With Bob Rae’s departure from the race, Michael Ignatieff’s has realized the second of the goals he set for himself when he returned to Canada in the autumn of 2005. First came his election to Parliament and next he embarks on his quest for the office of prime minister.
On his return, two major negatives blocked Iganatieff’s advance. The first was the bad optics of a man coming home to become prime minister after decades out of the country. The idea of a jump from Harvard to 24 Sussex Drive without a period reacquainting himself with Canadians screamed arrogance. That negative has receded with the passage of time.
His second negative was that he enthusiastically endorsed the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. No decision of the federal government during this decade has been as popular with Canadians as the refusal to make Canada a partner in George W. Bush’s “coalition of the willing.” In a mea culpa in the New York Times Magazine in the summer of 2007, Michael Ignatieff acknowledged that he had been wrong about Iraq.
His change of position left unclear his view of the role of the American Empire in the world. It was that positive take on the American Empire---elaborated in his book Empire Lite and in numerous articles---that lay behind Ignatieff’s initial support for the invasion of Iraq. What we don’t know as yet is whether Ignatieff changed his mind on Iraq only because he concluded that the Bush administration had so badly bungled the occupation, or because he has developed a more critical view of the role of the American Empire in the world. That matters. As was the case for his predecessors, should Ignatieff become prime minister, he will have to formulate a position on Canadian-American relations. Will he support a competently run American Empire---say, under the leadership of Barack Obama----or will he want to fashion a much more independent Canadian role in the world? Could he evolve a view that is more critical of the very idea of empire?
In the immediate future, the new Liberal leader, having acquired his position without the seasoning that goes with having fought for it (unless you count his less than stellar run for the job the last time), will need to cope with three immediate challenges.
First, he has to deal with the fact that he is one of the MPs who signed the letter to the Governor General saying that he no longer has confidence in the Harper government. If he chooses to try to influence the Harper Budget and later decides to support it, thereby voting confidence in the Conservative government, he will have lost any chance to assume office on the basis of a later non-confidence motion. Then the only way ahead would be through a federal election. And if he walks away from the coalition with the NDP and the deal with the Bloc, he will have to assume responsibility for the economic record of the Harper government. The way Ignatieff copes with this set of questions will tells us whether he is an adroit politician in addition to being an accomplished intellectual.
Second, he needs to work to repair the rupture between English Canada and Quebec that has been provoked by Stephen Harper’s totally irresponsible tactic of castigating the legitimacy of Quebec’s MPs in the House of Commons as a way to undermine the coalition. The effects of Harper’s attack on the “separatists” is already clear in the re-energized Parti Quebecois which has formed a much larger opposition to the Liberals as a result of the Quebec election than was thought likely a few days ago. And the PQ is no longer hiding the goal of sovereignty from public view.
Third, Ignatieff needs to alert the country to the tremendous danger of letting the United States to move ahead with a deal with the Big Three auto companies without Canada having worked out a position of it own to ensure the long-term future of the industry on this side of the border. If the U.S. proceeds with an All-American plan for the auto industry without an offsetting Canadian plan to go into effect at the same time, our auto industry will face greater risks than at any time since the Canada-U.S. Auto Pact was launched in 1965.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
30 comments:
Two Harpers for the price of one.
.Skinny Dipper: Right ON!!
Pretty horrible to find ourselves here after the brief elation of reading "Harper Must Resign" in the editorial pages of the Globe and Mail.
Two Harpers for the price of one.
No doubt we will be paying for this (cough) human rights professor at Harvard (there's a paradox) in the time to come.
What is Canada's military budget anyways?
Thanks MLJ. If there were only two parties--Harper's Cons and Iggy's Libs--I wouldn't know which one to vote for. My problem with Iggy is that he doesn't demonostrate to me any democratic enlightenment. At least Harper has his phony Senate reform.
Ditto thanks to Eric.
No brainer - vote for Ignatieff. While Ignatieff is flawed in many respects, Harper is a right-wing ideologue, a bully, has shown an inability to work with others, and is the worst prime minister in Canadian history. Never forget the reasons we have a coalition in the first place.
It has boiled down to the choice of Bay Street red or Bay Street blue and the people of Canada up the flue.
While Ignatieff is flawed in many respects, Harper is a right-wing ideologue,
I love to hear what you think that Ignatieff's ideals really are.
We know Ignatieff is hawkish compared to Jean Chrétien (I. supported the Iraq-war wholeheartedly while C. opposed it from the get-go) and that Liberals in general are not opposed to some "well-meaning torture", both questionable positions for a human rights professor (if you ask me).
