Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW
He also offers his thoughtful perspective of Stephen Harper’s last 10 years in his recent eBook, The Harper Decade.

Categories: Capital Read, Inkless Wells

More by Paul Wells

Tom Mulcair and the Tar Messengers

Mulcair seems to believe Harper has the premiers of the western provinces waiting by the Harperphone
Quebec tuition protesters’ winning streak just never ends

Bliss it is in this dawn to be alive, and to be young, Trotskyist,…
Stephen Harper’s secret weapon in Quebec

Any Conservative gains in the province will have much to do with insider Denis Lebel

http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

"I’m amazed that I wasn’t familiar with this speech. "

But Paul, we all learned in the 2006 election that talking about what Harper had written or said before 2005 was verbotten.

On a related note, for those who might have missed it, in this week's magazine, Feschuk has an exclusive interview between Stephen Harper 2005 and Stephen Harper 2010 in which fisticuffs are narrowly averted. Good thing Stephen Harper 2000 wasn't around. Just sayin'.

Loraine Lamontagne

Indeed, poor Mr. Wells. He has now committed the sin of demonizing Harper by quoting Stephen Harper.
http://intensedebate.com/people/jasonhickman jasonhickman

But Paul, we all learned in the 2006 election that talking about what Harper had written or said before 2005 was verbotten.

No, Ted. What we learned in 2006 was that the Liberals' strategy of saying "Ooo, Scary Stephen Harper – look what he said back then" was getting old, and getting much less effective.

Katherine

That's a very interesting article Wells, thank you. It's interesting because the way Harper has governed has, in many ways, been exactly the behaviour he denounced in the article, due to the fact that Canadian public opinion is generally against the things he supported (preventing gay marriage, participating in the Iraq War). But his rhetoric is near-identical to that of the US Republican Party, right down to the oft-used bewilidering claim that the "Reagan Revolution" brought an increased focus on balanced budgets (by increasing US debt from ~ $1 million to over $4 million, and debt as % of GDP from 33% to 66% over 12 years? The myth of neoconservative fiscal conservatism grows tiring.)

The point that the Liberal party is primarily one of economic corporatism is interesting given that we've seen an intensification of it due to the recession under the Conservatives in Canada (partial government ownership of GM) and under both Republicans and Democrats in the US (massive bailouts, control of a majority stake in GM, and health insurance mandates that benefit the private insurance companies).
251

I'm pretty sure I remember this speech- or one with the same basic idea- everyone's a fiscal conservative now, so the way forward is to focus on social conservatism- appearing in the Globe&Mail during the 2004 campaign.

251

John Ibbitson's column, Globe&Mail, June 12 2004: begins:

"Liberal strategists think they have found, in a speech by Stephen Harper, proof of a hidden, social conservative agenda…"

Second paragraph begins:

"Mr. Harper's speech, delivered last year to Civitas…"

Lord Kitchener's Own

If "serious" conservative parties simply cannot shy away from values questions, does that actually tell us anything whatsoever about Canada's Conservative Party in relation to values questions?

Wallace Cleaver

It tells us that Canada's Conservative Party is NOT a serious conservative party.

FVerhoeven

Mr.Wells, I'm not entirely sure what your reasons are for bringing this particular speech to our attention. To me it has always been clear that Harper is very capable of wrapping his mind around big ideas. In practical terms, this becomes a bit more difficult, as is the case for implementing all encompassing ideas.

I could not help, however, but to think of two books written by Ignatieff (probably at around the same tme although I am not sure about the dates, Human Rights, and the Lesser of Two Evils,) in which the LIberal leader also tries to grapple with big ideas.

But in essence, the topics under discussion in Harper's essay and the contents of Ignatieff's two books, do not differ as much as one might think. The difference I find is that Harper acknowledges the fact that there is a end result possible but I am not so sure Mr.Ignatieff is capable of deciding which end result he's ultimately aiming for.

John D

"Mr.Wells, I'm not entirely sure what your reasons are for bringing this particular speech to our attention."

