When it comes to politicians, I am not what you would call a “stickler” for the absolute truth. I accept that in politics, as in much of life and all of my barroom pickup rituals, claims will be made that do not stand up to scrutiny.
But it is my steadfast belief that a basic truthfulness in public life must be respected. A line must be drawn. And Michael Ignatieff, the new Liberal leader, has crossed that line.
It happened during a recent speech to the Newfoundland and Labrador Liberal convention in Gander. Ignatieff spoke of Conservative attack ads that portray him as arrogant, an elitist, a tourist in his own country. The Liberal leader assailed the campaign and declared to Stephen Harper, “If you mess with me, I will mess with you until I’m done.”
People of Canada, I ask you: is Michael Ignatieff—typist of books, enthusiast of yoga, trimmer of eyebrows—really a threat to “mess” with anyone? More important: is this what passes for tough-guy talk in academic circles? Mess with me and I’ll mess with you? Watch yourself, Harper, or I swear to God I will split my infinitives. I will leave snarky Post-its in the margins of your thesis. I will look better than you in an ascot. I AM A ONE-MAN WRECKING CREW!
A more astute purveyor of trash talk would have ended his ultimatum with a more graphic consequence—vowing to mess with you “until you run home crying to Momma” or, if he really wanted to unnerve the Prime Minister, “until you’re sympathetic to other viewpoints.” But no. Michael Ignatieff will mess with you right up to, but not beyond, the point at which he is done messing with you. And then he will stop. That’s the way they do it in the Ivy League, kids.
The following day, Ignatieff met with reporters and actually uttered the words, “I can take a punch.” This remark was dismayingly stale on a rhetorical level—and it didn’t exactly pass the test of plausibility, either. A noogie? Michael Ignatieff might be able to take a noogie. Perhaps even a wet willie. But a punch? Sir, you go too far.
“Mess with me and I’ll mess with you.” “I can take a punch.” It’s beginning to seem that Ignatieff considers his position as party leader less a job to do than a role to play. He behaves the way he thinks we expect politicians to behave. He makes the empty promise. He utters the empty threat. He’s so determined not to be defined as Prof. Tweedy McMonocle that he’s inadvertently becoming the next can’t-miss WWE villain: the Hyperbolist.
Michael Ignatieff knows that there are limits to what government can or should try to accomplish. But he’s been promising pretty much everything to pretty much everyone—because, hey, that’s what politicians do. He is capable of making thoughtful interventions, but he’s been resorting to prosaic colloquialism—because that’s what politicians do. You half-expect him to turn to the camera and say: “I’m not a two-dimensional caricature of a modern politician, but I play one on TV.”
For all the scorn we heap on our political leaders, we also tend to give them tremendous benefit of the doubt. Stephen Harper is reverentially referred to as an economist, despite the fact he a) never actually worked as one, and b) argued during the last election that we wouldn’t be having a recession because we hadn’t had a recession yet. (Alas, events conspired against Harper’s bold theory that economic downturns are never late for their appointments.)
Ignatieff is widely perceived as a deep and respected thinker. But if you actually listen to him these days, you’re likely to conclude that the problem isn’t that he left Canada for 34 years. The problem is that his intellect failed to clear customs on the journey home.
On the Liberal website, the leader stares into the camera and offers Platitude No. 326 from the Politicians’ Pantry of Empty Rhetoric. “We need a new kind of politics,” he says. Really? Again? Man, they sure don’t make kinds of politics like they used to.
Meanwhile, Ignatieff’s major addresses over the past couple of months read almost as parody—a long list of what a Liberal government would do followed by a comically incongruous reference to how governing is about making “hard choices.” When we’re together, everything will be great and perfect and also shiny. It’s not so much a vision of Canada as it is the chorus of every Céline Dion ballad.