But I haven't been able to find much consistency that would suggest ideals: Anyone?
Jack!s got ideals, Rae does, even Harper does (progressives don't tend to like them, but that's another issue).
Am I asking simply too much?
I never suggest Ignatieff was an ideal choice. I'm saying that basically anyone would be better than Harper, which they would. Surely you agree that if you placed both Ignatieff and Harper on the political spectrum, Harper would be to the right.
And yes, Harper does have principles, I'll give him that. His princples though I just too strongly oppose.
basically anyone would be better than Harper
I'm sure we can all find people that are worse than Harper. I also find it poor rationale for selecting him. I'm surprised (or perhaps not) that you're unable to name any "ideals"; do we really know that little about Mr. Ignatieff?
Surely you agree that if you placed both Ignatieff and Harper on the political spectrum, Harper would be to the right.
I have to disagree again (, sorry). Firstly you imply that the left-right spectrum is two dimensional, which it clearly not. What I am sure about is that both men will have issues different takes on issues, and that some some of Ignatieff's future measures (may the Lord be with us) certainly can be explained as more right-wing than some of the Conservative's approaches. Examples? Issues such as free speech, supporting big business with bail-outs, and of course torture.
Secondly we DON'T know where Ignatieff stands on many important issues.
Yes, Harper is pretty bad (although we've been fortunate that he hasn't been able to "destroy things" as much as Bush did in his home country or abroad), but Ignatieff, who knows?
I'd rather not find out.
I read Ignatieff’s New York Times Magazine apology for supporting the war on Iraq, and it was as close as you can come to not apologizing without actually saying “I didn’t do anything wrong.” As I recall, he didn’t say anything that could be interpreted as distancing himself from his support for the doctrine of American exceptionalism.
It’s hard to imagine he’s the man for the job of repairing the damage by Harper’s attack on the Bloc MPs’ legitimacy, given the views he articulated about Québec nationalist aspirations in his book Blood and Belonging.
I have to confess that I find the man a cipher. On one hand, he was director of Harvard's Carr Center for Human Rights Policy. On the other, he’s an apologist for U.S. torture and extraordinary rendition.
He recognizes that on moral issues Canada is closer to European views than American ones, and that our political culture has been socially democratic, but he seems to favour closer integration into the U.S. polity. How do we reconcile these contradictions?
Ignatieff's values remain a mystery to me and many others. His career suggests for the most part he was a lefty of sorts, maybe even in the Axworthy camp of thought. The article on the Iraq war seems to have changed things.
I have yet to hear Ignatieff speak on any social policy position. I hope for the best with little comfort in the fact he would be better than Harper.
In response to Anne-marie, we just don't liberal - to me it's that simple. If Iggy gets in bed with Harper, no matter what spin the libs put out, and "cut and run" on the coalition of 62%, we have the answer.
Changing from blue to red ties, is just changing ties.
Now that Ignatieff is taking on the leadership, perhaps our beloved media won't be seduced by his intellectual charm. We need to brush up on his published ideas and challenge his thinking every step of the way. We need to be tougher on our elected officials.
Regarding the auto-industry, am I the only one who thinks they should fall?
Considering how long they've been pumping out cars that exploit our resources, poison our air and helped them make a profit for shareholders.
Why not take half the loan money and give the workers a tax-free package? Their skills could easily be put into green industries.
LeonT
This article in the Winnipeg Sun reveals the strategy that Harper is deploying: pealing Iggy away from the coalition to govern with the Cons.
http://www.winnipegsun.com/News/Canada/2008/12/10/7691556-sun.html
It is clear that Iggy wants "concessions" in the budget to avoid an election and alliance with the NDP.
He will sell out the progressive cause because he is a truly unprogressive person.
Yes, I'm sure we can all find people worse than Harper, but I also hope that you understood the meaning of my comment, that among current viable candidates for PM, Harper is the worst. Yes, it is true we know little about Ignatieff. I think there may be a very small chance that he could be as bad as or worse than Harper. I think that's extremely unlikely, and I am willing to take the chance.
The argument we know little about Ignatieff doesn't fly with me. That also means he could end up that he could end up being more progressive than we hope for. He has made some troubling statements in his academic career, but not nearly as troubling to me as the multitude of far-right statements made by Harper as head of NCC and opposition leader.
It looks like the NDP MPs at least are still talking coalition.
The argument we know little about Ignatieff doesn't fly with me.
The things we do know don't look all that promising.
It looks like the NDP MPs at least are still talking coalition.
There's always hope.
