Kinew rebrand faces uphill battle

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 12/03/2018 (2908 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

On a day when the news cycle will be dominated by the tabling of the provincial budget, the Manitoba NDP is launching a new media campaign to repair and enhance the brand of beleaguered leader Wab Kinew.

Starting today, the NDP will unleash a television advertisement and a direct mail campaign heavy on images of Kinew, his wife Lisa Monkman and his two sons.

The mail campaign features a flyer with pictures from his recent wedding to Monkman, where, instead of a traditional reception, the couple served a meal to homeless people at Thunderbird House in downtown Winnipeg. The flyer features the tag line “Caring for Our Families.”

The television spot features Kinew and his sons playing shinny at The Forks, and finishes with an image of his entire family, hand in hand, walking towards the Manitoba legislature.

The strategy behind the media campaign is not hard to deduce.

Misdeeds committed earlier in his life — including an allegation of domestic assault from a former common-law partner — have cast a shadow of uncertainty over Kinew’s political career. The ads are an attempt to underline his assertion that he is a changed man.

“Things haven’t always gone smoothly for me,” Kinew says in the voice over for the television ad. “I started life on a reserve. I got into fights. I overcame my addictions. I made mistakes and I learned from them.”

Later in the ad, Kinew offers this message: “Every day, I work harder to be a better dad and a better husband, and to earn your trust.”

In an interview, Kinew acknowledged the campaign is a deliberate attempt to demonstrate that the angry and violent young man he once was has grown into a mature husband, father and political leader.

“I understand that the Tories think the best chance they have to get re-elected is to attack my character. What I’m trying to do is rebrand myself.”

“I understand that the Tories think the best chance they have to get re-elected is to attack my character. What I’m trying to do is rebrand myself.”–Wab Kinew

Were Kinew to be successful, it might be one of the most remarkable rebranding exercises in Canadian political history.

It has always been hard for Canadian political leaders to escape the stigma that comes with allegations of violence involving women. However, in the #TimesUp era, prominent men have a particularly short shelf life in the wake of allegations of sexual misconduct, particularly if those allegations include possible criminal behaviour.

That is certainly the context of the two charges of domestic assault laid against Kinew in 2003, both of which were later stayed. Kinew denied the allegations, but media reports that contained a first-hand account from his former partner created doubt about whether Kinew was being completely honest about what had actually happened.

Even with a broad apology for his earlier mistakes, Kinew acknowledged his unwillingness to discuss the specifics of the alleged domestic assault will continue to be a stumbling point for some voters.

“Is there anything I can say now that is going to satisfy people?” Kinew asked. “No, I don’t think so. Even though I can’t answer in the way people want me to, that doesn’t excuse me from the responsibility of doing the right things now. And that’s what I’m trying to do.”

Standing in the way of Kinew’s attempts to “do the right thing” is a counter-campaign directed by Premier Brian Pallister to expose the NDP leader’s dirty laundry at every turn. That was certainly evident in the premier’s recent pledge to create a new, standard candidate-vetting process.

In a scrum with reporters, the premier made thinly veiled references to the rights of voters to know if candidates have been charged with criminal offences at any point in their lives.

Even if voters want to forget, Pallister has shown he will not pass up an opportunity to remind them of the worst of Kinew’s past.

“That’s not fair,” Pallister said. “It benefits no one to have a situation that, after an election, people are saying, ‘Well, I didn’t know that about the candidate.’”

Political leaders normally fence with each other, but the candidate-vetting proposal demonstrates that there is clearly something more personal brewing between the two men.

This emotional tension erupted late last week in question period, when the premier engaged in a bizarre argument with the NDP leader about which of them had had a more challenging childhood.

Kinew had just asked a question about recent hikes to transit fares in which he noted that “the average Manitoban doesn’t get to take eight weeks of vacation each and every year.” It was a personal shot that referred to an unfortunate comment made by Pallister about the total time he spends out of the country each year at his Costa Rican vacation property, a real sore point for the premier.

Pallister’s response was bizarre, to say the least. He accused Kinew of enjoying a measure of “good fortune” he personally did not experience.

“I understand what it’s like to run out of money before the month ends. I understand because that’s where I come from. I’m not a child of tenured university professors. I’m a boy from a farm who made my way in life through hard work and honesty and integrity in my behaviour, and I do not like these attacks.”

Pallister’s response was not only a political non sequitur, it was inaccurate: Kinew’s mother was a session lecturer, his father taught one university course; neither had tenure. Still, it was effective at revealing the depth of his contempt for Kinew and the short fuse he has whenever the two lock horns in debate.

All of this makes Kinew’s attempts to escape — or at least reframe — his troubled past a real challenge. Even if voters want to forget, Pallister has shown he will not pass up an opportunity to remind them of the worst of Kinew’s past.

Regardless of who is dishing the dirt, the fact is that dirt will most certainly be dished in Kinew’s direction. Faced with that reality, a pamphlet and a single television commercial seem like the political equivalent of bringing a knife to a gun fight.

Maybe not too late, but possibly too little.

dan.lett@freepress.mb.ca