As I write this, we're a few hours away from the second of a series of all-candidates meetings and debates for the Langley and Fort Langley-Aldergrove ridings. For those interested in how the leaders of the four major parties will perform, there will be televised debates next week.
Will they change anyone's mind?
That is what debate is supposed to do, ideally. A well-reasoned argument is intended to change the mind of a viewer or participant.
In reality, it seldom seems to happen.
If you are a regular observer of the political scene, for example, you can observe the party faithful gathering at local all-candidates meetings. Half the crowd will have their party colours in the form of a button or t-shirt. They're not there to give reasoned consideration to the other parties. They're there to cheer on their own candidate, throw a few softball questions to their own side and a couple of tough ones to their opposition.
The same seems to hold true for the big televised debates at any level. The most excited people will be the pundits for TV, radio, and daily papers. They want a good fight more than anything, a "knockout punch," some serious drama. Before the debate, they'll talk about Gordon Wilson's famous performance in 1991, or Brian Mulroney's savaging of John Turner in 1984.
These moments are rare, and I would argue that they don't so much change people's minds as bring forth ideas that have been long-forming.
When Mulroney attacked Turner on patronage, he wasn't just attacking a new prime minister who had made unpopular appointments. He was indirectly attacking Pierre Trudeau, insider politics, shady deals, and a general sense that the Liberal party was a spent force, a party out of touch with the average Canadian.
Likewise, when Wilson derisively dismissed both NDP leader Mike Harcourt and Socred leader Rita Johnston, he didn't create from nothing the idea that the Socreds and NDP weren't good enough. He turned himself into a focus for all those people who were sick of Bill Vander Zalm, but didn't want to go quite that far left as to mark an X for the NDP.
The common thread in these "knockouts" is that they hammered already tired and doddering governments.
The federal Liberals of 1984 were always going to be buried alive by the voters; Mulroney just threw a few more shovels of dirt on the coffin. Parties seldom rise and fall one one mistake, one scandal, one slip of the tongue in a debate.
Let's consider the NDP, from 1991 to 2001. Why did they lose so badly that they only had two MLAs after their electoral wipe-out?
Was it the Fast Ferries? That's the first answer that comes to mind for many people, and it certainly deserves to be remembered in the annals of great Canadian boondoggles.
But the NDP had struggled back from Bingogate, from the departure of Mike Harcourt, from whatever Moe Sihota was up to in any given week.
The Fast Ferries were a political knockout, but they came on the heels of a lot of other things that had irked people over 10 years. Any government makes unpopular decisions, and it makes enemies faster than friends.
If the Liberals lose this election, no one will be surprised, given their current standing in the polls.
We may lay the blame on the HST, or BC Rail. But those will be symbols for the slow buildup of pressure that happens when a government is in power for many years.
One debate, one knockout, just cracks the dam and releases the pressure that's been building ever since the party was sworn in.
Matthew Claxton is a reporter with the Langley Advance.