I find myself agreeing with 10:14 AM, Anonymous Anonymous who said, Now that Ignatieff is taking on the leadership, perhaps our beloved media won't be seduced by his intellectual charm. We need to brush up on his published ideas and challenge his thinking every step of the way. We need to be tougher on our elected officials.
I remember a friend being repulsed by my slamming of Iggy when he entered the Liberal leadership race last time. She's a progressive and had read a lot of his work -- all, it turns out, but the bit where he supported the invasion of Iraq. It has me thinking that perhaps there is hope for him. After all, he does have to keep his caucus happy, not to mention those in the grassroots who lean left. (Though why they're in the Liberal Party is beyond my comprehension...)
Regina mom, I love how you're a glass half full person.
Me, I am a heartless cynic. It was only after reading Michael Valpy's in-depth article that I discovered that he supported Thatcher's union squashing ways. And that alone does not bode well with an economic recession upon us.
The other thing that worries me about Ignatieff is his views on nationhood versus statehood. In Blood and Belonging he was emphatic about his belief that not all nations need their own state. My guess is he’d argue that there’s room for a nation called Canada in a larger North American state. There is, of course, the way there’s room for a mouse in a boa constrictor.
Ignatieff is the kind of intellectual who will have a hard time becoming a beloved and effective leader. He likely suspects that dealing with ideas is superior to dealing with people and things. We need those who choose to be leaders to be intelligent, but they need to want to work in ideas as well as the with nuts and bolts of daily life. If Ignatieff cannot transcend (or perhaps in his view sink into the muck) the barriers of intellectuallism, he will remain as ineffective as Dion. Ignatieff was lured into his support of the the Iraq War because he prefers to spend his time with a closed group which includes people like Hitchens, people who advance our society's dialogue of the most important topics of our time. But they're people not known for getting their hands dirty. And for me, this is why it's a shame that a person who is comfortable in more than one world like Rae didn't get a chance to lead...but it's not over yet.
I think the best way to understand Ignatieff, whether as public intellectual or as politician, is to look at his ancestry, both in Russia and in Canada.
First off, on his paternal (Ignatiev) side, he comes from such a long line of politicians, diplomats, and courtiers that the mind boggles. And on his maternal side (Grant), the famous book, written by his uncle or great-uncle, I believe, is Lament For a Nation.
What does this all have to do with Iggy himself? Well, it explains his gnomic way of speaking, his fascination with empire, and his uncomfortable juxtaposition of state, nation, and public policy.
Some of this applies to the theoretician; but some also to politics. On the practical side, of course, we are reminded how inexperienced he is. But his obvious parliamentary skills and the speed with which he secured the Liberal party leadership, admittedly at a supremely inauspicious moment, bode well.
This is becoming a bit more of a paean than I intended.
Let me end by recalling Trudeau. He too was a bit of an enigma when he assumed office, at times acted inconsistently with his apparent beliefs (the October crisis comes to mind), disappointed both the right and the "left" (does anyone beside me remember what a joke the Canadian nationalists c. 1980 considered the Foreign Investment Review Agency), had a very spotty record economically (though apparently did his best to understand the orthodox economics in the final stages of Keynesianism), was both loved and hated... And 25 years commands awe or at the very least profound respect.
I don't mean at all to suggest Ignatieff is Trudeau. But I do mean to say that if he did hang in, and, one way or another, gained and more importantly kept power, I suspect he too would have been a maddeningly ambiguous PM with the potential for something great. If, that is, he learned along the way practical politics as well as did Trudeau.
Alex, I’m sure we all hope for the best, but I can’t be the only one wondering what these obvious parliamentary skills you refer to consist of.
The rest reads like, well, a show dog’s pedigree. No one could object to a tradition of service to country, but there’s a suggestion here of some kind of entitlement, as if we should recognize that he’s a member of some naturally constituted governing class.
The comparison to Trudeau is odd, considering that whatever else people did or did not appreciate about the man, his commitment to Canadian autonomy was never in question.
Anne-Marie, with all due respect, it's wrong to look at Ignatieff's family history as a show-dog pedigree.
I dare say I have as much trouble with Ignatieff's writings as you and many others seem to. I can imagine two reasons for this.
Perhaps Ignatieff has chosen to play a game of theoretical discourse, to play with trendy academic controversies within the standard vocabulary. But then opaqueness triumps utterly.
