Strategery: Tom Flanagan, Preston Manning, and stuff

It is rumored that during the early days of Reform's caucus meetings, Preston Manning's favourite phrase was "As Sun Tzu says..." Manning used the phrase so often that even the most loyal Reform MP's began mocking him for it.

But Manning is not alone in believing the value of war strategy in politics. There are many others. (Including this not-so-humble blogger.) I once attended a private lecture, at the Royal Military College, by Tom Flanagan where he specifically used parallel's between warfare and politics to point out how he, as a political novice, had managed to speed up his learning curve. After all, as most readers of this blog know, before managing Harper's leadership campaign, the closest Flanagan had been to a political campaign was writing about it in a book. (If you have not read Flanagan's book on Game Theory and Politics, you must.)

I have talked about this to point out that I think, if Bourque's musing's about Flanagan being sacked are correct, then the CPC may be entering some risky waters. (Not that I believe what Bourque says about such things anymore.)

I say this, not because I am a fan of Flanagan. In fact, at best, I am undecided about his abilities. On one hand, this is the guy that is yet fail to reach his stated objectives in any campaign. On the other hand, he has never had to fight a hard fight and, on a personal note, he once sacked me.

I am worried to him being fired, because I believe you can't change horses in midstream. (Or change generals in a middle of the war.)

As most readers of this blog would know, the CPC has at least a dozen spots in the can and ready for the air war. All signs indicate that this air war will begin within the next few weeks. If we have already started our ground war (BBQ's and such) and are only days away from starting our air war, is it not dangerous to sack the person who was a major part of the strategic thinking behind these offensives? I am not saying that Harper can't find a better person to do the job. All I am asking is, can he find a better person to finish Flanagan's job?

In any other situation, this would be highly doubtful. The only thing that makes it slightly more acceptable, and less risky, in CPC's case is Harper's independence. When he first took over as the leader of the Alliance, many were shocked to see Harper act as his own Chief of Staff. He made staffing decisions and was involved in the most minute actions. So one would not be surprised if Harper had been involved in every detail of the campaign strategy as well.

If this is the case, and there is no reason to believe it is not, then Harper has broken the cardinal rule of political campaign management - the candidate cannot be the campaign manager. However, by breaking this rule he may have given himself the flexibility to bring in a new campaign strategist. So once again, by going against the conventional thinking, Harper may have helped the CPC.

I suspect that if the MSM reports on Flanagan leaving, they will miss this subtle point and thus come to the wrong conclusion.