Categories: Potter Gold

Piling on

New column, in which I stop short of imploring Michael Ignatieff to get out…

by Andrew Potter on Monday, June 22, 2009 9:16am - 54 Comments

New column, in which I stop short of imploring Michael Ignatieff to get out of Canadian politics while he still can.

link

Tags: Harvard, Ignatieff

More by Andrew Potter

Why people can’t help themselves

Andrew Potter on how many take a great pleasure in anti-social behaviour, like rioting
The trouble with too much democracy

The real threat is not economic decline, it’s political decay
Justice, vengeance, and the exculpation of Anders Breivik

A law professor hasn’t just excused Breivik’s actions, but actually endorsed them

http://intensedebate.com/people/futurepm futurepm

Looks like someone just can't get over being snubbed for an interview…

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

Yes, that was a complete hatchet job. Particularly where he suggests that the problem may have a lot to do with the culture of Ottawa politics being unsuitable for a smart, ambitious guy like Iggy, and that he'd be better suited to an environment where serious, smart discussion results in decisions that matter. Ouch.

RayK

What has surprised me most about The Rise of the Cult of Iggy (TM) is actually that everything I’ve ever heard about Ignatieff's "storied" academic career is exactly as Potter writes. Not that he is a great intellectual, but that he’s just a smart guy with a great knack for self-promotion.

http://www.intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

Everything's relative, in terms of what makes a "great" intellectual. He's certainly managed to maintain a fairly high profile over the years, which isn't as easy as getting a PhD and writing a few books.

This "ambition" and "self-promotion" defining of Iggy interests me. Not because I don't believe it, but because I take that as a given for anyone entering politics. Maybe we're conflicted between wanting presidential-style leaders in some senses, and disappointment with the performance of such individuals in our parliamentary system.

At any rate, my two bits worth of insight from the outset of last week's fun was that there was no upside to Iggy backing down, and that he was foolish to start it if he had no intention of following through (which is hardly stunning in its originality, I know!).

RayK

I have no problem with Ignatieff ambition or self-promotion; that misses the point.

As I alluded to in my previous comment, party elites and the political press have given Ignatieff amazing deference. They take everything he says at face value. They treat him as a "transformative figure" in Canadian politics.

But that's based on Ignatieff academic career–at Haaarvard. He has virtually no experience in politics; no public policy accomplishments; no record of electoral success; and he's spent almost no time in Canada. Were it not for his academic career, Ignatieff wouldn't even be considered a plausible candidate for prime minister. But he's not only seen as a plausible candidate; he's seen as "the one we've all been waiting for".

When you learn that the great fame and renown Ignatieff's academic work has generated is based far more on Ignatieff's ability to generate fame and renown than the "greatness" of the work itself, it makes you wonder why so many people have so much hope wrapped up in this guy?
http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

"They treat him as a "transformative figure" in Canadian politics."

I don't know much about Lib party elites, but I don't think the Canadian press has treated him as such. He can think on his feet, and can express himself well. For a while, it looked like he might provide credible opposition to the Conservatives. But transformative? "The one we've been waiting for?" Let's not forget Dion beat him out. I also expect many view Rae as a far superior choice, but for that niggling issue of his Premiership in Ontario, which has permanently tainted his credibility (rightly or wrongly).

By what standards do you judge his academic work?
RayK

I certainly make no claim to be a first hand judge of Ignatieff academic work. I've read many of his lengthy pieces in opinion journals–and found them to be about an inch deep–but I've haven't read any of his book from cover to cover.

My opinion is instead based on critics like Potter, people I know personally who have said the same thing, Ignatieff's writings on torture which are confusing and contradictory, his suggestion that we should have invoked the Repsonsiblility to Protect in Burma and his lack of peer reviewed journals articles in the years leading up to his entrance into politics. I'm also unaware of any work by Ignatieff that has won the kind of universal praise one normally sees from an academic of his stature (e.g. opinions aside, nobody disagrees with the importance of Paul Krugman's work on currency crises).

