The Common Sense Revolution

The Common Sense Revolution (CSR) platform was significant for a number of important reasons. From a content perspective, it was by far the most comprehensive policy framework to be offered in advance of an election by an Opposition Party in Canada…ever. And it was published more than 12 months before that election, so all candidates were nominated fully aware of the platform they would be running on. From a marketing perspective, it involved creating a unique and distinct “brand” for the Harris campaign (separate from the traditional Progressive Conservative Party label). The branding success was enhanced by the printing and distribution of more than 2.5 million copies – supplemented by more than 250,000 videocassettes(!) dropped in key polls in target ridings. Finally, from a results perspective, the “CSR” was the means by which Mike Harris took a 30-point polling deficit and converted it into a landslide electoral victory…in just 6 weeks!

The biggest reason the Common Sense Revolution platform is still remembered decades later, is because – unlike most political campaign promises/platforms – once elected, Premier Harris diligently implemented the policy content of the platform (including big cuts to government spending and substantial tax cuts) exactly as promised. Harris was re-elected in the 1999 election, despite all the controversies of the time, precisely because “he did what he said he would do”.

The Common Sense Revolution platform was much more than just a marketing brochure. The content for the platform was developed by Mike Harris and his caucus over a period of almost 5 years, drawing on input from a large number of “grassroots policy councils” made up of volunteers with special interest in a specific policy area. Ideas were tested in public Town Halls involving external stakeholders. The whole process meant that when CSR promises were implemented, more often than not, they worked! The recently published essay collection – The Harris Legacy – illustrates this point quite powerfully…we encourage you to order a copy!

Honestly, the answer to that is Yes. Giving political opponents time to determine their response to policy proposals (e.g. adopt or oppose) is generally argued to be unwise as a campaign strategy. In the case of Mike Harris though, being stuck in third place in the polls for so long meant that higher risk strategies were seen as the only way to change the political “narrative”. And, in the case of Ontario at that time, the consequences of the severe 1990-93 recession and the strong realization among voters that the province needed “major change” to turn things around, created a strong appetite for new ideas – something that Harris successfully capitalized on with his CSR platform.

Every campaign is different…so every winning campaign needs a strategy that is designed to meet the specific needs of the electorate at the time of the election. In 1995, the province was looking for new leadership with new ideas. So, the policy-forward strategy embodied in the CSR worked to meet that need. Not every Campaign will have such an environment. But, there is no doubt that articulating a clear platform of policy intent can help voters make informed decisions. And it has the added benefit of making “hidden agenda” attacks less compelling.