Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

Apropos of nothing (IV)

by Aaron Wherry on Saturday, May 16, 2009 6:40pm - 88 Comments

So we’ve touched on Doug Finley’s life outside Canada, the variety of Conservative MPs who’ve spent time beyond on our borders, the formative years of our most well-travelled prime minister, and the details of what Michael Ignatieff did with those 34 years. And we’ve clarified that no citizen should have his or her commitment to this country questioned on the primary basis of time spent living or working abroad.

Some questions for further discussion.

If the issue is quantity—as the Conservative campaign suggests—of time spent outside Canada, what amount of time is unacceptable? What amount of time would indicate a disqualifying disconnect with the country? Five years? 10 years? 20 years? 30 years?

If the issue is quality—as some readers here have subsequently suggested—of time spent outside Canada, what are acceptable avenues for a prospective Prime Minister to have pursued beyond our borders? What about Michael Ignatieff’s chosen work reflects poorly on him?

Tags: attack ads, Doug Finley, Lester B. Pearson, Michael Ignatieff

More by Aaron Wherry

Dot

Trivial Pursuit, Canadian edition. Winner takes all.
avr

The disqualifying quality and quantity of time abroad is exactly one Ignatieff Unit.

Critical Reasoning

heh. As in “the other party leaders combined have lived abroad for less than 0.2 Ignatieff units.”

http://caiti-online.blogspot.com/ Transcanada

Wayne Gretzky is no less a Canadian for working outside of Canada. Mike Weir ditto. Once Canadians catch on to this shallow Conservative tactic the ads will stall.

Chuck VS Macleans

Link please..

When did Mike Wier and Gretzkey call America there country. And when did they decide to Run for Prime Minster?

A better ex pat to compare Iggy to is Jim Carrey. I wait for Wherry to use Jim Carrey as a example…

Lord Kitchener’s Own

Well, on the “their not running for PM” point, fair enough (though I think that’s a rather lame fig leaf myself), but as for whether or not Gretzky’s ever called America “his country” I think that question became moot the moment he got his American citizenship. As an American citizen, America is Gretzky’s country BY DEFINITION (as is Canada, of course).

I don’t know about Weir, but Carrey is an American citizen as well (and as in the case of Gretzky, more power to him, imho).

avr

I’m sorry, I must have missed their respective ascensions to the leadership of a national political party, and consequent seeking of the office of prime minister.

http://dougsamu.wordpress.com/ dougrogers

These both circle again around the issue of Quality – not the quality of the work, but the quality of his identity. The talking point argument seems to be that he doesn’t qualify because he is ‘American’, or somehow, ‘Not-Canadian’ . The question remains.
dan in van

I definitely don’t think recommending a firewall for one province in confederation is necessarily a disqualifying quality from someone pretending to be a political leader. He or she could promote firewalls for all provinces and territories if they so choose. But i do think that when they try to make deals with separatists, work with separatists and then paint anyone else who talks with separatists as non-democratic argonauts there is definitely some disconnect there.
But hey, I’m not going to go and run a negative ad campaign against him, not even if my family focus group says Harper should be tarred and feathered.

sf

I think it’s neither quality or quantity. It’s the fact that he knows nothing about life in Canada, as an ordinary Canadian citizen. He knows lots about the prisons in the industrial revolution, and he knows lots about espressos and opera, lots about the BBC, and lots about Isaiah Berlin, but he knows very little about the experiences of an ordinary Canadian. If he does know such things, he surely hasn’t shown it, in any way, shape or form.
When he talks, you can tell how little he knows, because he never commits himself to anything he says.

Patrick

good god, “knows nothing about life in Canada, as an ordinary Canadian citizen”

If only ordinary life in Canada was SOOO much different than ordinary life in the US and UK.

Turning this into a Canada is so unique and nobody understands us, whiny teenage fit certainly isn’t helping your case.

sf

Wow, I sure hope Iggy uses your comments during his campaign.

Patrick

Wait… weren’t you the one talking about straw man arguments?
Patrick

no wait you’re right.

Harper is writing a book on hockey, and we all know that Hockey is ubiquitous in “ORDINARY” Canadian lives. He must be the right one to lead us.

avr

You’ve missed the point by rather a lot, although I’m sure you’ll never quite understand how.
Patrick

then please enlighten me on how Iggie “knows nothing about life in Canada.”

http://dougsamu.wordpress.com/ dougrogers

Fallacy: Appeal to Populism
Jenn

Would that be an ordinary Canadian citizen in Moose Jaw, Vancouver, Thunder Bay, Beauharnois, Halifax, Murray Harbour or Yellowknife?

How does any one person, lifelong Canadian resident though they be, know what the ordinary Canadian life is like?

avr

Any one of them. Iggy has little affinity to a resident of any Canadian city who isn’t also a globetrotting academic dilantette.

Jenn

Umm, the guy from Vancouver has little affinity to the woman from Beauharnois, nor she with the fellow from Moose Jaw, nor he with the lady . . .