The Conservatives seem vulnerable. They’re down in the polls—especially in Quebec, where they’re about as popular as certain forms of hepatitis. Perhaps Ignatieff senses the moment. He wants to take advantage. And he doesn’t want to risk blowing it by asking anything of us or making us, you know, think.
We get that Ignatieff is smart. But maybe he should consider that some of us might be, too.
Print
Comment
First-rate piece!
Knock me over with a feather! Someone here other than Wells/Coyne has written something snarky about Iggy.
I think Iggy is doing the tough talk because he/advisors thought Dion came across as being weak, and leaders need to be seen as being strong/tough, but I am not sure it's working because The Count looks like he would struggle to punch his way out of paper bag.
Lol Paper bag… Brilliant.
Iggy is as much an empty suit as Obama. We need both of them like a hole in the head.
Loved this column. Tweeted (twittered? twotted?).
Now here's Feschuk, trying to do for Iggy what he did for Paul Martin.
Iggy is making a terrible mistake and slowly but surely morphing into a Dion who we can understand (which might be worse) …reminds me of Spinks vs Ali (in his prime) the more he tries to talk like a trucker and batller of evil meanie stevie the more he looks just like he does in the Ads .. maybe he will get a bit of a build up if he actually has his party vote against the gov't in the next while – but personally I think it is too little too late.
Um, didn't Spinks not only win an Olympic gold medal, win the heavyweight title faster than anyone before him, but also beat Ali? I kind of like the comparison. In non-professional days, Iggy won more accolades and awards in Canada and across the world than Harper, has risen to the highest level faster than anyone else, and will beat an overweight, passed his prime Harper. As for what happens after that, we'll see.
Gee – now Ignatieff is plagarizing Harper as well as Obama.
Remember wqhen Paul Martin's Libs ran the "How Scary" ad campaign against Harper? Guns in the streets, back alley abortionists, a gun pointed at voters? The most caustic and disgusting hateful political ads in Canadian history?
Harper's response? "I can take a punch."
Can't Ignatieff think of anything original? Oh, but he wasn't in the country when Harper said that and most likely the Harvard Review did not cover the Canadian election.
5 words, Lorraine.
How many word did Harper copy when he plagiarized Howard?
Ah, but of course, he blamed that one on a staffer too.
I think the context of Harper's comment on Martin was that Martin overreacted, as in complaining, about some negative Conservative ad.
I am sure Scott knows it better. But Martin came acrss as thin skinned and Harpers comment highlighted a difference.
But the staffer excuse is about worn out, I agree. But so is asking ministers to resign at the drop of a hat.
As for the article. Yes Iggy is moving along the path he defined earlier when he made the comment that there were positions he woldnt have taken as a politician than as an academic. essentially seeing it, being a politician, as an acting job.
He has time to change but the sooner he starts the better. If his intelllect actually clears customs then he may have to then explain one or two position changes or clarificaions. You never look smart doing that.
Oh gee. There goes those darn Conservatives again. Not taking responsibility for their actions and then blaming the other guys for doing the same thing.
OOps. Sorry. Ted actually is one of the sycophantic simps of the Entitled Party. Hypocrites all.
the problem isn’t that he left Canada for 34 years. The problem is that his intellect failed to clear customs on the journey home.
I tip my cap Scott. Brilliant line. Brilliant piece actually.
Scott- you are the crown jewel of the men's tennis tour. I mean, of Macleans.
"considers his position as party leader less a job to do than a role to play. He behaves the way he thinks we expect politicians to behave"
Spot on mate. And not a litt;le bit like the last un-politician like professor to hold his job.
Truly skillful work, Scott. Not only was it funny, it raised some excellent points. Somebody should force Iggy to read it.
Ignnegatiff reminds me of my ex mother in law . He even sounds and talks like her . Thank God she trimmed her eyebrows .
LOL!
Watch yourself, Harper, or I swear to God I will split my infinitives. I will leave snarky Post-its in the margins of your thesis. I will look better than you in an ascot. I AM A ONE-MAN WRECKING CREW!
