Beyond The Commons

Beyond The Commons

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

A Harvard man

by Aaron Wherry on Monday, July 12, 2010 4:05pm - 0 Comments

We know, because we’ve been told, that the next governor general is a non-partisan. But other facets of his history and personality are so far less understood.

For instance, though it was not noted in the official release announcing his appointment, in the third paragraph of the attached four-paragraph backgrounder we learn that Mr. Johnston, who was introduced to the country as a respected academic, began his post-secondary studies at Harvard. Granted, while at Harvard, he played “ice hockey,” as they call it there. But still, Harvard.

This is obviously confusing, for if we have learned anything at all over the last four and a half years it’s that the name of that American educational institution is only to be invoked or referenced in the derisive sense, for the purposes of mocking another’s character or intellect.

To wit.

John Baird. “That may sell in the south of France or at Harvard but it does not sell with Canadians.”

Lois Brown. “It seems he had a better place to be. He was also scheduled to go back to Harvard for a little talk.”

Sylvie Boucher. “You do not need to have gone to Harvard to understand what is happening in Canada.”

Jay Hill. “He should set aside his desire for an unnecessary election and a premature return to Harvard, and instead commit to working with our government for the betterment of all Canadians.”

Daniel Petit. “He seems to have his heart set on returning to Harvard. He can rest easy: more than ever, our government is committed to fighting these tax hikes and his centralist fervour and giving Harvard University a gift.”

Greg Rickford. “He has shown time and time again that he is more than willing to flip-flop on the content of his message to suit whatever audience he is speaking to, whether it be in Saanich, St. Catharines or at his home in Harvard.”

Dean Del Mastro. “If the Liberal leader were as smart as his Harvard teaching stint would suggest, he would fire Mr. Kinsella so that he would be free to stick his foot in his mouth whenever he liked without a negative impact on the Liberal Party.”

Jim Flaherty. “Mr. Speaker, I would have thought that someone who taught at Harvard would have learned to read reports before he speaks of them.”

Stockwell Day. “Mr. Speaker, the constant practice of the member from Harvard from Etobicoke is to take something that was said and twist it and torque it into something else.”

Brian Fitzpatrick. “I would also point out to the former professor from Harvard that it was Earl Warren, a Republican who was appointed to the Supreme Court of the United States, who finally brought sanity to the segregation laws in the United States and struck down its segregation laws.”

Monte Solberg. “That was the honourable member from Harvard.”

Jeff Watson. “I guess that is the Harvard way. It is certainly not the Canadian way.”

Kory Teneycke. “This is politics. This is not a Harvard classroom. You have to be able to take it as well as give it.”

Conservative website. “When you’re a Harvard professor it could be hard to understand Canadians.”

Bookmark and Share
  • Bob

    I wonder if there's a difference between the number of years Johnston spent away from Canada and the number of years Ignatieff did. Hmmm…

    • Emily

      Oh I see, now we are down to counting years…because we have no case.

      • Bob

        No case for what? I honestly don't believe the Cons have a leg to stand on IF they in fact claim Iggy isn't suitable for PM because he spent time at Harvard. I AM willing, however, to consider whether I'd want to vote for someone to lead a country when they've spent more time away from it than in it.

        So yeah, I guess I would argue counting years might be a somewhat decent distinction to make.

        • Emily

          Yes, I guess visits home, and a global media wouldn't keep him informed.

          • Bob

            Yeah, opposition to Iggy is about how informed he is or isn't… No, maybe some people legitimately prefer their PM to have wanted to spend most of her or his life in the country they try to lead, as opposed to only wanting to come back because they hear all the good press about how they might make a good PM one day…

          • Emily

            Or maybe he chose to serve his country.

            People do that you know.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/hollinm hollinm

            Emily….you can't really be serious? Kool-aid anyone?

          • PCJ

            Then again, you have those that HAVE lived here their entire lives and still have no clue about Canada and shouldn't be leading the country either.

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

          I love the need to exaggerate his time abroad – "more time away from it than in it", or (elsewhere) "he's spent his whole adult life at Harvard/in the US" or similar epithets. None of which is true, of course. And they know it when you press them on it.

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

            I love the need to exaggerate his time abroad – "more time away from it than in it"

            That's not an exaggeration. Ignatieff is a 63-year-old-man who spent 34 years of his adult life outside of Canada.

          • Emily

            No, he travelled the world in that time….living for awhile in both the UK and the US, and travelling all over.

            He was also here.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ignatieff#Un…

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

            No, he travelled the world in that tim

            Why the "no"? How does this conflict with anything I said?

          • Emily

            He wasn't living in a cave cut off from all communication from the outside world.

            He was travelling and living in different places…including here…in that time.

            In an age of phones, media and the web.

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

            I still don't see the conflict with anything I said.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/hollinm hollinm

            Emily…..and your point is what?

          • tedbetts

            Except he did not spend 34 years of his adult life outside of Canada, CR. That is just not true. As in false. As in wrong.