Or do you mean as long as there is one other Canadian like you, you can aspire to be Prime Minister?

anonymous

SF,

I think this is basically right on–with one important exception.

As you say, the key point is that Mr. Ignatieff’s work abroad doesn’t make him a poor candidate to be Prime Minister, it’s Mr. Ignatieff’s almost total lack of experience or accomplishment in Canadian public affairs and Canadian public policy that makes him a poor candidate to be Prime Minister.

If Michael Ignatieff had all this foreign experience IN ADDITION to years spent working in Canadian business or Canadian government or Canadian public life, I don’ think anyone would flinch at his decision to run for Prime Minister. It’s not that he has foreign experience, it’s not that he has only foreign experience to the exclusion of Canadian experience.

Added to all that is the fact that Michael Ignatieff seems to have moved back to the country–with no such experience–for sole purpose of being annointed Czar of All the Canadas. It’s not as if he said to himself–after years of living abroad–that he wanted to come back home to make a contribution his native land. It’s not as if he set about trying to find a way to that and then–after settling on politics and spending a number of years in elected office–decided he wanted to run for the top job. If that were the case he would not have announced he was running for Prime Minister eight months after moving back to the country and he certainly wouldn’t have said that he planned to go back to Harvard if he didn’t get elected.

The one place where I’d disagree with you SF is that I don’t think Ignatieff “knows nothing about life in Canada”. As your comment suggests, the experiences of oridinary Canadians are–in themselves–quite diverse. No one can hope to understand them all–at least not all that well. But I think it’s fair to say that Ignatieff is out of touch with the numerous realities of life in a country Canada and he doesn’t have the experience in Canadian public policy and public affairs that one would expect in a Prime Minister.

If I were hiring somebody to be the CEO of a car company, I’d want somebody who had experience in the automotive industry or the manufacturing sector or had been the CEO of another large company. In search of a national political leader, I want somebody who has experience on the national issues facing our country. And gvien how much more difficult leading an entire nation is than running a car company, that experience is all the more important.

I wished that journalists like Aaron would take this issue more seriously instead of allowing Liberal spinmeisters to frame the question as a silly “either, or” debate as has been done above.

Critical Reasoning

BINGO. It’s not about how much time Iggy has spent abroad. It’s about how much time Iggy has spent in Canada, despite being born here. Frankly, not enough.

http://dougsamu.wordpress.com/ dougrogers

And Aaron’s question is; How much is enough?

Critical Reasoning

I answered that question in my response to avr. Something less than one Ignatieff Unit.
anonymous

No, Aaron’s questions were “what amount of time is UNACCEPTABLE?”, “[w]hat amount of time would indicate a DISQUALIFYING DISCONNECT with the country?” and “what are ACCEPTABLE avenues for a prospective Prime Minister to have pursued beyond our borders?”

And all of those questions are stupid questions–that no one, except prehaps the Liberals, think go to the heart of the matter.

Again, the point is not that work or time abroad somehow disqualifies someone from being a candidate for the nation’s highest elected office–that would be xenophobic and narrow minded. The point is that while work and experience abroad do not disqualify someone from being Prime Minister, work and time at home ARE a requirement to qualify someone to be Prime Minister–at least in the minds of many Canadians.

Now Doug, in answer to your far more reasonable question, I think the question “How much IS enough?” is quite complicated. For instance, decades spent in the narrow pursuit of private business interests–with no other government or public policy experience–would count for a lot less in my mind than a shorter period of time spent working in the public service or politics or the NGO sector or a private sector non-profit or law since all of those professions have a lot more do with the operation of government than running any one specific type of business.

And don’t misunderstand me, I don’t think business people should be shutout of politics–not by any means; it’s just that they might want to get more than three months experience serving in elected office before they announce their running to be Prime Minister. Experience abroad can also be beneficial. For example, no one is accusing Michael Ignatieff of lacking foreign policy experience and obviously serving in the military or the foreign service is a great way to learn about those aspects of Canadian governance.

But when it comes to Michgael Ignatieff we don’t really need to split all these hairs. Because Michael Ignatieff has almost no experience or involvement in Canadian public affairs at all.
http://dougsamu.wordpress.com/ dougrogers

“And all of those questions are stupid questions–that no one, except prehaps the Liberals, think go to the heart of the matter.”

Ad Hominum

They do not address the issue of Ignatieff’s qualifications, They weren’t intended to. They are questions that address the criticism that posters on these forums have posed.

More later
anonymous

Doug,

In response to my description of Aaron’s questions as stupid, you wrote: “Ad Hominum”.

Ad Hominum? That’s not even close to being true–and not just because it’s supposed to be spelt “ad hominem” (That’s a joke, my spelling is terrible; especially online). In all seriousness, though, my attack on Aaron’s questions was not ad hominem; I spent half my reply explaining WHY they are stupid questions.

Namely, none of Ignatieff’s critic’s are claiming that Ignetieff’s has spent “too much time abroad”–that’s Michael Ignatieff characterization of what his critic’s are saying. Ignatieff’s critics are using his time spent abroad to illustrate what little experience and involvement and enaggement Ignatieff has had with Canada–whether at home or abroad (it’s not like he spent all those years in the military or the foreign service).