Absolutely hilarious!
A humourous piece indeed. And something Liberals should certainly read. Unlike a professional lifelong politician like Harper, Ignatieff has had life experiences and made a name for himself and won awards and recognition outside of politics and from in front of a desk. But rather than take that experience and use it to define himself, he sometimes seems a little too worried about being labelled the academic (which has actually been only one part of his prior career) and runs too hard from his experience, better and more relevant leadership experiences now than Harper had when he took over the Conservatives.
But I'm curious about something else you wrote. You twice claimed he's "been promising pretty much everything to pretty much everyone", but the Conservatives are complaining that he isn't promising anything, that he has said nothing on policy and is giving no hint of where he'd take the country. Seems like a bit of a puzzling, no? But it adds to the humour so what the heck, eh?
Keep spinning that tune, Ted. You're very good at it.
and runs too hard from his experience, better and more relevant leadership experiences now than Harper had when he took over the Conservatives.
Unlike Harper, Iggy had zero executive experience when he became Lib Leader (he never ran anything, unless you count running his own campaign). He also had very little political experience, and very little Canadian experience, but we've been over that already.
You twice claimed he's "been promising pretty much everything to pretty much everyone", but the Conservatives are complaining that he isn't promising anything, that he has said nothing on policy and is giving no hint of where he'd take the country.
They're both right. Thanks to his grandiose, windy rhetoric and his vague, meaningless pledges, Iggy is simultaneously promising everything to everyone, while really promising nothing at all (i.e. a lack of specific policy promises that one might actually hold him accountable for.) He's trying to be some sort of weird Obama parody, and it's not really working. Unlike Obama, Iggy doesn't seem to have the skill to back up his lofty rhetoric.
Sorry, CR, but he was Director of the Carr Institute, ran his own TV program, represented Canada at the UN, etc. Is this the longest list of leadership experience in the world? No. But it is more than Obama and more than Harper, which is not saying much but it is what it is.
Harper's made a career out of sitting at a desk and yet he's never had a job that wasn't insulated from the market like the rest of us: he's either lived off the government or secretive wealthy National Citizens Coalition donors. The only remotely leadership role was being head of the NCC for a couple of years, a conservative lobbying company.
Iggy represented Canada at the UN? No, he didn't. You must be confusing him with Mike Pearson.
Iggy ran his own TV program? What do you mean? He was his own producer?
I'll grant you that being Director of the Carr Institute from 2000-2005 probably included some sort of executive-level responsibilities. Did he manage a staff, or was it more of a symbolic post?
He was appointed by Lloyd Axworthy to represent Canada at a United Nations committee on military intervention for humanitarian purposes.
Carr Centre role would have been just as executorial as pres of the NCC.
On the Liberal website, the leader stares into the camera and offers Platitude No. 326 from the Politicians’ Pantry of Empty Rhetoric. “We need a new kind of politics,” he says. Really? Again? Man, they sure don’t make kinds of politics like they used to.
That's the funniest thing I've heard / read in a long time. Hilarious article overall!
I'd love to see a real fight between the two. Look out Mark Darcy and Daniel Cleaver.
(And don't you think there's a bit of Colin Firth in Iggy and a lot of Daniel Cleaver in Harper anyway?)
I'd put my money on Iggy though in a physical fight: not only does he know how to use an AK-47, but one flick of the eyebrow and he'll have Harper running for his firewall.
I'd love to see a real fight between the two. Look out Mark Darcy and Daniel Cleaver.
(And don't you think there's a bit of Colin Firth in Iggy and a lot of Daniel Cleaver in Harper anyway?)
I'd put my money on Iggy though in a physical fight: not only does he know how to use an AK-47, but one flick of the eyebrow and he'll have Harper running for his firewall.