On your point about the press, obviously an exhaustive list of examples would be too difficult to provide but think about when Ignatieff announced his probation plan. The press took it seriously eventhough they knew the Liberals had no money to fight an election and–therefore–couldn't enforce the "probation".
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Don't forget that Iggy benefits from striking good looks, a storied pedigree, and a pleasant speaking voice – three factors that were instrumental in launching his career as a public intellectual in Britain.

Mike T.

"The truth is that Michael Ignatieff's status within the more hardcore precincts of the academy is not that high. "

The most adept scholars of human rights law tend to be (wait for it…) human rights lawyers.

Emmett

Not true.

Riley Hennessey

"Plucked him bald". When you nail it, you nail it. This is the kind of writing that Ignatieff should take seriously, because Potter writes what everyone else is thinking.
Anon

Shorter Potter: ":If I can't have a career, why should they?"
Mike T.

Welcome, Kory 10eek!
http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com bigcitylib

This is blithering disguised as analysis.

Bryan Peeler

I agree. This is the writing of a (former) academic philosopher who sees the standards of his subject field as the only ones that matter. Andrew, politics is not a philosophy of language seminar – you can do better.
jed thomson

Maybe BigSillyLib should only read Iggy Fluffer Wherry's posts.
http://intensedebate.com/people/futurepm matthew

Welcome to anything Potter writes about politics.

catherine

Unlike Potter, I do think politics does matter on many different levels.

Canada, in general, is highly regarded around the world and although that has been chipped a bit (for example, our international climate change position painted us as a sidekick to Bush) it is something worth preserving as that goodwill does allow us more influence than our size would suggest.

Domestically, it is not only politicians and government who are taking a hit, but many of our institutions. Following up on Well's recent column, I learned that NSERC, which used to be an independent funding agency, now has its website plastered with Conservative ads just like all our government websites (under the guise of government advertising, but really it is advertising for Harper). I used to have a high opinion of NSERC, but I am not impressed with the way it spins information now.

It will take a lot of smarts and ability to restore integrity to government and to our institutions and keep our international reputation high. This matters a lot more than exactly how political posturing played out over the course of a few days. I suspect Ignatieff realizes that political posturing and game playing are all part of the job, but the important thing is to be in a position to build a better government for Canada, and I doubt the frustrations of playing the political game are going to make Ignatieff abandon that goal.
Mike T.

I also do not see tremendous deference on the part of the press, and cannot speak for the Lib elite.
http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

"striking good looks"

While I find his visage – generally that of a man about to pass a kidney stone – annoying, I wouldn't go so far as to strike him. :)
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

LOL. His immersion into Canadian politics may have contributed to that pained "kidney stone" expression that you speak of.

Anyway, at the age of 62 he still has some of the good looks that caused British women to swoon in the late 1980's and early 1990's. Back in his TV days, he was called "the thinking woman's crumpet".
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Potter, FYI Iggy had secret admirers in the Liberal party as far back as 1992. Check out this article from the Toronto Star back in the day:

LONDON (Staff) – Make way for Michael Ignatieff, the next prime minister of Canada.

At least that's the view of one newspaper here.

Ignatieff, a Canadian journalist and novelist who lives here, is being seriously considered to take over the federal Liberals, the Independent newspaper claimed in a column Sunday.

He "is being spoken of as a possible leader," the newspaper reported.

The columnist, who signs himself "The Weasel," said Ignatieff is being touted to replace the "lacklustre leadership of Jean Chretier (sic), a peculiar man with a Maurice Chevalier accent."

The change will take place "in a year or two," the columnist said.

It will happen because "the chattering classes of Toronto and Ottawa" are afraid that "Quebec is almost certain to declare independence within three years."

