The question is not, what does Michael Ignatieff stand for? It is, what does he stand for now? It is not, what would he do in government? It is, what would he do differently?
Seldom has any political candidate entered public life with so much of his philosophy already on the record: with 15 books and countless newspaper and magazine articles to his name, Ignatieff’s life is one long paper trail. Yet four years after his return to Canada and five months after becoming the de facto Liberal leader, he remains an enigma, aided in no small part by his penchant for disowning previously held positions when they prove controversial.
His support for the invasion of Iraq? That was in his former life as a cloistered academic. As a practising politician, he would later write in the New York Times, he can no longer afford “the luxury of entertaining ideas that are merely interesting.”
His enthusiastic embrace, during his 2006 campaign for party leader, of the carbon tax? In the wake of the party’s crushing defeat at the polls last October, that, too, is no longer operative: “You’ve got to work with the grain of Canadians, and not against them.”
Or take the set of apparently serious proposals for “nation-building” advanced in his latest work, True Patriot Love: for a high-speed rail line from Quebec City to Windsor; for widening the Trans-Canada Highway to four lanes, coast-to-coast; for a “national energy strategy” aimed at diverting the flow of oil and hydroelectricity from north-south to east-west.
Oh, that. Well, he wasn’t necessarily advocating any of these, you understand. They were just ideas. “It’s not a political manifesto,” he told a CBC interviewer. “It’s not the platform of the Liberal party.”
So it is with much of Ignatieff’s oeuvre. They are views. But they are not positions. As a writer, and as an expatriate, living abroad for most of his adult life, he has not had to dig in behind a policy (Iraq is perhaps the exception), to defend it in the searing heat of a political campaign, repeating it over and over again until it stamps itself on the public mind as a part of who he is. Even the 2006 leadership campaign was largely an intra-party affair, while his later, successful bid for the leadership was carried out entirely behind closed doors. That is why, notwithstanding his abundant writings, he remains a blank slate for most Canadians.
That may be about to change—at his press conference following last weekend’s convention, Ignatieff said the party would have a detailed, costed platform ready by next month. But there is little to suggest it will signal any brave departures—from received wisdom, from Liberal orthodoxy, from the status quo, or, in many respects, from the Conservatives.
Print
Comment
This is silly – who out there has not change their feelings on various matters as they matured and learned new things throughout their life?
Unfortunately, there is this notion in politics (usually held by Conservatives), that when you say something, it becomes carved in stone and you must be held to it for life. Anyone who believes this is a hypocrite, yet you see politicians attacked for it all the time…by hypocrites of course. Again, everyone changes their opinions over the years…and those who disagree are liars. Everyone’s liars of course..but that’s another story.
Michael Ignatieff’s biggest problem may be that he comes from academic circles where it is quite common to muse about, or express ideas for the purpose of discussion, but not to be treated as set in stone for life. Personally, I like this in a politician…he’s willing to explore all avenues before making a decision, and doesn’t mind speaking about it. Unfortunately, this makes it easy to take bits out of context for attack ads….. I really hope Canadians can see through it this time. Ignatieff is far better at geting his points across than Dion was.
I agree that politicians (and everyone) should be allow to change their minds and views on matters of import, and I profoundly respect those that do and articulate why. Sometimes a simple “I was wrong” is all that is necessary. It can be the mark of a true leader.
That said, I am having a great deal of difficulty figuring out where Ignatieff stands on anything. He has certainly failed, in every way, to hold the Conservative government accountable for their recent horrible behavior in matters of human rights and citizenship. For someone who claims to be an advocate, academic, and authority on human rights and freedom of speech, Ignatieff has been very silent as an opposition leader.
Perhaps that job is beneath him, for he gives every indication that he is simply waiting to become the next Prime Minister of Canada.
my hope? that Mr. Ignatieff stands for representing Canada as i expect of our politicians.
I don’t have problems with people changing their minds – however lets have a level playing field on this – when Iggy changes his mind it is portrayed in the media as a transformation after deep thought and reflection that yielded to insight for a better future for Canadians. However when Harper changes his mind – it is because he is evil and deceptive and only looking for power.
Fair enough. But when do we ever see a politician change his mind in a politically inconvenient way? You’d think if Iggy or any other active politician changed his mind out of genuine conviction, he would be led away from the coveted median voter as often as not.
If the Liberal platform isn’t expected to stray from Liberal orthodoxy then why does it matter whether we know anything about Iggy?
Many of the criticisms in your article of Iggy, particularly the economic ones, would be perfectly appropriate if he were the leader of the Conservative Party. But he’s not. He’s the leader of the Liberal Party and is seeking to be a Liberal Prime Minister. Now that Harper has turned out to have been such a great disappointment to you, I think you’re projecting just a wee bit.
projection is modus operandi for the Fake-Conservative element in this country.
The guy just wants to be liked, that’s why he always says what he wants you to hear, I don’t want a leader without COJONES!
Ideology favors consistency, but consistency with what, Mr. Coyne? If the consistency is self-referential to the ideology, rather than consistency with the mechanisms and textures and crosscurrents of reality, then ideological consistency is not a good thing.