Go back and read the post, it's not that long.

http://intensedebate.com/people/FVerhoeven FVerhoeven

Of course I've read it before posting. That's exactly why I question his reason for referring to it. My second line, had you cared to come to an understanding of my entire post, reads:

"To me it has always been clear that Harper is very capable of wrapping his mind around big ideas."

Jan

Can you provide one example of a big idea that he has presented to the Canadian public?

http://intensedebate.com/people/craigola craigola

Oh no, you misunderstand. He doesn't *present* big ideas, he simply wraps his head around them.
Jan

Ah – that would explain the hair.
http://intensedebate.com/people/CTM Claudia Lemire

Lol, that was funny!!!
http://intensedebate.com/people/FVerhoeven FVerhoeven

Well, for one, the essay Wells refers to. Very big idea.

And then there is the Senate change proposal, (not accepted by the opposition)

And then there is the proposal to stop funding political parties with taxpayer's money.

And then there was the effort to bring our military equipment etc up to par, reasonably speaking.

Amateur Hour

I'm not sure which is the more disturbing: Harper's perpetually spinning political and moral compass; or, Harper's self-serving misrepresentation of political and moral philosophy. I've never seen so many strawmen put up in one speech.

They sure did "learn him up good" at U Calgary.

http://intensedebate.com/people/FVerhoeven FVerhoeven

You are completely ignorant of what Harper is trying to highlight in this speech. You know, a lot of people will not even come close to understanding the core aspect of his speech.

Amateur Hour

You mean Harper was trying to achieve what Goldwater and Nixon tried and failed to do, and Reagan succeeded in: uniting the social/religious conservatives of one region with the traditional (republican) conservatives of another? At the same time, sewing discord amongst the opposition by creating rifts in their unity over social wedge issues? All for electoral success, the fiscal and civic consequences be damned? Nah, I think I got that.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Geiseric Geiseric

His "Developments in Canada's Political System" speech to the CNP road trip to Montreal back in '97 is pretty much hidden in plain sight as well.

They say it was tongue-in-cheek. I say it was a job interview.
http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

"We should never accept the standard of just being "better than the Liberals" – people who advocate that standard seldom achieve it"

Famous (last) words?

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

They are going for "worse than the Liberals' and doing a damn fine job of it!
http://intensedebate.com/people/janicemaerose janicemaerose

I think the quotes should be "just" better than the Liberals.

http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

I found myself going through the essay and thinking that his reading of classical liberalism and classical conservatism were pretty much exactly what I remembered from my own polsci classes.

His reading on socialism and Keynesianism, however, seem to be altogether without any context, so his judgements of the so-called-resulting "moral relativism" and nihilism ring a little hollow.

I wonder how much Harper has had to learn, in the past four years, that governance by policy requires nuance – and that absolute moral standards which do not allow for exception provide fewer solutions in practice than they do on paper.

http://intensedebate.com/people/FVerhoeven FVerhoeven

But if you read his speech, you will find that Harper is not talking about absolute moral standards.

Of course the practical aspect of implicating is not as easy as is explaining the theoretical. Yet, the theoretical needs to be understood so that the direction of the practical is possible towards the ends of the theoretical. Both, the pratical and the theoretical are in play, and rightfully so.

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

Harper: "The essence of this conservatism is, according to Russell Kirk, "the preservation of the ancient moral traditions of humanity. Conservatives respect the wisdom of their ancestors: they are dubious of wholesale alteration. They think society is a spiritual reality, possessing an eternal life but a delicate constitution: it cannot be scrapped and recast as if it were a machine." "

"Conservatives respect the wisdom of their ancestors"! Then why do they want to skip two or three generations back and apply the wisdom of 1925 to the problems of 2010? That's not conservatism, that's the form of utopian idealism they call atavism. A true conservative maintains ("conserves") the society into which he or she is born. I was born into a tolerant, bilingual, secular society that balances the rights of the individual with the needs of the collective, and I intend to conserve it. Harper is no conservative: he's an idealist, a revolutionary, and a Whig. That his type of radical should have relativised the meaning of the word "conservative" only goes to show how close such libertarianism and Christianism really is to nihilism.