Ignatieff is a "scion of a distinguished family," who would be a "young, attractive candidate." He is son of the late George Ignatieff, a distinguished Canadian diplomat, and he hosts a TV show in addition to writing a weekly column in a rival paper, The Observer.

Handsome and well-spoken, he has been referred to in profiles as "the thinking woman's crumpet."

However, the columnist who said he was "informed" of the push to install Ignatieff as new Liberal leader added that no one has told Ignatieff himself of the decision.

Contacted yesterday by The Star, Ignatieff laughed and insisted he was hard to locate because "I have been in conference with my spin doctors all week."

Ignatieff, who is covering the British election for his paper, said that "the hacks on the bus look at me with new respect, so I'm not discouraging them."

Journalist described as next PM of Canada
Toronto Star: Apr 2, 1992. pg. A.3
http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

Fair enough about the favourable review given to the probation strategy. Then again, we need to remember the context – how chaotic and uncertain the previous few months had been. In that light, I think many were just pleased to see an opposition leader who a) wasn't Dion, and b) provided a potential opening for a productive parliament with an effective opposition. I also think it's fair to say that many within the party badly wanted him to be transformative, for the Liberals. Last week wasn't a positive step on any of those fronts, but we'll see how Iggy can learn from mistakes.

In terms of his academic creds, it's probably true that any truly serious-wonky-brilliant academic wouldn't leave to enter politics. At least the ones I've met and worked with, who were consumed by their work. But I greatly admire public academics at the same time. Also, we tend to project a lot onto public thinkers, always wishing they were something they are not.

RayK

"[] I greatly admire public academics at the same time, [but] we tend to project a lot onto public thinkers, always wishing they were something they are not."

I think this is actually a very good summary of my thoughts… and what annoys me so much about people reaction to Ignatieff.

Dee

Now I remember why I never read Potter's "writing". The column can be best described as a fluffy screed lacking in logic or reason.

And then there's this:
"It is increasingly hard to say the same thing about what goes on in Ottawa, and the disgraceful character of our national political life might be little more than a concession to the fact that the stakes are now so low."

Most reasonable people can agree that the state of Canadian politics is in a terrible state but one can look to the Conservative folks in charge for a large portion of the blame for this (attack ads, hyper-partisanship, picking cabinet ministers for purely political reasons and not based on their basic levels of competence).

Potter doesn't think Canadians deserve smart, educated politicians to run their country because the "stakes are so now low". How exactly do you regularly convince yourself to write about Canadian politics if you truly believe this?

Either you are bitter and cynical, or envious of Ignatieff, or both. A useless column but a good reminder to avoid your bilge in the future.
http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

Hmmmm…..Potter obviously decided to open a door to an Iggy bashing party, drinks on him.

Pathetic
http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

Whether somebody is well accepted in the Canadian scholarly community or not seems to me about the last criterion for his fitness for public office.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Heh. Tell that to Gary Goodyear's detractors.

http://intensedebate.com/people/TJCook TJCook

Oh I'm sure Minister Goodyear is a hero in his "scholarly" community of chiropractors.

The fact that ordinary Canadians are put off by a Minister of Science and Technology who is also an evangelist who denies the existence of evolution is another matter entirely (see "Day, Stockwell").

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

It was a joke, TJ. No need to get all worked up.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

It was a joke, TJ. No need to get all worked up. I'm not a chiropractor fan either.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

It was a joke, TJ. No need to get all worked up. I'm not too fond of chiropractors myself.

http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

Not to mention incompetent ministers, regardless of thier academic street cred.

RayK

Except Iggy's academic career is his only qualification for office and the ENTIRE for the massive currency he has with the political elite.

(Also, Canadian academics are certainly not Ignatieff only critics in this regard.)

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

What academic career? He's been a public intellectual and journalist for most of his life, later hired to run a Harvard institute for the study of whatchamacallit.

http://intensedebate.com/people/TJCook TJCook

Surprisingly not so different from a Prime Minister who finished a masters' degree in economics, followed by years of service in various rightwing lobby organizations.

