Michael Ignatieff, is that you?
POILIEVRE IS AN ACOLYTE OF AUTHORITARIAN POPULISM. — FRANK GRAVES
‘I’m not sure anyone in Canada is certain that emergency powers were necessary to dislodge the truckers up on Parliament Hill. These radical environmentalists all insist that the climate emergency creates a situation analogous to wartime or a terrorist attack or a natural disaster, requiring the use of emergency powers and the suspension of democratic accountability. I think the ‘wicked problem’ is this — the utter impasse that has arisen between those who continue to believe in democratic deliberation with all its infuriating slowness … and those who believe the end is nigh and that those who fail to see it are wilfully blind.”
This analysis was made during an April 12 online symposium, A Wicked Problem: Individual Freedoms and Climate Change, at the University of British Columbia’s Okanagan campus. (Harley Sims, an editor and civil liberties reporter with the digital media platform True North, included these quotes in a recent piece.) It’s not only a superb critique of radical environmentalism and key figures like Swedish activist Greta Thunberg, but also identifies the inherently anti-democratic nature of this movement.
Who should we credit for making this impressive and rather astute assessment? Michael Ignatieff. Hold on. The Harvard and Central European University professor and author? The leader of Canada’s Official Opposition from 2008 to 2011? The former Liberal leader who oversaw the party’s worst-run campaign and election result (34 seats) in its 161-year history? The politician whom Conservatives liked to say was “just visiting” in their ad campaigns, and who was never able to overcome this perception?
Yes, that Michael Ignatieff. Well, then. To paraphrase Joseph B. Geoghegan’s 19th-century song, “Michael, we hardly knew ye.”
Ah, but that’s not wholly accurate, either.
Conservatives have spoken highly of Ignatieff as a person and an intellectual thinker. He wasn’t onside when it came to cherished principles like small government, low taxes and more individual rights and freedoms, but he also wasn’t a tax-and-spend Liberal like Justin Trudeau and he realized that the government had to be somewhat financially prudent to succeed. He was pleased to witness the economic collapse of Communism, but noted that “as a model of state domination, it is very much alive in the People’s Republic of China and in Putin’s police state.”
Ignatieff was one of only a few Liberals and political progressives who supported then-conservative prime minister Stephen Harper’s extension of Canada’s mission in Afghanistan. He also endorsed a carbon tax under then-liberal leader Stéphane Dion, realized it was a political and economic failure, and took a more realistic (albeit imperfect) stance of a cap-and-trade system when he assumed the mantle.
As well, Ignatieff didn’t express support for thenu.s. president George W. Bush and the Iraq War, but he took a balanced approach on the war on terrorism. As he noted in The Lesser Evil: Political Ethics in an Age of Terror (2004), a book of six lectures, “defeating terror requires violence.” He also mentioned it may “require coercion, secrecy, deception, even violation of rights.” Indeed, he pointed out that “to defeat evil, we may have to traffic in evils: indefinite detention of suspects, coercive interrogations, targeted assassinations, even preemptive war.”
When you consider these older positions, and his swatting of the radical environmentalist movement’s backside, no wonder Conservatives were gobsmacked by his lousy campaign in 2011. We would have never voted for him, of course — but the man who made these types of statements would have performed far better had he been truly allowed to express his viewpoints.
Instead, it appears that Ignatieff was hamstrung by his political handlers. He was dry, wooden, uncreative and unmistakably rigid on the campaign trail. He was an easy target for campaign ads and during campaign stops. He made the task of winning a majority much easier for the Harper Conservatives, and nearly decimated his party in one fell swoop.
In many ways, Ignatieff’s zombielike performance was similar to Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole’s 1996 campaign. The longtime U.S. politician had a real sense of humour and a Midwest sensibility that could easily draw in supporters from both sides of the aisle. Alas, his handlers decided to present him as an elder statesman who was dry, wooden and humourless. It made the task of running against then-u.s. president Bill Clinton’s gregarious personality and energetic demeanour nearly impossible.
When a politician’s true personality is hidden by well-meaning campaign strategists for fear it could alienate large segments of the voting public, it can also have the opposite effect. Ignatieff, like Dole, likely wasn’t able to speak his mind on various issues and probably doubted his natural ability to discuss outsidethe-box topics with a Liberal audience. If this hadn’t happened, his one chance of becoming prime minister could have been different — or far less painful, anyway.
Ignatieff the “old,” meet Ignatieff the “new.” I know which one I like better.