Can we develop wedge issues as Lakoff suggests?

CEO pay

for the farm vote - captive supply

affordability

for rural voters -industrial wind

respecting the voter

I'll try to think of more but the sun is calling

Wedge issues are not simply "what the NDP should say and do."  They  would look like this < , or this >  , dividing the opposition.

Some general points first.

The Liberals say Harper is bad, etc, etc. Thats not a wedge. Its positioning.

'Edgier' is one thing required for it to be a wedge. And if for no other reason- aside from the fact that us cadre dont like it anyway- the Liberals remove the possibility mere positioning viz the Tories will work for the NDP. So the NDP has to be edgier, and more substantive. Which happens to be what we want anyway.

But there is a complicating kicker that follows from that positioning by the Liberals of "Harper bad." At least when we are anywhere near an election, as we have been for some time, the NDP not only has to be highly substantive in its wedging, it has to be done in ways that people associate the item/issue with the NDP. Substantive differentiation from the Cons will be self defeating if it does not also lead people to associate pretty uniquely that item/issue with the NDP. Generic differentiation that the Cons are lacking will too often lead people to the Liberals. And that association with the NDP has to be apparent to people in things they already associate with the NDP... be that as general as 'trust,' or more specific and issue oriented.

A wedge also has to be something where the message can be delivered, or at least reinforced, in little more exposure than a sound bite. The wedge could be made up of 'pieces' of a larger and mre general wedging messsage. And I'm pretty sure that is the way to go. But once you have your wedging message, it has to be something that can be delivered and punchy in pieces, taht have to also make sense on their own.

Lastly, I'm of the opinion that wedging on an issue/item generally takes time. More time than we have for this election. But election campaigns and the run-up [like now] are the best time to introduce wedging that are 'works in progress'. As much as possible the works in progress should be expressed in items that as stand alones can deliver some benefit in the election campaign.

But some items should also be floated that will be stronger in the long term benefits. But short term, they can at least contribute to a narative. One still somewhat nebulous at this early stage, but which anyone can get to some degree. And will likely be more noticed by the core, who dont get enough stroking from the NDP.

I think that Life's suggestion of highlighting CEO pay is very good. It would even be an effective hook in the short term. Coming up with more of those is a challenge.

'Respecting the voter' is an example of something which does not have much existing development to work from, nor is it associated strongly with the NDP. The 'trust' thing is nearby. But for sure not close enough for any near term 'hooking'.

And most of all,  short and long term I think we need to develop ASAP a who is on your side [and who isnt] narrative. The CEO pay item fits into that.

Home energy retrofit program

"Home energy retrofit program"

Agreed, It would drive a wedge between those people who want to improve their own houses and save a buck (as well as the world) and those who would deny them the opportunity (Conservatives). And of course, anything environmental should be posed in terms of making life more liveable for the following generations as well.

The tail end of my latest letter appearing in a mid-sized Ontario daily:

"When the subject is public indebtedness, in a time of growing joblessness and an economy teetering on zero growth, environmental responsibility means supporting those institutions that are going to lower fossil fuel consumption, while saving the consumer many dollars and at the same time promoting job growth.

Why, then, would a federal government continue massive tax relief for the "Oil Sands" while ending support for the program that brought EnerGuide for houses to the nation when only an estimated 8 per cent of the eligible housing stock has been retrofitted?"

I'm not sure I agree with your definition of a wedge issue being something your core already agrees with.  Sometimes a wedge is used exactly for that reason.  Also a series of wedge issues is what needs to be used.  If you try to find an overarching wedge issue you will search in vain.  This is after all what the Conservatives do.  As well wedge issue really don't need to comphrehensively answer anything.  They are best when they address who cares about your problem and who doesn't.  For an example see how the Conservatives have used the gun registry for well over a decade now.

Affordability is a wedge issue that could work when connected to the CEO pay issue.  It plays into emotion which is what a good wedge issue has to do.   The message that you are getting farther behind and your children even farther while these guys get rich is certainly a powerful emotive narrative.

Abolishing the monarchy, while appealing personally would be about as useful in today's context as trying to wedge against winter.  It is just not a top of mind or emotive enough issue.

HST on home heating is a good example of something that could be used as a wedge issues for some portions of Canada.  They stick you with a tax on a necessity and give big tax breaks to the oil companies that are raking in record profits.

The F-35 purchase is a good example of a wedge issue but the Liberals seem to be owning that. 

Here's a line I heard Layton use that would work very well:

Instead of subsidizing "big ass" energy companies, use money to build public transit.

Jack using "big ass?"   Gotta hear that one.