I ask you: where's the beef?

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

Well, they're both legitimate professions, n'est-ce pas? The difference being that Harper keeps pretending he's an economist, whereas Ignatieff has not, to my knowledge, claimed to have been a professional scholar.

PolJunkie

Potter is going over the top as usual. That being said, Iggy has been greatly overestimated. And for those of you who still hold out hope that what we saw last week was just a little miscalculation on the part of Iggy are in for a rude awakening.

This here is nothing compared to the multiple gaffes Iggy will engage in when the election campaign begins.

And I objected to Potter's (and every other pundits) use of the word "Dionized" to describe Iggy's situation.

There is no question here that Stephane Dion has a lot more substance and policy know-how than Iggy. The difference is that Dion never got the respect of the Ottawa Intelligentsia and that of his caucus. Iggy was granted the said respect right of the bat, God only knows why.

I personally find it quite satisfying to see the Liberal Caucus wiping mud off its face. After humiliating Dion all the way to the back bench, they crowned Iggy, an absolute rookie with no political acumen whatsoever and patted themselves on the back for it.

Let them assume the consequences of their idiotic actions.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

I'm surprised that Iggy didn't want to include Dion in the Shadow Cabinet. It seems disrespectful.

PolJunkie

You know… an "edit" function would come in handy right about now.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

You can just post another comment retracting your misguided analysis. :)

Seriously, if you sign up for an Intense Debate thingy, you gain the ability to edit your posts (until someone replies) and delete them. Also, Scott Feschuk will come to mow your lawn weekly.
Critical Reasoning

There is an 'edit' function. Just take two minutes and sign up for ID.

PolJunkie

Misguided analysis, huh? I'll be looking for you during the next election, SeanStok.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

We'll just have to wait for three and a half years to see.

http://intensedebate.com/people/JPro JPro

And then there are the cheap shots as to the merits of Ignatieff as an academic. He may not impress the eggheads who spend their entire lifetimes developing elaborate theories that are only read by other political scientists, but his books are highly readable, and widely influential. They have given readers all over the world valuable insight into issues such as ethnic nationalism. What kind of similar intellectual contribution has Stephen Harper made for the world? Or Jack Layton? Or Andrew Potter?

Anyway Potter, if you think Ignatieff is such a poor leader then you shouldn't be in such an unseemly hurry to see him go, right? Unless maybe you're being disingenuous?

Ah, methinks the Harperites think the same strategy that won the last battle (tear down the other guy!) will work again. We'll see I guess.
Bionic Borden

Dammit Potter, stop holding back and tell us what you really think!
kcm

It's interesting how many people on this post are bitterly attacking AP. God knows i'm not always a fan, but he seems to call them as he sees them. I don't think for instance that his criticism of Ignatieff can be construed as a plaudit for Harper.
I find his piece puzzling. Is ignatieff not good enough for Canada – or is Canada not worth the effort for Ignatieff? Or are we simply not worth the candle anymore? Hopefully not more Canadian self-hatred? That went out of style awhile ago – didn't it?
It might be well to remember before dismissing Ignatieff out of hand, as CR pointed out, there were those who were willing to throw Chretien to the wolves early on – what say those voices now? Perhaps Ignatieff needs some seasoning, perhaps he's a dud. [ my own feeling - hope i'm wrong ]. But i think he's earned a shot. And after all it's SH he's got to be measured against…i seem to remember he was a bad rookie opposition leader too!
http://intensedebate.com/people/JPro JPro

What a load of fertilizer. Any fair-minded observer recognizes that Ignatieff played a poor hand about as well as he could last week. After all it's only been 8 months since the Liberals were clobbered in one of their worse election showings ever. It should come as no great surprise that the party is not quite ready for another election yet. Despite this position of weakness, Ignatieff was able to get equal representation of Liberals on a committee that will develop policy recommendations on EI. That may not constitute a 'victory" for pundits, but it's something that could actually help thousands of Canadians who have lost their jobs. Isn't that a useful thing for an opposition leader to be doing?