Excellent, Mr. Feschuk. I particularly liked the line << You half-expect him to turn to the camera and say: “I’m not a two-dimensional caricature of a modern politician, but I play one on TV.” >>, for some reason…
Couldn't agree more. I supported Dr. Ignatieff for the leadership of the LPC in 2006, and I respect his intelligence. But on a number of issues recently, we've seen him adopt whatever position he thinks people want to hear (carbon tax? OK no carbon tax. Tar sands? They're great!, etc.). His speeches consist of a droning series of vapid, generic platitudes, not unlike Paul Martins'. (Mind you, I was there when Ignatieff gave his much-vaunted first address to the Liberal Convention in, I think, 2005, and at the time I thought it was pretty anodyne stuff.) He does indeed seem to think that his is not a job, but a "role to play", and he may be right about that, but unfortunately he thinks the role consists mostly of spouting platitudes, telling whatever audience he's talking to what he thinks they want to hear, and attempting to offend no-one by staying coyly vague. Let's hope that, once he's actually PM; he drops this schtick and successfully plays the role of Great Statesman to which he clearly aspires.
"once he's actually PM; he drops this schtick…"
That's assuming quite a bit. It's still a long way from here to there
Very funny piece.
I agree with Ted's comment though that the accusation of overpromising is not borne out by facts.
Also, can one really blame Ignatieff for engaging in platitudes? After all, Dion had the guts to offer a serious, thoughtful policy (the Green Shift) that assumed voters were intelligent (and serious about doing something to reduce our consumption of non-renewable fossil fuels). And how was he rewarded for that faith?
Meanwhile Obama, God bless him, engaged largely in a campaign of vague calls for "change we can believe in" and a "new way of doing politics", while carefully avoiding any controversial policy positions, and was heaped with praise.
It seems clear which strategy works.
Absolutely. During the last election I was talking to baby boomers about Dion and try as they may they couldn't find a substantial fault in his ideas. All that mattered to them was that Dion didn't seem like a strong leader(Harper's words in the mouth of hardcore liberals) and that was good enough of a reason for them to chastise him. I can see where they're coming from but it doesn't make them right.
The fact that Iggy puts more weight in his advisers' opinion than in his own intellect is a measure of his strength as leader. How you see it depends on your generation group: either he's too weak to trust his own opinion or strong enough to admit it when he's wrong.
Yes. Increasing taxes was universally loved. Must be why Iggy's on board.
I did say "substantial". Harper may have called it a tax increase but it still doesn't make so. For all intents and purposes the so called tax increase was probably the same kind of truth the accountability act was.
Clearly Mr Ignatieff is still growing into the roles of Opposition Leader and Liberal Party Leader, and there still seems to be the potential for him to become at least a very good leader.
But, perhaps what we see now is ultimately as good as it will get. If that is the case, Liberal supporters can at least celebrate that Ignatieff hasn't already attracted the same strongly negative image that Dion acquired.
There is potential there. But that makes the Liberal Party like the Leafs recently. Too eager to push people before they are ready.
The Liberal Party needs 4 years where they know they are in opposition so they can organize, rethink and plan without having to worry about an election. It was true in 2006 it is true today. Money is part if their problem, organization is a second problem and the last is policy and startegy. What in the world do they want to do, and why should it be them.
It was a real shame they went for the coalition, it interupted and distracted them from a valueable process. Iggy is better to put them through it than Dion….I think…..but they need time and more than just the summer.
No money. No organization. No policy or strategy. Even Maclean's columnists make funnies at their expense. Whatever has become of the Entitled Party? Separation from the public purse exposes more of the Natural Governing Party than Pam at a Hef bash. And taint pretty to see the Empty Party so exposed. Come back in a decade.
Nice One!
Ted, I know you'll be surprised to hear this, but I took a moment to check out the Carr Centre and I now agree with you on this point. You're right – the Carr Centre role is probably equivalent, in terms of executive experience, to the presidency of the NCC. I withdraw my comment that Iggy had no executive experience. I was wrong.