Christie’s keys to success, Part 2
Dr Ian G. Strachan
Last week we looked at the challenge facing Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) Leader Perry Christie in 2012, a challenge he can certainly meet, if he plays his cards right. Let’s go a bit deeper.
First, let’s look at the people who will join him on the PLP ticket. Christie knows he will do well to enlist as many young, new faces as possible. His challenge is to keep the old guard happy while he does it. This has proven to be a challenge.
The infamous May 5, 2011 letter, penned by George Smith, Philip Galanis and Raynard Rigby, attests to this. I suppose some would say that before Christie can ask others to step aside he should volunteer to do so himself. Well, we all know that's not happening.
Given that some of the sitting MPs in the PLP are a liability in terms of swing voters, it may seem ironic but I think Christie should try to move the discussion away from the head to head comparisons with Ingraham and focus on the PLP’s team instead.
If he can’t dump the undesirables, his best bet is to hide them, the way Ingraham hid Symonette during the 2007 campaign. The FNM knows he can win his seat but they also know he hurts you on the national campaign trail.
The PLP should also not be afraid to let new team members do a lot of the talking during this campaign, to avoid the Christie-fatigue voters are feeling.
The PLP still has BJ Nottage, Glenys Hanna-Martin, Alfred Sears, Fred Mitchell, Ryan Pinder, Michael Halkitis, James Smith, Philip Galanis, Raynard Rigby, Danny Johnson, Jerome Fitzgerald, Damian Gomez, Andre Rollins, Renward Wells, Romauld Ferreira, and many other young professionals who are articulate and smart.
The PLP attracts skilled communicators, who can appeal to the working and middle class and who have the potential to become inspirational leaders. There are many whose names are not known to the general public whom Christie should quickly call off the bench.
The party practically owns the working class constituencies, so it can flood the campaign with empathetic tales of woe. The sympathetic approach, so familiar to the PLP, which always promises “help and hope,” should go over well in a country low on confidence and uncertain (scared even) about its future.
Christie should also use his reputation as someone who consults to his advantage. He may listen, where Ingraham may not. He may draw on the talents of others and collaborate, not dictate. This kind of message will make sense to those swing voters who, for the life of them, can’t understand Ingraham’s approaches to our problems. It worked in 2002; maybe it can work in 2012.
There is even a way that Christie can confront the claims of his weakness when compared to Ingraham and that is by challenging Ingraham to a debate and beating him.
If Ingraham refuses, Christie still wins. The nation wants to see these men debate crime, the economy, education, health care, foreign direct investment, local investment, BTC, Bahamasair, immigration and land reform. These two men, who have been the giants of our politics for the last 25 years, owe us no less. Some people close to Christie say he is scared of taking Ingraham on in a debate. Perhaps he can win without taking the risk.
The PLPs must paint a picture of what might have been if they had the reins during this recession and what will be when they take over again. Their message will have to make more sense and be more concrete than perhaps it ever has been. Swing voters don’t want pie in the sky promises (like you will double the education budget). What are you going to do about teacher quality? About parental neglect? About the weak Math scores?
Ingraham has many blind spots. I have said many times that the FNM seemed out of touch with what the people felt were the real priorities in the country. Christie must rip apart the FNM’s action plan of the last four years, showing all the missed opportunities. (But they must be careful since many of the FNM’s blind spots have been theirs as well).
Ingraham’s government has ignored many progressive alternatives to our national development challenges. The PLP needs to prove it knows how to be progressive again.
The real X factor in all this, is of course the DNA. This group will steal votes from both parties (eroding their bases) and make many races almost impossible to predict, particularly in southern New Providence. One school of thought is that the DNA will steal FNM votes since DNA Leader Branville McCartney is a disgruntled FNM. Another is that swing voters, unhappy with Ingraham, but who can’t stomach Christie, will go green.
In the end, the PLP has to guarantee its base support and work hard to lure some of the swing vote its way.
Christie and his team can do this most effectively by leaning heavily on the NDP’s “Bahamians first” messaging, which struck a chord with the nation. They must also give their new faces heavy play at the rallies.
In the end, if the 68-year-old Christie loses this election he has no one to blame but himself. Almost all the cards are in his hands. If he fails, it would prove two things: He was indeed ineffectual and out of touch and the PLP has learned absolutely nothing since 1997, when another old man who should have been forced to step down, drove them right into the ground.
Sep 12, 2011