“They do not address the issue of Ignatieff’s qualifications, They weren’t intended to. They are questions that address the criticism that posters on these forums have posed.”

Obviously. My point is that Aaron’s questions don’t address the ACTUAL criticism being posed in this or other forums, they posit a dishonest characature of the criticism being posed in this and other forums.
Jenn

We are nailing this down yet!

So, at what point, anonymous, will you feel it is acceptable to vote for Ignatieff? He has been an MP and deputy opposition leader for three years, and now the opposition leader for five months. Would another six months do it for you, another year, five years?

http://dougsamu.wordpress.com/ dougrogers

Aaron’s question posed above is in response to many posts disqualifying Ignatieff over some vague quality. To this point, it is a summary of what seemingly have been the arguments so far as to what exactly disqualifies him.

His ‘experience’ then is a quantifiable issue.

Who wants to measure Stephen Harper against it?

Critical Reasoning

Iggy’s “experience” is definitely a quantifiable issue. He has very little direct experience of Canada. This raises serious questions about his qualifications to become Canada’s next Head of Government.

Almost everyone who reads this has more experience living here than he does. This might even include teenagers like Ms. Geffros. :-)

http://dougsamu.wordpress.com/ dougrogers

‘Living here’ hasn’t really been much of a value-added quality for the current government.

http://dougsamu.wordpress.com/ dougrogers

“I answered that question in my response to avr. Something less than one Ignatieff Unit.”

A personal and arbitrary standard. Neither legal nor rational.

Critical Reasoning

There is no legal issue here.

Rationally, if Iggy had lots of Canadian experience in addition to all those decades abroad, I would have much less of a problem with it. It’s the fact that he’s spent almost no time in Canada that is a source of concern.

anonymous

And, really, I can’t see why that’s just not obvious to people.

Frankly, I think a lot of journalists and readers are over compensating here. They (we!) think that attacking Michael Ignatieff for living abroad would be small minded–”parochial” as Paul Wells claims his colleagues put it–so they (not me!) immediately jump from there to dismissing the very idea that there might be a slight effing problem with us electing someone Prime Minister who had virtually no involvement in Canadian political life prior to announcing that he wanted to be the Prime Minster.

Stop over thinking things. This is not a complicated criticism.
cam

why not just admit you can’t or won’t answer the question?
anonymous

OK cam,

I’ll answer the stupid question…

I don’t think that any period of time working or liviing abroad, or–all else being equal–any type of work done abroad, qisqualifies someone from being Prime Minister.

I hink someone needs experience and involvement in Canadian public affairs–and generally experience in elected office as well–before they are qualified to be Prime Minister. How much and what type of experience are needed are subjective questions that can’t be answered in the hypothetical, but Michael Ignatieff is so far on the other side of the line that he can see it anymore.
Jenn

Nuts! This post should have gone here. (I think)

We are nailing this down yet!

So, at what point, anonymous, will you feel it is acceptable to vote for Ignatieff? He has been an MP and deputy opposition leader for three years, and now the opposition leader for five months. Would another six months do it for you, another year, five years?

Michael

Pathetic. Prove that he knows nothing about Canada, if that’s your charge.

And what is so uniquely different about Canada that he couldn’t come to understand it in 28 years, including the last 3 in public life?

Critical Reasoning

He wasn’t in Canada for 28 years. He was in Canada for a total of 16 years. He was gone for big chunks of his earlier life, too.

Jenn

Oh, good, I’m glad this has come around again. I understood his father was a Canadian Ambassador. So Iggy lived in an embassy (or two or three). And a Canadian embassy is considered part of Canadian soil, right? So just because he didn’t live in whatever part of Canada you guys find acceptable (not Kingston, not an embassy) doesn’t mean he didn’t live in Canada.

Also, this is not only stupid, but it’s mean-spirited. His family was elsewhere representing Canada. His family WAS Canada to a certain portion of the world. In service to Canada. And that’s not Canadian enough? I would appreciate it if you’d take that back.

kt

Ryan Reynolds–active in US politics even appearing in US commercials on the subject and writing a column http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ryan-reynolds

Not Canadian all of a sudden because of it?
Critical Reasoning

Does anyone know how many years Ignatieff has lived IN Canada? According to wikipedia:

“Ignatieff’s family moved abroad regularly in his early childhood as his father rose in the diplomatic ranks. But at the age of 11, Ignatieff was sent back to Toronto to attend Upper Canada College as a boarder in 1959.”

Did Iggy also miss out on the first 11 years of his “Canadian childhood”? We’re getting into World Record territory here. Has any democratically elected leader anywhere ever spent less time in the country of his birth before he became leader? Jack, perhaps you know of some examples from antiquity (ancient Greece)?

Brian

You’re grasping at straws: in no way this has any relevance to being unqualified for the job but as a conservative cheerleader, I can’t expect you to understand this.