It is both George, if you using a dictionary as the authority. Or probably only the definition you gave, that being the general and common usage. But I dont think it is relevant for us.

How is it more than peripheral relevance- if any- for the NDP to drive a wedge between the Liberals and Conservatives?

One thing that makes 'issue wedging' easier for the Conservatives is that they can most of the time divide between 'us' and all the opposition parties. Most of the time the NDP has to wedge to just one party or the other, although I guess that could change eventually. I would say that in practice it differentiates itself from the Liberals, but wedging would not work, would not be appropriate or something like that. And the Liberals just dont wedge.

They do the other kind of driving of wedges as well- as does any minority government- but that is tactical manouvering- not working on voters themselves, which I would hope is what we are talking about.

And since you put Lakoff in the title itself, how could he ever be talking about that kind of wedging- dividing your opponents- speaking as he does about a two-party system, and 'world views'?

George is correct, Ken. A wedge issue, as practiced in the U.S., mostly by Republicans, attempts to split the other party's supporters. So, for example, Republicans have used gun rights, prayer in schools, and gay marriage as wedge issues which can split off voters who would normally support the Democrats, and cause them to support Ronald Reagan or George Bush instead.

In the case being discussed in this thread, a wedge issue would be one, such as CEO pay, which might possibly split off natural Conservative and/or Liberal supporters from their natural party. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_issue.

It is interesting what that article says about wedge issues in Canada:

One of the best wedge issues for the NDP at the moment is Afghanistan, with probably most Liberal supporters and even a sizable chunk of the Liberal caucus itself not supporting the position that both Iggy and Bob Rae have gotten them into. It's also (I'm guessing) a great issue with women and young people, and people who may have voted Green last time.

The NDP Youth website has just launched a new campaign on Afghanistan, called "nine long years" or something ("Nine Years and Counting", to be precise), and Layton is making a major policy address on the subject at the University of Ottawa tomorrow.

THAT is a wedge issue. One that is potentially defining and vote-determining, splits your opponents' support, and gives their supporters a reason to vote for you rather than them.

I would say the GIS enhancement could be the same, although have the Liberals now finally come on board with that one as well? Previously, they were advocating an optional personal top-up of the CPP, which would only benefit rich folks.

Todrick, you may have heard the slogan "Support the Troops: Bring them Home". No problems with that approach whatsoever. It's also one of the main issues that helped us win the by-election in Outremont.

For what its worth, the success of that slogan/answer is effect rather than cause of why Afghanistan is a fairly low risk issue for the NDP. Most of the people who are offended by unequivocal demands to withdraw the troops are not in the supporter 'universe'- meaning that not only do not vote NDP, but it is not even a possibility. A great many in the NDP 'universe' disagree with the NDPs position, but the difference is problematic.

Contrast that with economic issues- where a huge swath of our supporter universe is inclined to like NDP economic and government fiscal initiatives... it is what they would prefer to have; but are too inclined to see them as unrealistic. To such a degree that they are very open to seeing the NDP promotion of these things they would like to see, as evidence of the NDPs 'irresponsibility', and reason to inthe final analysis support the Conservatives or the Liberals.

Addressing that is not easy. But not doing so with more resolution sverly limits what issues we can use for wedging and differentiation.

'Wedging' is about what can be done now- the prequisite conditions are there already. I'm more interested in addressing what limits the issues we are ready and able to use as wedges. Especially the opportunities that exist right now for working towards fixing that.

CEO pay would I think be both a good wedge, and contribute something to building a narrative about the great ripoff that should be the base of our populist narrative. [And contribute more than things like talking about bank fees.] Afghanistan is an example of a good wedge issue that contributes little or nothing to building any frame that we lack. Heating oil GST rebates contribute nothing to frame building of any kind that matters, and I dont see that as wedge either. 'Just' another good 'buy in' hook- the kind of thing the NDP already is doing well at.

[I suspect that CEO pay would be a very modest at being a wedge- which is probably a good example of how you just cannot be expecting to get everything with any particular issue. But right now, the NDP mostly goes for the 'incresing buy in' issues.... with less put into wedging and more than incidental differentiation, and next to nothing on what could be called 'frame building' or the building of 'larger narratives'.]

Not sticking to the opening thread topic is obfuscation?

Obviously you think its a distraction, but unless other people do as well, I'll just take it as your opinion.

For what it is worth, to the degree Lakoff would talk about wedging, it would be derivative to the discussion of and the importance he attaches to frame building.  

I am addressing the question in the very opening of the OP which you take from Lakoff: why progessives don't do more wedging.

And having launced off in that direction, and its all related you know, thats my excuse for continuing to broaden the topic.