Amateur Hour

You're pretty well on target, Mr. Mitchell. Dishonesty in the pursuit of "righteous" power is vital Harper's style of faux-conservatism. In this speech, he praises Reagan and Thatcher. Then he cites Adam Smith, incongruously, omitting the actual source of Reagan-Thatcher inspiration: Hayak. Smith is more palatable for public consumption, you see.

Similarly, when he speaks of different types of Conservatism, he mentions Classical Liberalism (read Locke) as one source and Burke as the other. But the Manichean good vs. evil worldview that he and his neo-Conservative fellow travellers hold is pure Churchill, another leader with slippery beliefs.

You cannot argue with people who willfully misquote and misrepresent their heros, let alone their opponents. (Note the seed of the "Paul Martin supports kiddie porn angle" in this speech.) They don't care about being consistent. They only want to win and will do anything to achieve their ends. I found it most chilling that Harper attributed the following to bin Laden and Saddam Hussein: "fundamentalism, fascistic nationalism, misogyny, bigotry."

http://intensedebate.com/people/Mader David Mader

Why is that attribution chilling?

Amateur Hour

Because on their worst days, engaging in the worst excesses of partisanship, opponents of Mr. Harper point to his missionary religious views, his appeals to symbols of nationalism, and his actions against the equality of women. To his credit, he has not stooped to bigotry on the Canadian stage.

My central point was that it is a foolish task to try to find intellectual consistency in Mr. Harper's thinking or pronouncements. He's not interested in consistency … or even honesty. Just transformative power.

Plain Old Anon

Then why do they want to skip two or three generations back and apply the wisdom of 1925 to the problems of 2010?

Explain yourself, young man.

Also, can any party leader claim ideological purity? I find myself on unusually shaky ground when trying to label person A as this and person B as that, because where is the centre?

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

The centre is the status quo when you were born.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

You missed the part about, "Its primary value is social order. It stresses respect for customs and traditions (religious traditions above all), voluntary association, and personal self-restraint reinforced by moral and legal sanctions on behaviour. "

Oh, where to start? Ahem, now that I've stopped laughing, I think I'll choose respect for customs and traditions. Which is why we now phone</> Her Magisty's representative, and then get her to read a speech we've just cobbled together without much thought.

But then we get to "personal self-restraint reinforced by moral and legal sanctions on behaviour." Hahahah! This is like something coming from Feschuk's voice in the PMs head.

http://intensedebate.com/people/FVerhoeven FVerhoeven

It is clear to me that a lot of people within their responses show that they are not capable of understanding what Harper is talking about. Most respondents skim over the surface of his speech without even picking up one of the deeper underlying thoughts, historical thoughts I may add.

Jenn, you do it in your response as well. You stay on the surface and then pretend Harper is the drowning dummy.

http://intensedebate.com/people/FVerhoeven FVerhoeven

This speech is ultimately about individual freedom of all human beings. To define individual freedom is difficult to do under any restricted circumstances including a time constraint speech. Why don't you try and define the meaning of individual freedom? Now that would be a worthwhile contribution to this debate.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

For me, I am free because I am protected from discrimination (which could still use a bit more protection, but comparatively-speaking). I am free because I control my reproductive process. I am free because I can engage in respectful debate. I am free because I have rights.

I didn't spend a lot of time thinking about this, though. Those were just the first things that occurred to me.
http://intensedebate.com/people/FVerhoeven FVerhoeven

Actually, Jenn, you're not the only one who hasn't put a lot of deeper thought into the being of individual freedom. And I certainly hope you can forgive me if I seem to come down on you in person in this respect. I do believe there are a lot of people who cannot define the meaning of individual freedom within collective bounds.

