An important reminder from south of the border about damage control and crisis communications: Sometimes doing nothing is the best thing to do.

Witness Senator Joni Ernst, who made a dismissive comment at a public meeting about medicare cuts, then made matters far worse with an “apology” video, riddled with sarcasm and attempts at humour. It failed. As the CBC’s Journalistic Standards and Practice document reminds us, sarcasm is a delicate instrument and should be used sparingly.

In my experience, getting a politician to do nothing is an extremely difficult task. Elected officials want to be seen to be doing things. Overall, that can be a virtue; except when the thing you pick to do makes matters far worse.

For those interested, the whole story can be more fully explored at the link below, which will take you to an excellent column by New York Times opinion writer Michelle Cottle. As Cottle wisely points out, when you do something incredibly stupid or insensitive in the public arena, best not to highlight that mistake:

And Cottle also explores something I’ve been thinking about for a while: Why is it that many of our elected officials seem constitutionally incapable of delivering a sincere apology?

There have been many examples in Saskatchewan politics of elected officials trying to control the damage, only to make matters worse. The one that immediately comes to mind is a former finance minister, who flew to a luncheon instead of driving. It’s a story that would have died in hours through inattention. However, the powerful desire to fix things overcame reason and experience. If your only excuse was “I was exhausted”, just stay in your office.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/sask-finance-minister-says-she-won-t-apologize-for-8k-chartered-flight-1.6525318: Don’t just do something, stand there:

I suspect the long term political consequences for Joni Ernst will be minimal. The good people of Iowa elected her in 2014 with over 52 percent of the vote, flipping the seat from Democratic to Republican.

But it does offer a reminder to elected officials with less secure margins of victory: Sometimes less is more. And if you do want to apologize, make sure you don’t make matters worse.

And remember the communications advice from Sir Humphry Appleby in Yes Minister: Don’t just do something, stand there.

Robert Frost 1874 – 1963

Nature’s first green is gold,
Her hardest hue to hold.
Her early leaf’s a flower;
But only so an hour.
Then leaf subsides to leaf.
So Eden sank to grief,
So dawn goes down to day.
Nothing gold can stay.

“Nature’s peace will flow into you as sunshine flows into trees. The winds will blow their own freshness into you and the storms their energy, while cares will drop off like autumn leaves.”

John Muir

Adam Gopnik’s most recent article (A Time To Kill: The last ditch effort to head off the Civil War, The New Yorker, April 28, 2025) the canvasses the latest offerings in a seemingly endless assembly line of Abraham Lincoln biographies. Of particular attention lately amongst scholars is a peace conference, prior to Lincoln’s inauguration, held at the Willard Hotel in Washington DC.

Gopnik walks again on the well-travelled ground of attempting to sort-out just how hard line Lincoln was on the abolition of slavery. In the end, Lincoln is cast as a pragmatic democratic politician trying to build a coalition based on stopping the spread of this awful practice.

The talks failed. Once the conflict begins, Lincolns use of “abolition” to replace “union” as the motivating purpose of the war, had a galvanizing effect. Gopnik (interestingly) compares this word/goal shift to the impact Donald Trump has had on Canada’s federal election of 2025:

And yet Canada, oddly, offers a clue to the peculiar appeal of Lincoln’s abstract idea of “union”. Donald Trump’s threats have, almost overnight, caused a famously divided and centrifugal nation to cohere into a single national front. (April 28, 2025 New Yorker, Pg. 52)

The little-remembered pre- Civil War peace conference was held at the Willard Hotel, located near the White House and the Capitol Building. It was also where Julia Ward Howe wrote the Battle Hymn of the Republic and where early drafts of MLK’s I have a dream speech were born.

In a less uplifting chapter of American political history, the Willard Hotel is also where J. Edgar Hoover bugged King’s suite in January of 1964. Hoover felt he had gathered enough incriminating evidence from the bugged room to destroy King’s career. However, Lyndon Johnson, on the cusp of successfully passing the Civil Rights Act wasn’t keen on that happening, neither was Attorney General Robert Kennedy.

In her fascinating and well research biography of Hoover (G-Man: J. Edgar Hoover and the making of the American Century, Viking Press 2022) author Beverly Gage says only a handful of federal officials have heard the recordings. That is soon to change:

After Hoover’s death, a court order placed the tapes under embargo for fifty years, set to expire in 2027. (G-Man pg. 585)

You can almost feel the history seeping out of the walls of the Willard Hotel. President Grant sat in the lobby of the Willard and heard appeals for funding and support—giving birth to the phrase lobbying. The giant state seals on the lobby ceiling are worth a visit.

But please don’t visit Washington D.C. until the current trade dispute is behind us. The city has much to offer and the people are very friendly. However currently, a boycott is in order.

Learn how to oppose something loudly and effectively.