I discussed Afghanistan as a wedge issue, why it can be, and what differs about issues where there are limited wedging opportunities for the NDP. Any issue can be posed in a wedging format. But whether it can work here and now for the NDP is relevant. And if it does not work, what to do about it. That distinction is made in response to your suggestion in post#9 about how the energy retrofit progrm could be a wedge.

Ken: "Any issue can be posed in a wedging format."

That is a nonsensical statement. Why would you do that if they could only rebound to hurt yourself?

Ken: "The point here is really about moving where supporters stand, rather than about electoral politics per se. But I don't see that anyone except the NDP is even possibly going to take up building larger narratives that deliberately work on moving people from where they are now. And talking in terms of vote share and where different parts of the NDP 'universe' are, is a means of being more concrete about a subject that easily becomes too abstract."

"Abstraction" is your domain, created in a few paragraphs of convoluted reasoning. But that's where I thought you were coming from, and why I asked if you could leave this thread to the seriious discussion of WEDGE issues, and avoid the diarrhoeal approach, just this once.

I was there, and it was a very strong speech, with very good attendance from both students and academics (from all sides of the issue), and I believe Newsworld carried it live, along with the questions from the floor. Jack was introduced by Allan Rock (who is now the Rector of UOttawa), and the session was moderated by Roland Paris. I saw Amir Attaran, David Langille and (name?) Philip Lagasse, amongst other academics. Plus there was a full turnout from the national media. Apparently Jack was interviewed on Power & Politics afterwards, but I haven't pulled that video to watch yet.

Haha, great image there Peter.

BTW, David Akin posted the full text of Layton's speech on his blog.

Is the issue significant enough for potential voters that they would consider voting for you instead or another party because of internal division? Or does it get pushed back given that another issue or value takes priority when considering who to vote for?

Who are you trying to divide from whom and is it important enough that they would break ranks?

I'm not saying it isn't, but I have doubts.

I don't think that the leadership of the leader of your own party counts as a 'wedge' in your favour necessarily. 

However, Ignatieff's leadership could be as it divides people in his own party as his support amongst Liberals is lacking. The Conservatives have already been hammering that one though, and that is partly why Layton is faring better than him. So the ndp is already benefiting from the conservatives using one.

I couldn't agree more. It is not always advantageous to have a larger leader in all cases because a smaller leader that gets the job done is often more appreciated in the long run. It must be remembered that a good wedgie divides and squeezes at the same time. The size of your leader can impact the whole affair. If the leader is small and unpopular, you might aim to create greater division, but one should probably take a more balanced approach witha a larger and more popular leader because even if you create less division, you are putting more pressure on the leader. Using the balanced approach with a smaller leader might mean that the leader squeaks through the cracks unscathed -- in those case always aim for greater division, over increased pressure on the leader.

I'm confused. Are the spokespeople for the NDP now unequivocally articulating what has been the party's position for the last 5 years?

My post on Canadian Leadership beyond Afghansistan is a copy of a post Brad Lavigne Campaign Director, Canada’s New Democrats, sent me and probably many many others. (I am curious if other Babblers got it?) I think that post from Brad builds and helps shape one possible key wedge issue Ottawa Observer had noted - Afghanistan, and our call to Bring Our Troops Home. It does its work by framing the call to Bring Our Troops Home and the continuing  "mission" in Afghanistan in the context of leadership. As OO also pointed out, I suspect the main targets of the wedge are the soft Liberal voters  the "left" or "peace" wedge of the Liberal vote base and also the caucus and  higher-ups of that party, who are not happy with their current leader, his leadership in general, and his leadership on Afghanistan in particular.

The"elephant in the room" many want to ignore is our troops are in Afghanistan, dying to prop a corrupt regime, and that it is Ignatieff backing Harper who kept and is keeping our troops in Afghanistan. Did people notice the free vote a few years ago to extend the mission in Afghanistan to an agreed upon date and Harper crossing the floor of the Commons to shake Ignatieffs hand, because it was Iggys' vote (and leadership) that helped a small rump of Liberals back the extension and kept our troops there? I think many Liberals did and may be reminded of it. Did people notice the recent Harper announcement to keep our troops in Afghansiatan beyond the agreed upon, voted upon, date, accepted without a vote in the Commons, or a debate, because of Iggy's leadership. I think many Liberals did and may be reminded of.  It may not be the"top of the mind" ballot box" question in for the majority of voters but Jacks leadership of the only party to call for Bringing Our Troops Home is potentially a solid wedge issue on the Liberals and that is wha ti think Brad and Jack and the team are trying out with the mail and the ongoing campaign/

In 2008, Stephen Harper promised to bring our troops home from Afghanistan by 2011. But now, Stephen Harper has broken his promise to our troops and their families.