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

            You're the one who's wrong, Ted. 1970-1976, then 1978-2005. Those are the adult years he lived outside of Canada.

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

            But that only adds up to 33. Or at the very least it's not 34 years to the day.

            Therefore your point is completely wrong, and Ted stands victorious. I get the impression that's the tack he's taking here.

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

            Actually, Ted claims that Ignatieff only lived abroad for 25 years or so (see below). It's all a giant conspiracy, you see.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

            tedbetts: Just Prevaricating.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/CTM Claudia Lemire

      He wasn't away 34 years as Ignatieff was and also it is ok to go to University somewhere else, most dignitaries or head of state go to other institutions like Harvard, Cambridge, etc.

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

        The number of years Iggy was away is magical. It keeps growing with each telling.

        He spent 4 years at Harvard. While in the remainder of the time abroad he did teach here and there at different universities, he was not making his way as a university professor or at a university, and he spent a lot of that time in Canada, like the year he spent here researching for one of his books, or working for Canada, like when he was representing Canada at the UN on humanitarian intervention in failed states.

        I don't doubt because of that he has a steeper hill to climb, but it is still better experience than a lifelong career politician and desk jockey who had even less experience governing anything than Ignatieff does now.

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

          The number of years Iggy was away is magical. It keeps growing with each telling.

          No, it doesn't. Ignatieff lived abroad for 34 years of his adult life. That's a fact – it's not in dispute. Why do you feel the number "keeps growing with each telling"?

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

            Because he wasn't away from Canada for 34 years, CR. That fact is in dispute. That is a lie pushed by… I don't know who… I've seen it repeated lots but I don't know who started it and repetition doesn't make it any more true.

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

            Really? What's the number, then? How come Ignatieff never disputed the "34 years" figure from those TV ads, which has been widely used in the media?

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

            It is more like 25 years. He left Canada at the end of 1978, returned a number of times since then (like for most of a year travelling to research a book) as well as several months/large parts of different years when he was producing a CBC movie version of his GG winning novel, visits to family, short teaching stints. He returned to Canada in 2005.

            I'm not disputing it is a lot of years, and that should certainly be factored into any assessment of him, but it is not 34 years, and it is not "most of his life".

          • Crit_Reasoning

            He lived abroad from 1970-1976 (his Cambridge/Harvard/travelling years). That's 6 years. He then lived abroad between 1978-2005. Another 27 years and change. It all adds up to 33 or 34 years, which has been widely circulated in the media and has never been challenged by Ignatieff.

          • madeyoulook

            CR and TB, have at each other all you like. But the off-by-one problem might mean that MI has been away 7+18=35 years, if substantial portions of each book-ending year were spent "away."

            And, frankly, I don't care as much about that as CR does. OK, nor, it seems, as much as TB does. Sometimes I play a numbers-geek on this internet thingy. We now return you to the international fitness for statesmanship debate, already in progress.

          • hollinm

            CR……you will never change tedbetts mind. He is too full of the Liberal kool-aid. The fact is Ignatieff never participated in any of the serious political events that changed the country over the years. He sniped from the sidelines criticizing the French, ridiculing how we thought we were peacekeepers when we simply left all the fighting to the States, compared the flag to a beer label, only missed Alongquin Park and of course condones all things Republican and that infamous calling himself an American which we all saw for ourselves.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/CTM Claudia Lemire

          I was talking about the number of years he was away and that's 34 years!

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

            Wrong.

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

            Um, do you have any evidence that she's wrong?

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

            Yes. Right here. Do I have to do all the work for you?

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

            Just posting a wiki link doesn't cut it, Ted. Not when you're obscuring the fact that Ignatieff only lived in Canada for two years in the 1970s.

      • Dee

        So, by this reasoning a recent immigrant who has spent, say, 30 years in his or her native country and has recently become a Canadian citizen after spending, say, 10 years in Canada, is less of a Canadian than a native-born citizen?

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

          That doesn't follow from what Claudia said. She didn't say he was "less Canadian".

          An immigrant who became a Canadian citizen last week is just as Canadian as someone who was born here.

          • Emily

            That's good, because Ignatieff was born here.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/CTM Claudia Lemire

            That's right! The problem with Ignatieff is his lack of authenticity, that's why he can't connect, the man is not a politician, period.

          • Emily

            I thought we didn't want 'politicians'.

            We do have rather a lot of them already.

            I was looking for someone with brains myself.

          • Jan

            **goal post change alert**

          • Dee

            Well, living outside the country for part of your life, in the Conservatives' (and apparently Claudia's) thinking, pretty much disqualifies you for running for PM, it would seem. And here I thought any citizen, native-born or not, could run for anything up to the highest political office in this land. Naive me, eh?

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/CTM Claudia Lemire

            Dee just still don't get it, is not about being outside of Canada is that he is not a politician period and I don't care if you were born here or not as long as your are a Canadian citizen. And Emily, Ignatieff has proven that it takes more than brains to run a country, he can't even run his own party!

          • Emily

            Well that would be a partisan Con comment on your part then.