The fact that many in the party were pushing for an election now is a testament to how much stronger the party is in the brief time since Ignatieff's been leader.
RayK

"Ignatieff played a poor hand about as well as he could last week."

I completely agree, but then how is Ignatieff any different than Stephane Dion? Why did Ignatieff spend the last five months making empty threats? If he knew the Liberals were not ready for an election any time soon–and that he would have to keep the Conservatives in power indefinitely–why didn't he stick to the coalition in the end? Why didn't he at least try to make the coalition work (between the time he became leader and end of January when the House came back)?

You see, all media coverage has of Ignatieff over the last five months has been based on the premise that he was not Stephane Dion and would not prop up the Conservatives indefinitely. The point is not that last week Ignatieff could have demanded major concessions or forced election. The point is that last week reveals that the five months have just been a sham.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Any fair-minded observer recognizes that Ignatieff played a poor hand about as well as he could last week.

I consider myself a fair-minded observer, and I think that Iggy shouldn't have pointed the gun if he wasn't able to pull the trigger. That's why his image has taken such a beating from all quarters in the past week. Still, I commend Iggy for eventually seeing the light and backing down.

The fact that many in the party were pushing for an election now is a testament to how much stronger the party is in the brief time since Ignatieff's been leader.

The Liberal Party is stronger today simply because they are no longer led by the hapless Dion. If Rae became leader, Liberals feel just as "strong".
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Any fair-minded observer recognizes that Ignatieff played a poor hand about as well as he could last week.

I consider myself a fair-minded observer, and I think that Iggy shouldn't have pointed the gun if he wasn't able to pull the trigger. That's why his image has taken such a beating from all quarters in the past week. Still, I commend Iggy for eventually seeing the light and backing down.

The fact that many in the party were pushing for an election now is a testament to how much stronger the party is in the brief time since Ignatieff's been leader.

The Liberal Party is stronger today simply because they are no longer led by the hapless Dion. If Rae became leader, Liberals feel just as "strong".
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Any fair-minded observer recognizes that Ignatieff played a poor hand about as well as he could last week.

I consider myself a fair-minded observer, and I think that Iggy shouldn't have pointed the gun if he wasn't able to pull the trigger. That's why his image has taken such a beating from all quarters in the past week. Still, I commend Iggy for eventually seeing the light and backing down.

The fact that many in the party were pushing for an election now is a testament to how much stronger the party is in the brief time since Ignatieff's been leader.

The Liberal Party is stronger today simply because they are no longer led by the hapless Dion. If Rae became leader, the Liberals would now feel just as "strong".
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Any fair-minded observer recognizes that Ignatieff played a poor hand about as well as he could last week.

I consider myself a fair-minded observer, and I think that Iggy shouldn't have pointed the gun if he wasn't able to pull the trigger. That's why his image has taken such a beating from all quarters in the past week. Still, I commend Iggy for eventually seeing the light and backing down.

The fact that many in the party were pushing for an election now is a testament to how much stronger the party is in the brief time since Ignatieff's been leader.

The Liberal Party is stronger today simply because they are no longer led by the hapless Dion. If Rae had become the leader, the Liberals would now feel just as "strong".
RayK

Last time around the entire Liberal caucus was demanding an election in early spring in 2008. It took Wartime Consigliere David Smith telling them that half the caucus would lose their seats for them to backdown.

Remember, that was after the party had had over two years to organize and put together a campaign warchest since the last election–and a full year after the convention. Also keep in mind that they had a much higher rebate and public subsidy after the 2006 election than they do now.

In short, they aren't ready for an election. Iggy had about 75% caucus support in his leadership race, so my guess is that he probably feels he can count on them to follow his lead without having to give them a presentation on party finances designed to scare the crap out of them.