Critical Reasoning

I’m not a conservative cheerleader. I voice my concerns as a concerned Canadian citizen. I have viewed Iggy favourably in other contexts, but the fact that he’s hardly lived at all here is a serious issue for me. Deal with it.

Brian

Sadly, your insistence on irrelevant points (and flooding many threads with the same thing again and again) proves how misleading your nick is. Your newly found unease as a “concerned Canadian citizen” (sheesh, do you really speak like that with your friends and coworkers?) over Ignatieff time spent abroad occurring at the same time of new CPC attack ads, is quite telling about your political affiliation.

Just to make sure, being a conservative cheerleader is fine and dandy. Being in denial about what you are is what I find pathetic. At least be honest with yourself.

Critical Reasoning

I’m always amused when cornered rats like you accuse me of being a cheerleader, just because I call attention to details that you are clearly uncomfortable with. Really, I’m sorry that your Emperor has no clothes (or at least no Canadian clothes, because he never stuck around long enough to go shopping. )
Brian

It seems that I have touched a nerve here. Usually vitriolic attacks are launched when there is the perception that there is some truth behind a post. But if you can’t accept yourself for who you are, I guess it shouldn’t be my concern.

However, the facts remain: you are still grasping at straws, you still flood the forum with the same question and you conveniently repeat whatever talking points was given to you without understanding or even putting forward any coherent arguments to support your opinion as “a concerned Canadian citizen”. But if this helps you sleep a little better tonight, feel free to believe that I am truly “cornered” here by your diatribe.

Also, if you confuse spending more than two years as a full time MP (which is probably more political experience and knowledge than the vast majority of Canadians) with having no experience at all with the issues faced by the federal government, then again it’s really your problem because you are making a convincing case that you have no credibility. If you truly want to go down that road, go ahead, maybe your next posts will contain a few “Iffy” and “lieberal”.
Critical Reasoning

You did indeed touch a nerve, but I’ll cool down and give you the benefit of the doubt. It may just be that you don’t know me. I’ve been critical of Harper and the Tories many times. I call them as I see them, not because if have some sort of partisan agenda. Obviously I feel quite strongly that Iggy’s lack of Canadian experience is relevant, but I’m sure we would agree about many of Iggy’s positive qualities. Peace, dude.

anonymous

Based on his Wikipedia page, my count is that he lived in Canada for approximately thirteen of his fifty-nine years before announcing he was running to be Prime Minister–including the eight months between the time he moved back and the he announced his candidacy. You can add another three years since then to make it 16 of 62 years. But–who knows–some of those descriptions on his Wikipedia page are a little vague and they may not be reliable.

Since this has been become kind of a major issue–subject of national ads and all–you’d think someone would ask Michael Ignatieff about it and publish a reliable timeline.

(Just for the record, I’m not counting vacations and other short trips as time spent in Canada.)

Critical Reasoning

Thanks, anonymous. If you are anywhere close to being correct, I doubt that Iggy would ever consent to such a timeline, because it would be quite damning. Thirteen years here (mostly childhood years) before he ran for Liberal Leadership. Thirteen! I’m surprised Rae’s team didn’t bring it up. Perhaps Rae and Iggy agreed not to mention it.

Sam

Clickety-clackety….
Wrooop-wooop-wroooop.

Computation calculated.
Error….. Error…..
Cannot execute function due to insufficient Canada years.

End program.

As a proud Canadian citizen, I can’t say that it matters to me how many years he actually lived in Canada.
What matters to me are his qualifications, and his ability to steer this country towards a greater prosperity, while keeping in tune with various traditions that make Canada great.

Thanks to wonderful technological innovations in communications, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt, and assume that at least now and then, he kept up with what was going on in Canada.

Ding-ding-ding!!!!

Computation corrected.
Michael

Perhaps Rae was smart enough to know it wouldn’t work as a argument, because it’s meaningless.

http://www.savedarfur.org Sophia Geffros

I don’t think that his experience outside canada uniquely qualifies or dis qualifies him for top job. I don’t know about you, but my experience before the age of 11 in Canada taught me very few of the neccesary skills in order to be Prime Minister. The skills to end up on the best side of a fight or get a good mark on a book report, sure. However, I’m sure the schoolyard fights in Canada do not have a uniquely Canadian edge to them- except maybe when hockey sticks are involved. You mentiones something in Well’s column thread on R&D, (I think maybe you had the wrong thread) about your average grade 11 student having more experience in Canada than the Igster, so I copy-paste my response
“And yet, I wouldn’t want the average Grade 11 student as Prime Minister.
Hell, even student body presidents are usually Grade 12s.
To be clear, I dont think that Iggy’s time outside the coutnry uniquely qualifies or disqualifies him for public office. I’m not a slavish Iggy lover, but I do think we should all reserve judgement until it’s clear what policies he will run on in a general election campaign. I believe hes done the right thing so far, made all the right noises, behaved well in the House, but it will take more before I suport Ignatieff as a person rather than the Liberal Party as our best chance at having a vaguely centre-left government.
Then again, I can’t vote, so the point is moot.”

anonymous

I think you make some good points, Sophia. I think the real importance of Michael Ignatieff’s past experiences has a lot more to do with what impact they have on his substantive policy positions and I don’t give much heed to the populist/xenophobic version of these crticisms that just appeal to people lesser instincts.