There is a simpler psychological explanation, unfashionable as it may be. By way of analogy, consider Trudeau again. Though he devoted a lot of thought to what he called sociological nations within a state, he rejected utterly the Quebecois as a distinct nation within Canada. In this he did not represent, I think, either the common "French" or "Anglo" point of view. But, on the other hand, he was in fact a show-dog mix, to use your expression, of French and Anglo stock, unlike most Canadians, for whom the two solitudes have never vanished. In the same way, a very Russian political universalism collides in Ignatieff with a very Canadian univesalist humanism, pruducing, as regards torture and american-century projects, jarring results.
I believe, however, that I've read or seen Ignatieff disavow torture entirely, and say that his Iraq position was the biggest mistake of his life, after he returned to Canada. I'm sorry I can't give a more precise reference. In the end, his apparent turnaround is why I overcome my misgivings for now.
Ignatieff's press conference and interviews in the last 24 hours demonstrate his skill at playing the diplomatic/political game.
Lastly, as regards Trudeau, his commitment to Canadian autonomy was only beyond doubt in his last term. I doubt he would have been as committed without Reaganism/Thatcherism to contend with.
I think you misinterpreted my reference to a show dog’s pedigree. The point I was making was that you drew our attention to Ignatieff’s lineage, but gave no indication of why you think it should reassure us. You still haven’t.
This isn’t being pissy. The perception that what motivates the LPC is a presumed entitlement to govern explains why the Liberal brand is at an all-time low.
I don’t doubt that Ignatieff has the suppleness and subtlety of mind to play the diplomatic/political game. I just don’t care. If the LPC can’t evolve into something more than how the ascendancy amuses (and perpetuates) itself, it’s simply undeserving of our support.
Maybe there really has been a sea change in his thinking about torture and American imperial ambitions, but I need evidence, not vague claims.
Anne-Marie
"Pissy" is a strange word. I hope I'm neither annoying you nor taxing the patience of Mr. Laxer. :)
Point by point.
a) I never took Ignatieff's lineage as a reassurance; only as an explanation of where his thoughts might be coming from.
What reassured me is the fact that he has recognized some of his thoughts have been wrong. (see below).
b) I don't believe the LPC as a whole has any more of an attitude of entitlement to power than any other party (well, except the BQ, maybe). Forgive the platitude: all parties look for power by any (so far in Canada, legal) means; CPC wants to hold on, NDP and Libs may or may not form the coalition, they all compete for cotes, etc., and it certainly gets ugly; so what?
c) I don't think the Lib brand is any lower than it was in 1984, when the sainted Trudeau left. That's saying something, BTW.
d) As regards being worthy of support, I suspect yours is very firmly a bit left of the Liberals. Fine, by all means. The reason I support the Libs is exactly that they have no ideology, but balance "left" and "right" interests. But let's not devolve into campaigning here.
e) You've written that you don't like the tone of Ignatieff's NY Times "repentance", but the following paragraph is what reassures me most:
"The people who truly showed good judgment on Iraq predicted the consequences that actually ensued but also rightly evaluated the motives that led to the action. They did not necessarily possess more knowledge than the rest of us. They labored, as everyone did, with the same faulty intelligence and lack of knowledge of Iraq’s fissured sectarian history. What they didn’t do was take wishes for reality. They didn’t suppose, as President Bush did, that because they believed in the integrity of their own motives everyone else in the region would believe in it, too. They didn’t suppose that a free state could arise on the foundations of 35 years of police terror. They didn’t suppose that America had the power to shape political outcomes in a faraway country of which most Americans knew little. They didn’t believe that because America defended human rights and freedom in Bosnia and Kosovo it had to be doing so in Iraq. They avoided all these mistakes."
Cut through the long words, and he is saying that he should have been more practical. As long as politician says that, I am already impressed. If you are not, the choice is yours.
(f) As regards torture: http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7374 contains a pretty definitive statement, although you will probably wish it were more simply put. Oh well:
"So I end up supporting an absolute and unconditional ban on both torture and those forms of coercive interrogation that involve stress and duress, and I believe that enforcement of such a ban should be up to the military justice system plus the federal courts. I also believe that the training of interrogators can be improved by executive order and that the training must rigorously exclude stress and duress methods."
But somehow I don't think I've persuaded you. :)
I am not at all surprised by the betrayal of the anti-war movement by the NDP's sudden switch to a pro-war position. I am surprised at the silence of the movement that just got shafted. I have long avoided antiwar rallies due to a sensitive gag reflex whenever these NDP hustlers came out to talk their nonsense.
Surely though someone should be responding in outrage and protest to this latest outrageous act of treachery by the No Difference Party? Taliban Jack's email is layton.j@parl.gc.ca
http://www.canadaeast.com/news/article/500862
or maybe they don't care enough to think it matters. Thank heavens for the Mujahideen!
Post a Comment