Attorney P.A.
Welcome to the latest edition of our Policy Dialogue series. Public Relations Advisor Senior Vice President John DelacorteGeneral Counsel PA Account Director Will Schelling About the 2024 US Presidential election. John is a veteran Liberal Party strategist and longtime policy contributor. NovelistWill is a Las Vegas-raised, Vancouver-based NDPer. This is our fourth interaction in this series.
Will Schelling: This week I’ve been thinking specifically about healthcare. This article It’s a book by Elizabeth Warren (who, incidentally, is one of my favorite policy makers), in which she recounts Trump’s health care record, his repeated attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA), and the harrowing story of how the late Senator John McCain screwed up health care reform. Vote to stop ACA repealIt’s something Mr. McCain actively campaigned against in 2008. His memoir details how former President Barack Obama called to express his gratitude, a moment that marked the first major turning point between the two former political rivals.
There are a ton of “election” issues this time around: choice, affordability, housing, and oddly, health care have faded into the background as issues voters know about but don’t care about. Trump says he has a “plan concept” and Harris is leaning towards eliminating medical debt. Do you think voters still care that much about health care this time around, or is their overall attention more fragmented?
John Delacorte: Will, I think there was only one other meme-worthy moment in the Harris-Waltz debate besides the “concept of a plan” comment on health care (obviously the pet-eating comment has taken on a life of its own, but there’s no need to say more). The “concept of a plan” comment on the GOP’s approach to health care reminded me of Mitt Romney’s “binders full of women” comment in his ill-fated presidential debate with President Obama. Like Trump, Romney has been exposed as purposefully vague on an issue that has become an effective divisive tactic. Given this precedent, I think it’s wise to bring up health care as an issue that could potentially swing votes to the Democrats.
It is interesting to see how the Democrats have positioned health care, as it has shifted from what was perceived as a policy platform for “big” government to one that aligns with a larger message of freedom: the freedom to access quality health care, and the freedom to choose the best option for your family without being penalized for limited financial resources. As with the right to choose, this must be recognized within the Democratic Party as a key issue that sits above the dominant theme of affordability.
The obvious parallel with the current government is the issue of the Pharmaceutical Affordable Care Act, a bill whose introduction was one of the signature outcomes of the ill-fated CASA agreement, which is now in jeopardy. And I think the reason it’s still on the table with an early election approaching is because both the NDP and Liberals need affordability to be a centerpiece of their election campaigns, and there are still a few weeks until the bill gets royal assent.
There may also be an opportunity for both parties to suggest that no “vision” on affordable health care will come from a Conservative government. Harris has done a great job exposing the vagueness on the issue of affordable health care as an essentially deceptive ploy by Trump and the Republicans. The Liberals and New Democrats will need to do the same.
Artillery: I totally agree. I think there is still a lot of room for additions to the national prescription drug list, or “pharmacare” in certain Canadian circumstances. I think it gives both the LPC and NDP, who have done everything in their power to support this bill, room to move forward and grow. Conversely, they will look for every way possible to show that the concepts of these plans are actually a complete reversal of their efforts, so to speak, and a burden on Canadians. British Columbia is now having its own moment in the provincial election, and the provincial NDP is already trying to give the impression that the new BC Conservatives are looking to cut and gut the health care system.
Delacourt: Certainly, there is room for maneuver in the Senate and in future elections. My first question this week is about the overall framing of the Democratic message. From this side of the border, “freedom” has the force of doctrine in the United States. It’s authoritative and unquestionable. But looking at this race as an American, do you think that framing will continue to resonate until the final days of the campaign?
Artillery: The limits of “freedom” have, I think, been well explained by people better than I can. Jeff Daniels as Will McAvoy NewsroomIn fact, I think the “we’re not going back” framing was the most influential shift that the Harris campaign made. When Harris first uttered those words, And she understood it all This was going to be a campaign theme, and I think Harris’ core staff understood that saying “we won’t go back” wasn’t about finding or giving freedom, but a solemn pledge not to go back to a time when we didn’t have freedom.
Something I think about all the time is the power of seeing people like yourself, especially as a Black American. When Harris says, “we won’t go back,” she is essentially referring to how racial violence (anti-Asian, anti-Black, to name a few) has increased under the Trump administration and how we need to continue on our path to equality.
The Power of Representation/Kamala Harris Facebook
I remember meeting Ta-Nehisi Coates at a seminar in 2020 and having the opportunity to share the same space with him and talk about his book. We were in power for eight years, About President Obama. The final essay in the book is, My president was black.portrayed President Obama in terms of the power of representation, saying his example showed that, as actor Jesse Williams said at his White House farewell address, “it’s possible to be smart and cool.” Now, at a time when her opponent is spreading racist propaganda, Harris is reviving the possibility of a person of color getting into the White House, reminding people of the value of that distinction beyond issues and demographics. The power of the “we’re not going back” frame is that we don’t want to lose sight of who we are as a people again, and I think that frame could keep Democrats in this situation.