But I also think that Ignatieff’s lack of experience in the public affairs and political life of Canada has already shown him to have serious policy deficits. Ironically, some of those deficits are actually based on things I DID learn by age 11–driving through the various regions of the country with my family.

In Michael Ignatieff’s new book, for instance, he reportedly calls for building a four lane wide coast-to-coast highway system and a high speed rail link between Vancouver and Calgary. Now maybe it’s just me, but we already have a TransCanada highway and I really don’t think it needs to be four lanes wide along the many hundred-kilometer-long stretches of road where there are no towns or villages larger than a thousand people. And, again maybe it’s just me, but I don’t think it would be safe to build a 300 km/hr train running through the Rocky Mountains. For heaven’s sake, a two minute Google search of “high speed rail canada” will find a number of sites discussing Windsor-Quebec HSR and even Calgary-Edmonton HSR, but the only Vancouver line you’ll find people proposing is south to Seattle–for what I thought were obvious reasons.

Another example of Ignatieff’s time away from Canada leaving him hopelessly out of touch with realities of Canadian policy is his seeming obsession with national unity. National unity is important, of course, but it’s not exactly a live issue right now. The Bloc has been on a downslide for years, there’s a federalist government in Quebec and the sovereignty movement is hopeless confused about the possibility and prospects of another referendum. But for outsiders national unity defines Canadian politics. Odd then that it seems to define Michael Ignatieff’s politics.

During the general election I’m sure Ignatieff will bring forward all sorts of polciy double-checked by his minders. But his deficit in understanding the practical problems that face Canadians give me little assurance about his ability to lead.

Jean Proulx

Two points about this…

1. National unity in terms of Quebec may not be as dead as you think. Support for sovereignty tends to be cyclical. More importantly even if the sovereignty is currently dormant, it is not being replaced by a an argument FOR federalism. As André Pratte has pointed out federalism is still a dirty word in Quebec. The only way to combat a dream is with another dream. At the moment there is an opening in the Quebec imagination. If advocates for Canada do not start occupying that space, someone else will.

2. National unity is not just a Quebec issue. I’m starting go wonder if there’s not more risk of Alberta separating before Quebec. Newfoundland is kind of shaky as well.

Part of this stuff is hardwired into the country. I don’t think you can ever “solve” the national unity issue, but that doesn’t mean you should be complacent about it. You have to manage it. You have to advocate projects that the whole country can get behind. Harper on the other hand seems content to let the country drift apart. When he thinks he can gain politically from it, he even plays up these tensions (as he did during the coalition crisis for example, or as he’s doing now with the Quebec version of his Ignatieff attack ads).

Perhaps you think there are more pertinent, less “lofty” issues, but to my money managing this issue is the prime directive of our federal govt and should always be one of the main priorities of our federal political parties.

anonymous

I agree on all fronts Jean–except the separation of other provinces, not gonna happen.

But, back to agreement, I certainly wouldn’t say that the sovereignty movement is “dead” or that the problem is “solved”. I would just say that it’s not very live RIGHT NOW and thus it seems odd that Michael Ignatieff constantly tries to raise the issue.

Now he could just be trying to take this moment–as you suggest is needed–to help build a positive image for federalism in Quebec. In some ways that scares me even more. First, once Mr. Ignatieff’s views on war, torture and holding people without trial become more well known in Quebec I fear that anything associated with him will be tainted. Second, I don’t think you create a positive image for federalism by talking about federalism; I think you burnish federalism by making progress on all those “less lofty issues” and creating a Canada that Quebec substantively feels that it fits into more easily.

As for national unity not only being an issue in Quebec, I think that’s true–even if no other province has a realistic chance of separating. But I don’t think that what’s driving Ignatieff unity rhetoric. I think he is obsessed with the MORE lofty issues, has no understanding of practical policy and sees this country sole through the lens of The Great Issues of Canada (TM) that tend to shape the views of outsiders and be somewhat detached from most people’s daily lives.

Scott M.