I do understand this completely: absolutely nothing can be achieved through fragmentation. Taking on one aspect of an idea, let's say, without considering the existence of a whole is a false undertaking. I believe Harper's essay to be in this sense.

you mention "comperatively speaking" ……..such boggles the mind, does it not?
http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

It is because I am free enough that I don't spend a lot of time thinking about it. I am also one who is okay with obeying (most) rules, such that I don't all that often find myself constrained by them. I can see areas where I do feel a little bit constrained, and I can easily see how my situation could change at any moment. But mostly, I just wish other people would also obey the rules (I call everyone "special" people because it seems nobody thinks the rules are meant for them). So, I think balancing personal freedom with the collective society is maybe very slightly skewed to the personal freedom side for me.
http://intensedebate.com/people/FVerhoeven FVerhoeven

Yup, finding balance has a lot to do with it. Thanks Jenn, great conversation.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

Oh, no doubt you are right.

But as a Harper supporter, it is good, I think, for you to understand how an Ignatieff supporter would feel. I promise to delve deeper into Harper's speeches when Conservatives stop intentionally misrepresenting everything Ignatieff has ever written. Yes, this is a childish attitude of mine. But it is not intentionally misrepresenting what he said, as in I took the time to understand (or had it explained) what he said and am quoting out of context. I freely admit I didn't take the time. Nor have I had it explained. And I won't, until I see some honesty coming from the Conservative side, where once again it is fine to dish it out, but not take it.

Or to put it another way, the Conservatives did it first! :)

http://intensedebate.com/people/FVerhoeven FVerhoeven

Well, Jenn, if that's the solution to our little quibble here, I suggest you start reading some of Ignatieff's book, in which his deeper thoughts come rising to the surface. Now if you can explain to me, after reading his books, why Ignatieff choose to become the appointed leader of a major political party within this country and still believes what he wrote about has us seen the light, I would beg to differ.

Read up on these leaders, and find out what they really stand for.

in practical terms, Harper has his stumble blocks to overcome, including some created by his own doing, but don't tell me that other leaders have been perfect or pure. That would be self denial of truth at its worst. You see, all of this has to do with each and every one of us. I'm not fooled by Harper but I am not fooled by Ignatieff either.
http://intensedebate.com/people/CTM Claudia Lemire

Bravo, my friend, well said!
burlivespipe

Darn right, plagarists are people too!

http://intensedebate.com/people/janicemaerose janicemaerose

Harper's role model was recently GW Bush. That greatly influenced his view of conservatism, which is also where he got his nihilistic teachings.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

Sigh. I remember those guys. It was hidden if it wasn't published in the Earnscliffe Company Newsletter.
Dot

I presume the 2003 speech was pre political market segmentation genius Patrick Muttart's arrival on the national stage. Remember this: "'Dougie'…. was the Conservatives' fondest hope. Dougie was Muttart's hypothetical tradesman, perhaps a construction worker in Yarmouth, Nova Scotia. Dougie didn't usually vote. But promise him a tax credit on the tools he needs to do his hypothetical job and his ears might prick up.

So, what's the convincing evidence that what Harper has been doing over the past little while is not merely an extension of the Muttart approach – continuing market segmentation – and appealing politically to narrower and narrower demographics simply in an effort to do whatever is necessary to personally remain PM as long as possible – the As Good as It Gets theory for Harper's career?
Emmett

"The truth is that strong economic and social conservatives are more often than not the same people, and not without reason."

That's just wrong.
http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

“Serious conservative parties simply cannot shy away from values questions”

And neither should any person, whatever their background or ideology. It's called being an adult.

This country is seriously lacking in people willing to have discussions and debates on values questions.

http://intensedebate.com/people/FVerhoeven FVerhoeven

Great post, Lynn! It is about time we start defining collectively what such words as "adult" and "individual freedom" really mean.