With Michael Ignatieff’s help, he’s extended the military mission – without even bringing it to a debate or a vote in Parliament.

Nine years is enough. It’s time to bring our troops home. That’s why Jack Layton is fighting to uphold Canada’s commitment to end the failed military mission in Afghanistan now.

Sign up to send Stephen Harper a message – it’s time to support our troops and bring them home.

http://youth.ndp.ca/afghanistan

It appears that they finally are?  Up til now the party caucus never actually articulated the position that was voted on by the membership, and instead variously called for the end to the "combat mission", with persons such as Dawn Black articulating a position that the Canadian forces should be supportive of "non-combat" humanitarian efforts by providing security, and so on. Indeed, it is very hard to see the substantive difference between Harper's and Ignatief's support for a "non-combat" role and the NDP's position over the last 5 years as articulated by Jack Layton.

In fact, what Layton said in a speech the month after the NDP membership voted to ratify a position supporting complete withdrawal from Afghanistan, was almost precisely what he said in a public speech a month before the convention.

Now, it appears that since the Conservatives and the Liberals have taken over the political terrain against a "combat mission" in Afghanistan in favour of a non-combat mission, the NDP has suddenly discovered that distinction between a "combat mission", and a "non-combat mission" such as training security forces, is pretty much semantic.

The Opposition's inaction and their present policy of laying down without even a whimper as the Reform Party steam engines their agenda through Parliament is what has legitimized the Cons and their policies.

I have a hard time believing that 65%...even 50% of Canadians are on board with this government.

As I said,the apathy is overwhelming but the misinformation is way over the top.

Plus a dollop of fear? 

So this means I'm supposed to cheer on the NDP while pretending that they've consistently articulated a clear, principled stand on the issue?

You can do what you like.

I see your logic, GV, but it doesn't work with Sandra.  As one who has seen her in action, it would be hard to peg her as typical of the libertarian Green.  Not quite sure how I would describe her (on a public message board), but "libertarian" it ain't.

In FDR's time, fewer than one American in 10 played the market, and getting a loan meant you had to put up grandmother as collateral.

The relationship of capital and consumer has changed somewhat, WZ. I'm afraid that quote is just coming from another wishful thinker without a hint of political economic thought behind it. The sentiment above: "It's just like liberals -- insecure, over-thinking liberals -- to be running around in search of a "new" message when we already have an ideal one, courtesy of FDR" all sounds very much like Joe Bageant's lament.

If you are going to rock the economic boat of the average masses (to use the accepted social term) you are going to be asked by those who bother to vote to take a hike (to really mix the metaphors). :)

No, wedge issues today have to focus on economics of the infividual all right...but in the real world, not FDR's.

While I agree with the author that Lakoff is shy about economic populism, I don't think the narrative about empathy is a replacement for an economic populism narrative. I think the empathy narrative has a solid validity in its own right. Very much so in the context of the political polarization in the US, and the much larger and more visible pockets of third world poverty that is everywhere.

Empathy might potentially have some resonance here. But I just mean that in the sense of possibly, down the road. Not now as anything close to a main narrative. [Main narrative being the building of identification of middle class to the poor on one side, robber barons on the other. With the subtext of the Cons as their agents and enablers.]

I've got my own political critique of Lakoff. I'll probably start a thread on that later.

By the way, take a look at the way posters in this thread are talking about how issues are being used that are called wedges.

Are they more about pushing people our way?

Or are they more about the formal 'definitional' wedging: driving wedges among our opponents?

Of course, ther are elements of both. But which in practice are people talking more about? 

And which one do you think is more the ultimate or most needed goal?

See a correlation between the answers to those last two questions?

I have not seen you argue, or offer any kind of evidence that people being taken up with "mortgages, trips to Mexico or the Carib in winter, keeping some money back for the kids education while saving for their golden years, etc. etc." is categorically different in impact on behaviour than were the 'economicaly driven' concerns of our grandparents with their struggles in FDR's time.

And I'd rather be up in the chandaliers than be with you: the monkey in the zoo throwing its feces out at everyone.

And you do always remind us that you are the one doing political intevention and coming to terms with where we are at. You have a truly remarkable blind spot that keeps you from seeing others are doing the same thing.

Well the social democrat does have to be careful when criticizing government deficits.  Keynes, you know? It's the Conservatives that seem to get away with saying deficits are bad, while racking up records.  We just have to get used to being critical of some kinds of deficit spending. :) 

There are a million of em.