I agree that high-speed rail through the rockies is silly (little demand) but it’s definitely not impossible — they do it all the time in mountainous regions of Europe.

anonymous

You may well be right Scott. I based my comment on having driven through the Rockies and knowing that–at the very least–the existing highway routes which are often used as the basis for HSR routes are far to winding for a high speed train. I expect the expense involved in carving out new paths to make a straighter HSR route feasible would be cost prohibitive.

http://www.savedarfur.org Sophia Geffros

I don’t think that his experience outside canada uniquely qualifies or dis qualifies him for top job. I don’t know about you, but my experience before the age of 11 in Canada taught me very few of the neccesary skills in order to be Prime Minister. The skills to end up on the best side of a fight or get a good mark on a book report, sure. However, I’m sure the schoolyard fights in Canada do not have a uniquely Canadian edge to them- except maybe when hockey sticks are involved. You mentiones something in Well’s column thread on R&D, (I think maybe you had the wrong thread) about your average grade 11 student having more experience in Canada than the Igster, so I copy-paste my response
“And yet, I wouldn’t want the average Grade 11 student as Prime Minister.
Hell, even student body presidents are usually Grade 12s.
To be clear, I dont think that Iggy’s time outside the coutnry uniquely qualifies or disqualifies him for public office. I’m not a slavish Iggy lover, but I do think we should all reserve judgement until it’s clear what policies he will run on in a general election campaign. I believe hes done the right thing so far, made all the right noises, behaved well in the House, but it will take more before I suport Ignatieff as a person rather than the Liberal Party as our best chance at having a vaguely centre-left government.
Then again, I can’t vote, so the point is moot.”

http://www.savedarfur.org Sophia Geffros

echo

Jenn

I just wanted to say I agree with CR about your maturity and communication skills. Perhaps you could plan on being Prime Minister some day? You have to start planning early though, apparently.

Critical Reasoning

Sophia, I agree with your earlier comment that we will need to see his policies before we can completely judge the man. I am still waiting for him to clarify his policies and his plans for this country. He has been reluctant to commit to anything just yet.

Iggy does have many positive qualities, and it’s too bad that he has an Achilles Heel like this one.

http://www.savedarfur.org Sophia Geffros

Agreed. However, I think it’d be cool if his response to the attacks was that he is not running for President, but Prime Minister, and therefore the quality of the Liberal candidates, current MPs, Senators and potential cabinet ministers was far more important than his personal qualities.
He own’t, of course.
But it’d be nice.

Jenn

CR, I don’t think you are a Conservative troll. I think you have, as rationally and calmly as is possible on these things, raised an issue you do feel strongly about with regard to Ignatieff’s fitness to lead the country.

Sophia, were you quoting Critical Reasoning in the quoted passages of your post? If so (turning to CR) what was the bit at the end about, “Then again, I can’t vote, so the point is moot.”

Are you too young to vote? Or are you not a Canadian citizen or what?

I don’t think the time spent in Canada makes any difference because you could spend your entire life in, let’s pick on Kingston this time, and be no further ahead in understanding the country as a whole. What is important to me is that you have a Canadian soul. What does that mean? I have no idea how to describe it, but I know I have one. I believe (based on absolutely nothing,it is true) that Ignatieff has one, too. But I can say the same about most of the posters here, whether I agree with them or not.
anonymous

“I don’t think the time spent in Canada makes any difference because you could spend your entire life in, let’s pick on Kingston this time, and be no further ahead in understanding the country as a whole.”

Yeah, but if you lived your entire life in Kingston you probably wouldn’t be qualified to be Prime Minister either. I mean, how much relevant if you never left Kingston?

For those of us who think it’s ridiculous that we’re considering electing a man Prime Minister who lived here for thirteen of his fifty-nine years before announcing his candidacy–and most of that as a child–I can assure you that the issue is not about his “soul”. I don’t doubt that Michael Igantieff has a “Canadian soul”. I don’t care.

I want a Prime Minster who’s experienced and engaged with the country he or she seeks to lead.

Michael Ignatieff ain’t it.
Critical Reasoning

Thanks, Jenn! Much appreciated!

It was Sophia who said she can’t vote. I think she’s a teenager, though she has the communication skills and maturity of an adult.
Sam

Well put!
The most important thing to remember is that he will eventually be running for PM, and not president!
He is the leader of a party, and they will collectively work together to form policy, and steer the ship (should they be elected to government). It’s not like he will gain some super crazy power, and then use it to for some crazy foreign inspired evil plans!

Placing emphasis on this “less-Canadian” thingy is divisive, and really not what we need right now.
Harper – deal with the problems of the country and its people first – this is a priority.
Worry about the polls and all that BS when it is election time! Be a leader!!!
Jenn

Anonymous, would spending your entire life in, let’s say Calgary, be okay? Is it just the town of Kingston you have something against, or are you now saying you must spend the majority of your time in Canada, but move around the country?
anonymous

Jenn,

You wrote: “Anonymous, would spending your entire life in, let’s say Calgary, be okay? Is it just the town of Kingston you have something against, or are you now saying you must spend the majority of your time in Canada, but move around the country?”

Well, to be honest, I was just being facetious, but if you really want to know…

First of all, I don’t think “you must do this” or “you must do that” is the right way to think about this question. Not that many people become Prime Minister. We can afford to look for people who are exceptional in any number of ways without worrying that we’re disqualifying too many people from consideration.

As to the question at hand, I just think it’s unlikely that someone from a small city or town–and I’m from a small city myself–could gain the life and work experience needed to be Prime Minister without ever having lived outside the small city or town they grew up in. For one thing, unless the “small city or town” they’re from is a provincial capital, it would mean that they’ve had no experience in government other than–possibly–a small municipal government. That’s a pretty big leap to begin with (one that doesn’t get talked about all that much vis a vis Mcihael Ignatieff for some reason).