Show up. Have a planned response in place well before the event takes place. Be ahead of the story, not road kill. Last minute cabinet meetings aren’t a good look.

Don’t be one of the last jurisdictions to haul U.S. booze off the shelves. It looks like you’re not serious or not paying attention.

Attempt to construct a broadly-based coalition. Think about that before the knee-jerk rejection of a demand to recall the Saskatchewan Legislature.

Lastly, and this pains me greatly…be more like Doug Ford.

Ford and his Comms shop are killing it. They are consistent, on message, relevant and as such, are making a difference.

https://www.thestar.com/entertainment/doug-ford-american-tv-star-how-our-premier-is-beating-donald-trump-at-his-own/article_44a1e964-f9ef-11ef-8837-8f6560ebd564.html

Give this guy a call, and ask for some help.

Properly played, Saskatchewan Potash can be bigger than Justin Bieber and Meghan Markle.

If it’s one thing Americans understand it’s food and the need for a ready and inexpensive supply.

Just look at what’s going on with eggs.

Saskatchewan can be the story. But you have to know what you’re doing.

For the life of me, I can’t seem to sort out the aggregate political benefit behind Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe’s tepid reaction to Donald Trump’s introduction, withdrawal (and potential re-introduction) of tariffs against Canada and Mexico.

Politicians are many things, but they generally transactional on the whole. They will seldom take stupid positions that cost them votes. By failing to mirror the rapid, decisive and significant measures introduced by his Council of the Federation colleagues in other provinces, Premier Moe may be maintaining his right-wing base. However, he risks alienating a groundswell of Canadian nationalism and those Saskatchewan voters fond of putting their province first. It just doesn’t make any sense to me.

Some have chosen to compare Moe’s response to the historical avatar to appeasement in the face of bullying, Neville Chamberlain: https://thestarphoenix.com/opinion/columnists/tank-saskatchewan-could-be-the-strongest-voice-in-american-trade-conflict

Others point to the folly of accepting at face value Trump’s rationale for the tariffs, suggesting change to Canada’s Criminal Code might be far more effective than the appointment of something as nebulous as a “fentanyl Tsar”.https://leaderpost.com/opinion/columnists/mandryk-moes-disappointment-with-trump-tariffs-far-too-tepid-appeasing.

As Mr. Mandryk points out, the very notion of attempting to appease Donald Trump is folly:

The Premier’s chief apologists attempted to deflect critics of the tepid tariffs response by highlighting Moe’s efforts to diversify the province’s export markets.

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dalerichardsonsk_saskatchewan-continues-to-go-global-with-activity-7292589227408535552-3fwd/

Yes, but….

….on the one hand, these efforts started well before Moe’s residency in Rm. 226. On the other hand, these efforts under Moe’s supervision have not been all that successful:

So, the fundamental question remains: Scott Moe has shown no hesitation to come off the bench on various and sundry issues. Why not this, particularly given the conspicuous political advantages of a more aggressive response? I have two potential answers: one from an expert in UK politics, the other is my own.

Polly Mackenzie was a Chief of Staff to Nick Clegg in the coalition government with the Conservatives. In a recent Times of London podcast, Mackenzie had an important reminder to political observers: Politicians don’t think like normal people. They are fiercely tribal, and party loyalty means more than anything. In this context, Moe may believe his loyalty to the Saskatchewan Party’s dominant narrative, his loyalty to the Premier of Alberta and his hatred of the federal Liberal government are simply more important than throwing his lot in with those advocating a more aggressive response. According to Mackenzie, the issues matter quite a bit more to ordinary voters while loyalty beats all other considerations for political leaders.

Most of politics is dominated by hyper-partisan thinking. Tribal loyalties matter more than the substantive issues…I think it’s fundamental to all observers of politics to note how important tribal loyalty is. And I think for voters, the issues matter quite a lot more”.

(How to Win an Election Podcast, 04 Feb 2025. Times of London, 23 min mark.)

My possible answer may be less prosaic but arguably equally worthy of consideration. The current Premier of Saskatchewan may have simply checked out. The job is onerous. He may actively be considering departure sooner as opposed to later. Given that, he just may not be interested in expending the energy and political capital on one more big fight. The tepid response may be just a symptom of fatigue.

Something to consider.

Despite the 30 day suspension, the tariffs story is far from over. We will be dealing with this story–or ones just like it, again and again over the next few years.

To end on a positive note, at least this week has highlighted Canada and Saskatchewan’s importance to US agriculture and the energy sector. Even Senator Chuck Grassley ( R-IA) was awakened from his normal geriatric slumber long enough to conclude potash was important to corn producers in the great state of Iowa and maybe he should be asking for a tariff exemption.

Grassley pleads for potash exemption from Trump Canada tariffs

Like Emerson, the people of Saskatchewan are thankful for such small mercies.