Let's come to grips with it.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Mader David Mader

Can we all take a minute to appreciate the caption to the picture of Harper that accompanies the speech on the Cannabis Culture website? "An evil, hard-liner man with no soul." Yay discourse!

http://intensedebate.com/people/jasonhickman jasonhickman

I always appreciate it when they go for the subtle approach.

MacLean's Regular

"I hope you get a chance to read the speech."

It's difficult. Whenever Harper starts getting deep, I can't escape the feeling that he his, deep down, profoundly insane.

Question: How can you have a conservative society and a liberal economy?

http://intensedebate.com/people/FVerhoeven FVerhoeven

Question: how can you have a conservative society and a liberal economy?

Well, one would start by uniting the aspects of social conservatism with economic conservatism. When the "value" factor within view of social conservatism is understood, one will automatically fall into a "liberal economy. Because, really, what do you understand a "liberal economy " to be without values? A free for all?

A "free for all " will manage to absorbe "freedom" for each and every one of us.

burlivespipe

Of course, now we know what John Howard thinks about serious conservatives. Can someone enlighten us, maybe pin him down in some drive way Tom Zatarcch (sic), and find out what the real Harper thinks of this now?
MacLean's Regular

"'Social conservatism' is a bugaboo in Canada, best I can tell, because it's understood to mean the imposition of Christian values by positive state action."

I'm not sure about that. My understanding is that for social conservatism to be accepted in a modern, diverse, secular society, it has to be promoted using a very high degree of deception, in the form of pseudo-science and unsupported claims. Otherwise, it remains purely a personal ilifestyle choice and has no political power.
http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

True, because it was just rote and they had nothing else to offer.

But, Jason. What we learned in 2009/2010 is that when the Liberals' were saying "ooo, Scary Stephen Harper – look what he said back then", we should not have stopped paying attention.

http://intensedebate.com/people/jasonhickman jasonhickman

Who's "we"? People were 'paying attention" – or at the very least, the "hidden agenda/scary past" routine has been available for voters to pay attention to. Heck, this speech made its way into the G&M during the '04 campaign, as 251's comment below indicates. It just has gotten less effective over time.

Perhaps that's because Harper has been sensible enough to avoid trying to revive SoCon issues that the public doesn't want to touch (abortion, capital punishment), but has been willing to legislate on issues where at least a goodly share of the voters appear to be on-side (childcare). I think that's certainly something one could take from PW's article this week.

If the Libs want to go back to their boogeyman strategy, more power to 'em, but I don't think Iggy's current crew is that foolish. If they want to beat Harper, they'll have to do it on the issues (including the SoCon issues) where there's an actual footprint, and not rely on dragging out old speeches and hoping that we'll jump at the shadows.

MacLean's Regular

"If the Libs want to go back to their boogeyman strategy, more power to 'em, but I don't think Iggy's current crew is that foolish. If they want to beat Harper, they'll have to do it on the issues (including the SoCon issues) where there's an actual footprint, and not rely on dragging out old speeches and hoping that we'll jump at the shadows. "

Astounding. The first thing the Liberals should do is take advice from their adversaries?

Even you can't believe that.

I say "scary socon agenda" is still a valuable tool in a diverse arsenal of weapons to attack the Conservatives. Although the Liberals should emphasize the "fight" reaction that most people experience when exposed to a threat, rather than the all too common "flight" routine.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

Great speech by Harper. I can't believe I've never seen that before. (Kudos to Wells for doing the legwork on this)

So he actually does believe in social policy as a motivator for incrementalism. Wicked.

I have to hand it to the guy – talk about playing the long game.

kcm

That's hilarious. If a liberal were to say that you'd be screaming blue murder. Course, i might have misunderstood you since i haven't read the speech yet.[ a little shamefaced]

matt

That's a fascinating thought. What Liberal policies between 1993 and 2006 created incremental change? There was a series of incremental changes in respect of same sex marriage via court decisions, but the Liberal decisions on that front were rapid and forced by the hands of various Courts of Appeal. The Kyoto ratification lingered after signing the accord, but the decision to finally ratify was abrupt. The marijuana decriminalization debate certainly shifted public opinion, but I can't say there was any crystallized policy gain. The deficit control measures were abrupt, beating even Reform's targets during the '93 campaign. The Iraq war decision was also abrupt, after vascillating between the Chretien/Martin positions of in/partially in/maybe not in.