Another topic we need to address is the frankly absurd fact that I now share a “political tent.” Former Vice President Dick CheneyTaylor Swift (as expected), and podcaster Joe Rogan, following Rogan’s show this week.He made it clear that he was interested in her performance in the debate. And how expertly she mocked Trump.
Delacourt: Celebrity endorsements still seem to work on both sides of the border, because less-informed voters don’t necessarily mean they’re uninterested in pop culture — quite the opposite. And civic literacy has a lot to do with class and diversity, which I think your field’s research bears out. All of this means that most voters are rightly skeptical of Trump and Vance’s dismissal of snobby Hollywood types. And when Logan and Cheney announce their endorsements, that rhetoric becomes even more hackneyed.
The principle at work here is that high-resolution numbers powerfully define certain types of voters.
I’m old enough to remember Prime Minister Harper hosting Nickelback on 24 Sussex and, of course, more recently, the late Gord Downie praising the Prime Minister for his work toward reconciliation. When these moments occur, an implicit Venn diagram is created, and you can expect a significant number of people from the celebrity’s fan circle to align with the party’s voter circle.
But high-profile figures like Rogan and Cheney mean even more to the party. They contrast with the endorsements of other, more predictable celebrities, and they suggest that the Democratic voter base may be much broader than was projected when Biden was running for office again. I think you’ve hit one of those incremental tipping points in the past two weeks, creating momentum that will be difficult for the Trump campaign to halt or reverse.
Artillery: 100%. I think the Democratic Party’s vote base is broader than we think. In particular, their key to victory is to get rid of ill-informed voters from the legislature. On a side note, I don’t think you or I are in a position to advise Trump or Vance on how to conduct a debate, but on October 1st we have the vice presidential debate. It’s two people who are clearly media-trained and disagree greatly on fundamental issues, but they come from similar places. What will you be looking out for in this debate?
Delacourt: I think that for both Trump and Vance, weak self-esteem is a big hindrance in these debates. Vance reacts differently in media interviews when this weakness is exposed, he gets irritable and tense. For Trump, when his self-esteem is threatened he can’t help but take the bait and go completely off the rails. For Vance, he can’t help “slipping up,” like when he talked about Haitian immigrants and the “invention” of this pet-eating nonsense.
Ms Harris has had a remarkable ability to get on Mr Trump’s nerves on multiple occasions, and if Mr Waltz could do the same with Mr Vance, the impact could be devastating.
We’ve spoken before about Waltz’s ability to communicate effectively to American men, particularly young men. Do you think that’s going to be a factor in this final debate?
Artillery: The upcoming debate will be a true case study in policy communication for J.D. Vance and Tim Walz. We will see two very different people making their case for the future of the country, each with their own specific role in the campaign. While both are able to reach out to different factions and appeal to people, Walz has the edge. He’s already reaching out to people typically considered Republican.
J.D. Vance is the policy communicator, giving post-debate interviews, taking part in videos, and acting as the somewhat calm public face of the Trump campaign. Tim Walz is the coordinator, with a track record of implementing progressive policies in the state and a history of lobbying Republican districts to believe in different policies.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Vance gets aggressive soon. He slammed Walz’s record in the Army National Guard. or His family’s experience with IVFI expect Waltz to make a remark or two here and there about Vance’s record with women, but to focus on policy. Harris only had one opportunity to put her vision for America forward instead of the usual three, so I expect Waltz to act as an extension of Harris, which means the pressure will be on her to hit the points that matter to her audience and be ready to attack beyond just calling him a “nut.”
I know you’re a dog owner, so let me use an analogy: if Vance is the dachshund, Waltz is the poodle — a real hound ready to bring home prey from the hunt.
In other words, He’s preparing for a debate with Mayor Pete.,Oh my goodness.
John Delacorte Senior VP Public Relations AdvisorHe has served in a number of roles in three federal Liberal governments, including public affairs and stakeholder relations in the Opposition Government. He is the author of five novels and is a regular contributor to Policy magazine.
Will Schelling I’m an account director Attorney P.A. A New Democrat with a focus on justice, equity, diversity and inclusion, Indigenous issues, climate change and Canadian culture, she is also on the board of directors for White Ribbon Canada, a national non-profit organization working to end gender-based violence. She grew up in Las Vegas and currently lives in Vancouver, British Columbia.
John and Will plan to talk weekly until November.