The trouble with ideologues (including you and your obsession with libertarian capitalism) is that they get angry at reality for failing to conform to their preconceived, clean, contradictions-scrubbed, rigid little cloudcuckooland systems. Mr. Ignatieff is a principled pragmatist, and the Liberal Party is the party of interest brokerage. If it had a motto, it might be, “reconciliez”. Don’t go looking for rigid ideological positions in a Liberal leader. And don’t go assuming that this sort of rigidity is desirable in any Canadian PM. We have to accommodate both Alberta and Quebec, Toronto and Moose Jaw, Lotusland and Jesusland. Our country is far too diverse to be forced into an ideological straitjacket without all kinds of springs popping and bolts falling off.
http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/Introduction–The-dictatorship-of-relativism-3981
Because relativism and appeasement have worked oh so well.
i like the “principled” modifier. pragamatism without principles is the tactic of the psycho- and socio-path.
IG NOBLE
Michael Ignatieff’s numerous inconsistencies, fallacies, and hypocrisies make him the most illogical and farcical of the Prime Ministerial contenders, whenever the next election shall be.
He is almost certain to win.
Canadian culture has endured a constant “greying” as of late, and it has nothing to do with age. We have come to the point where the only thing we value is being soft-spoken when it comes to values. The crowds respond unfavourably to candidates who suggest any issue is “black or white”, always failing to realize that to say, “everything is relative”, is an absolute statement.
Canada’s is a culture in which people are denounced as “extremists” without any evaluation being made as to [italics] what they are “extreme” about. Politicians maintaining any consistent positions is “ideological” – and automatically disquallifying.
Our only acceptable politics is pragmatism, the only method, expediency.
We are the people who want to have our cake, eat it too, and give 80% of it to the CAW. We want our markets free and our labour protected. We want our products cheap and our wages high. We want our services increased and our taxes lowered. We want to make the world a peaceful place without intervening militarily. And, most of all, we want our politicians to be of the best and brightest and to show absolutely no signs of elitism.
And this is where we come to Michael’s Ig-chilles’ heel. Like your bank, Michael Ignatieff’s greatest assets are actually his greatest liabilities. He is an intellectual, you might say a thinking “extremist”, and as such is a completely untenable candidate for Prime Minister.
So, in order to avoid looking like a pompous Ig head, Mr. Ignatieff has to disregard his academic accomplishments, refute his previous works, and dismiss his real opinions, in order to be appear in no way intellectually superior to the average voter.
So far, mission accomplished.
And this is where Iggy has succeeded. His positions have become so demonstrably incompatible that Canadians can rest assured that he is not ideological, indeed, he doesn’t appear to be anything logical. He is the greyest leader of the greyest party. The only thing he stands for, is sitting.
In short, he is beginning to look like everything we want our politicians to be: resolutely undecided, uniquely average, flagrantly unremarkable, intractably malleable, fervently tranquil, devoutly moderate, extremely middling, specifically vague, particularly imprecise, absolutely amorphous, distinctly common, superlatively mediocre, invariably inconsistent, and very, [italics] very, ordinary.
One can imagine a scene in which Michael Ignatieff address a crowd of Canadian voters:
[Iggy to crowd]: What do we want?
[crowd responds]: Whatever will result in the least amount of contention.
[Iggy to crowd]: When do we want it?
[crowd responds]: Whenever’s convenient.
I love the recent spate of liberal apologists doing their level best to smooth over Iggy’s wrinkles employing the ol school classic of making a purse out of the sows ear. Andrew has some good points but the canadian voter hasn’t had the opportunity to get to know Iggy that well yet as after all the voter didn’t even see a leadership race or single debate of even a decent speech that actually said anything instead we got a liberal love in about as fulfilling as a dinner of marshmallows. I think it was a mistake that the party in the future will come to seriously regret usually after a leadership convention you get a nice little bump in the polls and then you do your best to turn it into a trend – apparently not this time though!
i like that Mr. Ignatieff has wrinkles; he looks human; not like a Manchurian Candidate.
it will be interesting to see if the same amount of scrutiny is allowed of PMStephen. fair is fair.
It may to some appear that Mr Ignatieff is somewhat ambiguous on what he stands or does not stand for, then again he is the leader of the opposition not the PM of Canada.
It appears to many on what Mr. Harper stands for – though he spins a good yarn……..he stands for: Power at any cost, ruthlessness, never accept blame for anything but rather blame it all on your opponents. He gives me the impression that if you are not a Conservative with the same philosophical ideology, the you are not a Canadian, or a much disliked one. Great way to run a Country don’t you think????
It is not that I personally dislike Conservatives, it’s the leader that I have a profound dislike for along with some of his attack dog cronies. You can look to the past all you like and state that they did this or that , then why can’t we…..but in the end, two wrongs don’t make a right.
yup. Ignatieff’s not stupid.
i dislike any ideologue that blindly follows policy that is to my detriment and that of my fellow citizens. those Fake-Cons (they are not real Progressive Conservatives) turning the blind eye or giving the complicit nod because they have a benefit at our expense have my utter disdain. they are supportive of anti-Canadian policy or they would be like Casey, or Turner or Williams; and countless others who refuse to quiet their consciences and are willing to stand on their own.
Yup….right on….. they are not, nor do they resemble any part of the Progressive Conservatives. Yep…if you try to pull dirty wool over Mr. Williams’ eyes…….get ready for the receipt…… a sharp stick you will be looking at in a quick hurry. Take care