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

Consider the hidden agenda endorsed!

matt

If by "hidden agenda" you mean well-documented public statements and writings, then yes.

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

That's exactly what I mean. All that stuff in the public record that never, ever gets referenced during an election campaign, or mentioned by the press (apart from Mr. Wells), and that's considered oh-so-unfair to cite if you're Harper's opponent. You know, the hidden agenda. The thing you mock. The plan for a majority. The joke.

http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

On that, we agree. I always thought the "hidden agenda" attack was politically stupid and, because they just relied on the accusation without pointing to policy points or creating their own policy to counter, really quite hollow.

Harper has a record now. No need for a bogeyman. Better to be quiet on what he would do to our democracy and accountability and social justice issues and criminal code with a majority as just a question, and leave it to the imagination. That would be enough to scare off most voters.

But if that is all they have, as was the case in 2006, then they wouldn't deserve to get elected as government.

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

But if that is all they have, as was the case in 2006, then they wouldn't deserve to get elected as government.

Sorry, I found this ambiguous. Are you suggesting that Team Martin didn't deserve to get elected as government in 2006?

leave it to the imagination. That would be enough to scare off most voters.

Wasn't "leaving it to the imagination" the basis of the Libs' 2006 campaign, though? A lot of the boogeyman stuff relied on this very strategy. To paraphrase, stuff like: "Soldiers in our cities… we'll just say that and let your imagination fill in the blanks. Obviously, Harper is scary."

MacLean's Regular

"Wasn't "leaving it to the imagination" the basis of the Libs' 2006 campaign, though?"

It was. And it was only because the Liberals didn't have much to go with except an uneasy feeling. Now they've got more meat: "Nice Parliament you got there, Canada. Be a shame if something were to happen to it."

Ted Betts is wrong. This stuff will write itself.

Tim

I really like the difference in Harper's views in 2003 versus those of today in regards to corporatism i.e. GM bailout.

http://intensedebate.com/people/janicemaerose janicemaerose

Hey, that the conservative view world-wide went waay wacko with respect to corporatism and small government. The Republicans were the first to advocate the bail-outs in the U.S. before Obama came in and got blamed for it all. Right wing governments in Europe did the same thing.

http://intensedebate.com/people/paipoonger paipoonger

Thanks, Paul, for digging this up, like a real journalist should but as so few seem to.

It cemented my belief that Prime Minister Harper is one of the few public intellectuals Canada actually has. The trick is, as always, translating the big ideas into action on the ground. Unfortunately, the system of government we have has barely evolved, even incrementally as a conservative should prefer, and attracts a lot of merely ambitious or argumentative types who can boil off a lot of rain before it can reach the ground.

I can get behind a lot of what he says, while recognizing (and also supporting as an incrementalist) that there is an 'art of the possible' – which is not the same as hypocrisy at all. Just because one cannot do everything does not mean one should do nothing.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

True. But one shouldn't be claiming to do things which they then turn around and do the exact opposite of which is where the term Harpercrite springs from.
http://intensedebate.com/people/janicemaerose janicemaerose

Harper was good at writing essays; that's it. He wasn't, nor demonstrates today to be a public intellectual. I don't think he has a clue as to how to translate his economics courses in university to the real world.

http://intensedebate.com/people/FVerhoeven FVerhoeven

I think it's the reverse: you not understanding Harper's essay brings you to the wrong conclusions in this respect.

http://intensedebate.com/people/janicemaerose janicemaerose

Sorry FV, but I'm not convinced of late that Harper is intellectual; authoritative, but not very long-term thinking. Things will catch up to him.

burlivespipe

FVerboten can drudge up all kind of magical examples of Harper-as-governint-stud, but it requires a lot of mushrooms and some black lights. As to his intellect, there remains some question as to whose property he's spewing at any given time, including the example that is being grinded down here.
Interesting to see who most people here (myself excluded) are willing to give insightful discourse, even balanced criticism. You don't get that when the Con-nation is parsing past Ignatieff speeches/writings.
Canuckistanian

"You don't get that when the Con-nation is parsing past Ignatieff speeches/writings."

