This won’t be the first time I tried to defend the seemingly indefensible on this blog.
So let’s take a deep breath, swallow the bit of throw-up that’s rising in my throat and dive right in… 😉
Social media sites (especially Twitter) exploded over the past 24 hours after an e-vite for a $250/person fundraiser for Justin Trudeau that was targeted at women (er, “ladies”) came out. (I admit that I got in on the fun myself.)
Most of the ire has been directed at the way that the event appears to marginalize women with its inane sample questions, swirly front-cover-of-your-notebook font and use of a heartthrob image of Mr. Trudeau who will apparently be mansplainin’ to the ladies about what they really want.
I’m not a huge fan of the event either but for a couple different reasons…
I think the evite is terribly cheesy and more reminiscent of someone who is running for Class President than Canadian Prime Minister.
I also think they fell into *such* an obvious trap by using the #askjustin hash tag which was inevitably taken over by people who weren’t actually interested in asking Justin a legitimate question.
(We had a similar experience in the Ryan Meili campaign for the Leadership of the Sask NDP. Ryan wanted to get citizens engaged along with a hash tag people could use to contribute their own ideas for improving the province. But some of the ideas we had for hash tags were so obviously begging for people to co-opt them (eg. the hash tag #BetterIdea tied into Ryan’s “Better Together” slogan but also would’ve led to a lot of “Vote for the @ErinWeir #betteridea” Twitter bombs) that we quickly ruled those types of hash tags out. We ended up going with #skideas which didn’t tie as directly to our campaign but also harder for Twitter users who didn’t support Ryan to subvert.)
But at the same time, I also think this whole thing is a tempest in a teapot and the reaction is completely out-of-line with the (perceived) offense.
First, if you’re the type of person who’s going to get offended by this event, you’re probably not the target audience for it in the first place. (To put it another way, it’s pretty clear they’re targeting women who are more into *Sex and the City* than *Thelma and Louise*). Or as a friend on Facebook observed, “This is for the ‘Desperate Housewives of Toronto'” 😉
The outcry, especially by so many in the NDP, has given a *lot* of attention to Justin Trudeau (which is the opposite of what they should want) and helped to put him in people’s minds (if you subscribe to “No press is bad press” idea) when there are other much more important targets to focus on. In fact, I wonder if this backlash could lead to a bit of “Oh, they’re picking on poor Justin. Isn’t he so cute and loveable?” response from low-information voters and actually help his support?
(It wouldn’t be the first time that somebody used looks and sex appeal as a big part of their campaign to vault into one of the highest offices in the land.)
There’s another point others have made to defend Trudeau with which I happen to agree. All parties have fundraisers and other events customized to target different groups based on similar interests, demographics or other characteristics – business people, ethnic groups, unions, LGBT, college students, and yes, women.
Sure, the execution of this particular fundraiser may have been bad icky in a lot of people’s views but then again, in a lot of other people’s eyes, there’s nothing wrong with it at all.
(To go back to an earlier analogy, *Sex and the City* made $450 million worldwide and was the highest grossing comedy of 2008 while *Thelma and Louise* made 1/10 of that and was more of a critical than popular hit.) Politics is like the Hollywood box office in that you want lots of publicity and attention to draw big numbers. So if you’re a politician, you want to be the highest grossing film of the year rather than the critical darling – even if that seems more “pure” or prestigious or whatever.
A related point is the unspoken assumption that there’s somehow a right and a wrong way to do events like this. I’m reminded of a conversation I had with a woman at a Sask NDP convention once. The breakouts for the various wings of the provincial party (Rainbow Pride, Women, Youth, etc.) were happening but she was still in the main hall. We were chatting about this and she pointed out her own offence that the NDP even *had* wings since it felt like the old boys who still ran the party were sending off “the kids” to separate tables while the real business was being conducted by the men in the main room.
Right or wrong, that woman was entitled to her opinion and so are the women who attend this event. Plus, if somebody is curious Justin Trudeau and would be interested in attending this event – for whatever reason – are they likely to ever vote for (or donate $250 to) the NDP if she’s made to feel stupid or wrong for doing so? Or just the fact that it sends a message that less involved people can’t get involved in politics unless they know – and follow – all the “rules”.
Finally, a lot of my take on this situation is informed by my views on books, reading and Freedom of Expression. Just as I strongly believe that nobody should tell anybody else what they can and can’t read, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth to hear people telling the Liberals how they should or shouldn’t present their events.
That’s their choice; how it’s received will be up to voters in a couple years.
[Edit: A couple other defenses were sent to me via Twitter “it was organized entirely by women; the $ went to Judy Lamarsh Fund to help women become MPs”]
[Another edit: Adding to the point about the similarities to book challenges, I always find it interesting that people on the left seem to think that challenges only come from the closed-minded conservatives on the right. And those same “close-minded conservatives” often think that the hippie left is trying to ruin society with the politically-correct crap they try to force on people via books. A similar thing has happened here – Trudeau was slammed by people on the left and the right – and like a controversial book, is probably going to get more attention in the end – exactly the outcome the Liberals want!]
Comments 2
The event wasn’t so much outrageous as it was unbelievably mockable – amateur hour from start to finish. And the organizer’s attempts to defuse things by telling people that their feelings weren’t valid and by accusing all the #askjustin mockers of being partisans simply made it worse.
The one saw the even less helpful attempt to turn the discussion around with overtly sexist attacks on Conservative MP Michelle Rempel with the bizarre accusation that her Twitter avatar (a pic of her in twin set and slacks perched on the edge of her Commons desk) was “provocatve” and “inappropriate.”
The last bit of foolishness was the series of angry Liberal tweets accusing people who had spent the day making jokes of being “humourless.”
Over the course of 24 hours, virtually every Liberal who engaged made matters worse.
(Trudeau himself was actually smarter than that, using his own Twitter account to answer questions, some of which were drawn from the #askjustin thread.)
But on a larger issue, Trudeau’s great vulnerability is the fairly broad perception that he’s a lightweight and this event simply emphasized that weakness.
And this morning, two of his answers have begun to go viral. He chose the Chinese dictatorship as the foreign government he most admired and he mistakenly said that the Yukon Legislature (like the Nunavut and North West Territories Legislatures) is non-partisan.
The error was less “outrageous” than “foolish,” but it has clearly reinforced the message of the first Conservative anti-Trudeau ads that he is “Just In Over His Head.”
Oh, I don’t think I disagree with anything you say Malcolm.
And “unbelievably mockable” is a good way to describe the whole thing. It *was* very “amateur hour” from start to finish but I guess I was just as fascinated by the range of reactions I saw – from “oh, that silly boy” to “he is an affront to all women everywhere!” (which, as I said, I took as over-reaction) as well as some thoughts about how outrage is perceived generally in these types of situations.
Speaking of outrage, I think his “China” answer is much more worrisome for a whole host of reasons.
PS – loved your blog about the white poppy/red poppy controversy!