Now, it’s not that living in the same small city or town you grew up in your entire life is–in and of itself–a disqualification. I just think it’s unlikely to happen. Someone certainly COULD gain the qualifications needed to be Prime Minister without ever having been a federal or provincial elected offical, without ever having lived in a major city, without ever having lived abroad and without ever having worked or study outside the small city or town they grew up in, but–as I said–I think that’s unlikely to actually happen.

I guess for me the best candidate for Prime Minister is likely to be someone who has neither lived their ENTIRE LIFE in the same small city or town they grew up in, nor someone who’s lived the VAST MAJORITY of their life outside the fracking country. I don’t think that’s all that unreasonable.
Jenn

Anonymous, I thought we were talking about Prime Minister. Not a President or something else. So to be Prime Minister you first have to be an MP. If you lived your entire life in Kingston, Calgary or anywhere else, you would still have experience as an MP, and probably as a cabinet or shadow cabinet minister as well.

I’m very glad to hear you say you were against the “you must do this or that” because I was truly wondering how many Canadians would be left eligible at the end of the day. Since we have a hard enough time getting quality candidates applying for the job (no offense to anyone who’s ever applied to be Leader of a Party–there still aren’t that many of you) putting additional roadblocks in the way seemed less than clever.
http://www.savedarfur.org Sophia Geffros

Jenn- I’m 14, and can’t vote (yet) but it was more a cynical observation that the opinions of citizens who don’t get a hand in the decisiom-making process but have to live with the results don’t matter to political parties and politicians.
anonymous

Jenn,

You wrote: “[T]o be Prime Minister you first have to be an MP. If you lived your entire life in Kingston, Calgary or anywhere else, you would still have experience as an MP, and probably as a cabinet or shadow cabinet minister as well.”

But Michael Ignatieff announced he was running to be Prime Minister less than three months after being elected as an MP in a safe seat that was given to him–over the objections of his riding association–for the expressed purpose of returning to Canada to run for Prime Minister. Ignatieff was then engaged in a continuing leadership battle for two years before becoming leader of the Liberal Party, again, without a vote of his membership. He’s never faced a real politiccal challenge, he’s has no record of accomplishment on behalf of Canadians and he has no real experience serving as an oridinary MP.

It would be one thing if Ignatieff just had no political experience. And it would be one thing if he had just never faced a real election before. But on top of all that he has virtually no experience in any other sector of Canadian public affairs either.

For heaven’s sake, Barack Obama was criticized for announcing that he was running for President after serving only two years in the US Senate and twelve years in the State Senate in Illinois. Ignatieff had three months in office and eight months in the country!
Jenn

Anonymous (let’s move the thread to the bottom, it’s hard to find where to post), is this one of those times when history stops, like immediately after the Plains of Abraham battle? Or could you also recall, perhaps, that Ignatieff didn’t win that leadership race? At that time, I, too, thought it was pretty nervy of the guy to arrive and immediately want the ‘crown’ of potential Prime Minister

But that was three years ago. Three years have happened since then. Or do we now want to hold the ambition of our MPs against them? Because, you know, I think ambition is a quality needed in a Prime Minister. You have to want to create a history to be proud of. Ideally, you’d want to be known as the best Prime Minister Canada has ever had. And let’s face it, the job has long hours, lots of criticism, and not the greatest of pay. Other than the ambition of being looked upon favourably in our next history books–being a real somebody who made a real difference! , I can’t understand why anyone would want the job.

“Ignatieff was then engaged in a continuing leadership battle for two years before becoming leader of the Liberal Party, again, without a vote of his membership.”

He was? He did? I will grant you that neither he nor Bob Rae ever said they no longer wanted to be Leader, but that’s a battle? And I seem to recall a Liberal Convention just recently that gave Ignatieff the leadership in accordance with the Liberal by-laws–which were voted on by the Liberal membership. They also voted to change the by-laws at that Convention, but that’s neither here nor there in this discussion.

http://www.jackmitchell.ca Jack Mitchell

“Has any democratically elected leader anywhere ever spent less time in the country of his birth before he became leader? Jack, perhaps you know of some examples from antiquity (ancient Greece)?”

There’d be no Roman example, because Roman politics was a) very much about your Rolodex, not your pedigree and b) very structured, so that you couldn’t stand for Consul (usually) without having passed successively through the ranks of Quaestor, Aedile, and Praetor.

Athens was much more democratic, i.e. the fickle mob’s acclaim was key. And even though it got progressively more anti-aristocratic, the aristos held on to their money and their celebrity. The most famous family was the Alcmaeonidae, who were periodically exiled but, when not in exile, usually high in favour (Pericles and Alcibiades were both from the Alcmaeonidae, for example).

