. The LPC must not legitimize the NDP/Green (also counterintuitive) which means ignoring them at ever other occasion.

- Another "socially horrifying" action would be running more fiscally conservative candidates in the West/having candidates run "away" from the leader. This worked well with Democrats in the USA. The Liberals need every candidate to put their riding first (if you aren't going to you shouldn't be in parliament, just ask non-working candidates don't deserve to be in parliament.) There is no problem with having candidates disagree with part (a small part) of the platform and make it known to the riding they are in that they will speak for their interests. Michael Ignatieff should put in the platform that there will be many more free-votes in parliament. This was old Reform-Party policy, which may pick up some votes, but it is also a good policy as it broadens the "tent."

- Rely on social-media a lot more. This is a great example of speed. When it comes to disseminating information twitter, youtube, facebook and Liberal.ca would give the party greater speed. This engages young volunteers which ads to the effort-front and speed. Youtube is also a very cheap way to advertise that takes away any money advantage.

- The Liberals have already started outreach to religious voters. This may be "socially horrifying" to some Liberal bloggers but it is hitting the Conservatives in a group who do put an emphasis on social-welfare that the Conservatives do not and it expands the party.

- Have better candidates in Harper, Layton and Duceppe's ridings. This should mostly apply to cabinet minister's ridings but it can also help in the other leader's ridings. The shadow cabinet should team up to campaign in cabinet minister's ridings. This puts pressure on the Conservative's sub-par cabinet ministers and will hopefully unseat some. You can't be 308 if you don't attack all ridings.

- The Liberals must train their candidates to work hard but also to be well versed in all policy. This means national/local issues. This is a big boost in campaigning but, more important, helps with the governing.

Case Study: The Riding of Whitby-Oshawa
- Jim Flaherty is very much a Goliath in my home riding. The Liberals have very much given up on Whitby-Oshawa, especially last election where they ran a carpet-bagging dud. But Jim Flaherty shouldn't be a Goliath: he is a short man, not very charismatic, is incomptenet as his job/representing his riding and has a snarky debate style.

- What makes him a Goliath is: the power of incumbancy, the obsessive volunteers he has, the Strength of Stephen Harper, patronage he has brought to the riding, weak opponants, and the "media" in Whitby is very pro-Conservative.

- The advantages he has make Jim Flaherty a mighty Goliath but they can be neutralized and Whitby-Oshawa can be a test-riding for unorthodox campaign strategy.

Incumbacy: This can't be taken away or neutralized. However, Whitby doesn't have a hospital, it closed down because of Mr. Flaherty's provincial work. Anyone who campaigns against Jim Flaherty should say: "this riding has more cat-hospitals than human ones. Where has Jim Flaherty been?" Imcumbancy can be turned into a disadvantage.

Volunteers: Jim Flaherty has the most dedicated following of volunteers of any politician I have ever seen. They can be beat using three methods: the first is having youtube videos and flyers attacking Mr. Flaherty. Mr. Ignatieff has denounced negative politics but sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. Youtube ads + a debate win (for his opposition) would lower morale. The second method is having Michael Ignatieff visit the riding, having a popular Liberal visit (a buisness oriented one like Gerard Kennedy) visit the riding and training the candidate to win the candidates debates. This would greatly raise morale. The third would be having a candidate who embodies some of Mr. Flaherty's strengths (the ones that exist on paper but not in the real world.) Having a candidate from a Whitby-based buisness would be appealing to Conservative voters/those who have voted Conservative in the past.

Stephen Harper: He should be portrayed as someone who doesn't care about Whitby-Oshawa. This is hard as so much patronage runs are way but many jobs in the auto sector have been lost. Mr. Flaherty/Mr. Harper have to wear this deficit.

Patronage: This can be pointed out to rally troops but also should be downplayed. The fact that Flaherty has got dollars to come to Whitby and still hasn't preserved jobs can turn a strength into a weakness.

Weak Opponants: The easiest of fixes. As mentioned earlier a business-candidate should be picked. Whoever runs in Whitby-Oshawa should run with the intention of winning. They need to be farmiliar with policy and campaign on local issues, not national ones.

Media: It is up to bloggers and, more importantly, citizens of the riding to call the "Whitby this Week" newspaper on their bias.

* Please read the article before my post. You can even read it instead of my post.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Uranowski

Also, if you read this blog regularly you can follow this blog by pressing a button somewhere on the right hand side ----->