Simple. Liberals (small 'l') aren't as concerned with winning. Fairness and reasonableness and rationality aren't values conducive to going in for the kill just for the thrill (and the 'W'). It is easier to win if you're willing to traffic in irrational and unreasonable discourse.

http://chuckercanuck.blogspot.com chuckercanuck

I have a question:

The timing of this work (excellent and provocative, Mr. Wells) is too hard to ignore. I mean the pending Thinker's Conference.

This is Iggy's big show. A Thinker's Conference. He's a thinker. He's gotta be king of the thinker's and dazzle us dummies with his command of the assembled thinkers.

On the eve of that, a major expose on the thinking and perspectives of our Prime Minister – featuring stuff written, as has been equally noted above – around a time when it could be compared to Iggy's thought pieces of the day.

It can't be an accident!

Jan

Are you worried this blows Harper's 'regular guy' status.? Thinking is so elitist, isn't it?

http://intensedebate.com/people/FVerhoeven FVerhoeven

No, the point chuckercanuck is trying to make (if I understand him correctly) is this:

Ignatieff wrote a lot of nonefiction books, which in essence are long versions of a presented speech, for instance. Ignatieff wrote about human rights and one of his nonevfiction books is called "The Lesser of Two Evils". If you would read those books, you will come to understand that Ignatieff (and most other enlightened leaders) are grappling with the very same ideas as Harper is grappling with within his essay. Other leaders my approach the subject from various angles, yet all of them are trying to come to grips with what Harper is spelling out within the above quoted essay.

Any leader who can combine the two aspects (the theoretical and the practical) will always be the "regular guy"s" leader regardless of stripe or political affiliations.

Jan

Click on 'chuckercanut' and see what he's saying about Ignatieff if you want to understand him correctly.

http://intensedebate.com/people/FVerhoeven FVerhoeven

thanks, Jan. Interesting blogsite, I will check it out.

Katherine

Having read some of Ignatieff's work, his methods of developing and defending ideas are far superior. Harper's piece is, by and large, conservative political cant that differs little from what conservatives have said and written for the last thirty years, relying heavily on misrepresentation of opponents' positions and consequent failure to engage with them. One of the striking characteristics of The Lesser Evil is the degree to which Ignatieff acknowledges points of view which differ from his and debates them without using caricature – it's an intellectual honesty rarely seen in politicians, and I respect it while disagreeing with Ignatieff's arguments.

http://intensedebate.com/people/FVerhoeven FVerhoeven

Of course one can respect arguments brought forward without agreeing with them. That's a no brainer.

After reading Human Rights and the Lesser of Two evils, it was/is clear to me that Ignatieff understands the dilemna's existing in the world, and philosophycally speaking, he does understand some of the fundamental challenges facing us continuously. But I did not get the sense, after having read the books and after seeing him in action as a politician for a while now, that he is himself clear on what end he is ultimately pursuing. What, ultimately, is Ignatieff's goal?

You may find his intelligence superior to Harper's, his intellectual honesty to be of the rarest kind when considering politicians in general, but really, how to answer then to the happenings of letting himself be crowned leader of the LPC? If we want to talk about intellectual honesty possessed by politicians, what possessed him when this particular crowning occurred?
Did individual freedom play a role in that case?

http://intensedebate.com/people/FVerhoeven FVerhoeven

Knock, knock……………….Anyone home, Katherine?

MJH

Does anyone really believe that Jack Layton's "ordinary Canadians" give two hoots about this? It is of interest to about two dozen political junkies and that is all.