What was probably their longest exile took place between 525 BC and 508 BC, i.e. 17 years. It ended in 508 because arguably the most famous member of the Alcmaeonidae, Cleisthenes, overthrew the tyranny of Pisistratus in that year and established the Athenian democracy in the first place. He was archon in 525 (this was why they got exiled) and the family had earlier been exiled in 546, so he would have spent at least 17 and probably rather more years abroad before returning to Athens to establish the world’s most famous democracy.

I have to admit that is the only instance that springs to mind, and it’s not a great one because Cleistenes’ family had been proscribed first by the tyrant Pisistratus and later by his son Hippias. They were definitely aristos, though, so there’s that connection with Iggy; and Harper does sometimes remind me of Pisistratus. : )

Sam

“Has any democratically elected leader anywhere ever spent less time in the country of his birth before he became leader? Jack, perhaps you know of some examples from antiquity (ancient Greece)?”

Valdas Adamkus – current president of Lithuania
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valdas_Adamkus

http://www.jackmitchell.ca Jack Mitchell

That deserves a steak knife. But more a parallel to Cleisthenes than to Iggy, seeing as it wasn’t exactly voluntary exile in the case of Cleisthenes and Adamkus.

Critical Reasoning

Sam, congratulations for your excellent find. Adamkus’s exile wasn’t voluntary, but it’s still good to know that Ignatieff’s situation is not completely unique to modern world history.
Sam

The main point stands – Can a man who lived away from a country for a lengthy period of time be capable of leading that country? In the case of Adamkus, the answer is clearly yes.

And rest assured – this issue was brought up against Adamkus constantly!

Despite being an honorable man who was working towards rebuilding Lithuania in the modern post-communist world, he actually lost to Paksas, who used similar appeals to “nationalism” to convince the lesser educated that he was the better man, while also making all sorts of ludicrous promises that he could not keep (and also feeding booze to the electorate). After Paksas was impeached, Lithuanians came to realize how lucky they were to have a politician whose primary interest was the good of the country, and was not simply looking for ways to stuff his (and his friends) pockets full of cash.

Leadership is about the man, what he stands for, and what he will do! It’s not about the years he has been abroad (willingly or unwillingly). Anyone who attacks someone for this is similar to a McCarthyist, or any other silly witch hunter or fear monger.
John.K

Also Freiberga of Latvia,who spent most of her life in Canada, and Papandreou of Greece who was actually a US citizen before returning to take up Greek politics.

Critical Reasoning

Harper does sometimes remind me of Pisistratus.

LOL. He does have some tyrannical qualities.

Jack, thanks for your valiant efforts. You are truly a master of your discipline.

cam

CR: in another posting on another thread you say Pearson’s time out of the country was different because he was in service to his country.

Here, you post that Ignatieff spent time out of the country with his father who was in the diplomatice corps. Woudl the father’s service not also be “service to his country”?

He was a child. A child. And you are criticizing him for being with his father while his father was in service to Canada?!?

Your argument is starting to contradict itself. I suggest you are losing it.

And I also suggest that criticizing a child is pretty low.

anonymous

That argument would make a lot of sense if this were a symbolic or semantic debate. And I get that that’s what many Liberals want to turn this into.

But this debate is actually about the experience and engagement needed to be PM.

Working overseas as a Canadian public service helps you gain experience in Canadian public affairs and government. Working overseas as a university professor and writer does not.
anonymous

And just to clarify: the number of years spent abroad is only really valuable as an illustration of how little experience Ignatieff has in Canada. Thus I think the discussion about Ignatieff’s childhood years is really more symbolic than anything else.

Dave

The Conservatives are being disingenuous here. They don’t really care whether Ignatieff spent one, ten or 50 years outside the country. They are just casting about for something to beat Iggy over the head with, and his time spent in the U.S. and Britain is the best that they can find. (They probably did a lot of expensive focus-group polling to figure this out.)

Put it this way: what if Stephen Harper had spent 34 years outside the country? The Conservatives would be playing up his depth of international expertise, implying that it had given him wisdom, etc. etc.
cam

agreed.

And it seems more and more clear, the Conservatives’ ads have backfired; they certainly haven’t had the effect they desired.
Jenn

Sophia – 14! You have my utmost admiration. I’d have guessed 17 at the earliest (and only because 18 is voting age) . I’m incredibly happy that at least one of you in your age bracket is paying attention to what is going on, but I wish wholeheartedly the cynicism hadn’t been earned (yet). More specifically I wish there was no reason for your cynicism, but since I agree with your point, there’s another wish of mine gone unfulfilled.
madeyoulook

Iggy’s qualifications may earn power for him and his party the next time around. And Iggy’s time outside the country is, at minimum, a liability in the minds of many voters. So, Tory attacks on this point are entirely rational.

If the Liberals could not foresee this they deserve the trouble they are now complaining about. And if they did foresee this, then they concluded that their leader’s qualities would easily overcome the liability(ies).

They did think about all this ahead of time. Didn’t they?
cam

After a weekend of viewing the ads I am left wondering what they were really supposed to do… isn’t a side effect of them that the Conservatives have paid to remarkably increase Ignatieff’s name recognition?