            Perhaps you just want someone to have a beer with.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/CTM Claudia Lemire

            Wow, you gotta be kidding right?

          • Dee

            Previously from Claudia: "He wasn't away 34 years as Ignatieff was…"
            and now: "…i(t')s [sic] not about being outside of Canada… as long as your [sic] are a Canadian citizen."

            Either you're highly inconsistent Claudia, or just enjoy partaking in drive-by smears. I'm guessing the latter.

          • Jenn_

            It is true, Claudia, that Ignatieff missed some of the more subtle political happenings of the (more or less recent) past. It is not true that he missed entire swaths of what was happening–such as who was Prime Minister, or the major issues facing the country or stuff like that. So, sometimes he might be confused when someone quotes something from some politician's speech (the only example I can think of is "You, sir, had a choice" which is a bad one because I'm quite sure Ignatieff knew about that).

            In place of that subtle knowledge of our fairly recent politics, he has a very well-developed sense of our historic politics, as well as a very firm idea of Canada's place in the world, and the greater world beyond Canada's borders. We look at Americans and shake our heads on how uninformed they are about everything that goes on outside of the U.S. To a lesser extent, the same could be said about Canadians, but not Ignatieff. In that sense he is maybe "not a true Canadian" but more of a "super-Canadian" (although I don't like, nor did I mean, the comic book hero visualization to that).

            The part about him not being a real politician is painfully true. It is a steep learning curve he is on, for sure. I am hopeful he will (VERY soon) discover that what we liked about him was the fact that he isn't a real politician, and find a way to show his thoughtful, open-minded intellect without tripping over media gotchas and soundbytes.

          • madeyoulook

            To a lesser extent, the same could be said about Canadians, but not Ignatieff. In that sense he is maybe "not a true Canadian" but more of a "super-Canadian" (although I don't like, nor did I mean, the comic book hero visualization to that).

            Actually, you might want to stick with the comic book hero thing. I think I am even less fond of the other connotation: that somehow he is a better Canadian than the rest of us. Free advice from a Liberal non-partisan (or is it non-Liberal partisan?): dump the "super-Canadian" tag immediately.

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

            Yeah, this is yet another time when I can't find the words I'm actually looking for. I tried out "ultra-Canadian", and "extra-Canadian", but they were no better. And I don't mean "better-Canadian" although I grant you I'm coming closer to that than what I mean. How about "more-nuanced-Canadian?"

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

            I think we are honing in on one of your leader's greatest liabilities. Whether or not it is a true feeling he has, he is giving off vibes that he is just too good for us. And we're not taking too kindly to that vibe.

            What was the Maclean's cover line on one issue: Are you good enough for Michael Ignatieff, Canada? Or something like that.

            And no, I don't know how you shake off that kind of (ongoing) first impression.

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

            Well, you meet him in person. He really, genuinely, doesn't give that vibe off himself. It's probably more people like me who try to express (badly, when it is me) his greater comfort outside our borders than other Canadian leaders (specifically, Harper) tend to have. I mean, even in pictures with G8 leaders–on Canadian soil–Harper looked ill at ease, or just generally uncomfortable in the situation. That's when he shows up for the pictures, of course. I imagine if Harper is Prime Minister for another twenty years or so, he will become used to it. But it's not just Harper. Really, the only one who was any good at it was Trudeau, I think, and that's because he really was that arrogant of a bastard that he genuinely didn't give a thought for that 'colonial' view we get from others.

          • Jan

            How about a Canadian with international experience. As opposed to Harper , who, like Bush had so little intellectual curiosity about the world his only venture out before becoming PM was to a holiday resort in Mexico.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

            International experience? Would you mean, say, being one of the elder statesmen at international summits? 'Cuz the incumbent has that one nailed.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/hollinm hollinm

          Dee…….they are not trying to be Prime Minister of the country.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/hollinm hollinm

      Bob….anybody who can tell me that Ignatieff was on his way back to Canada to become an MP and a potential future PM before the backroom boys of the Liberal party approached him then I will no longer criticize his absence from his birth country for 34 years. Try it my friends in the Liberal party. Try it.

      As usual Aaron is being disingenous and is showing his partisan teeth. The fact is Mr. Johnston went to school and taught outside of Canada and then came back to contribute to Canadians society. That cannot be said of the arrogant Russian Count who thinks he has the God given right to simply show up and Canadians should fall on their knees in adoration. It isn't going to happen any time soon and Iffy Magical Mystery Bus tour has already hit a snag if he read the latest Angus Reid poll.

  • Emily

    And now LifeSite is on his case:
    http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jul/10070809…

    Johnston is turning out to me more controversial than Jean was!

    • Bob

      Yeah, you hate him because he's white and crazy prolifers hate him because he's sensible. It's an avalanche of opposition!

      • Emily

        a) Don't hate

        b) I'm white

        c) Many Cons are 'crazy prolifers'.

        • Orson Bean

          Many Liberals are too. Ever heard of Tom Wappel?

          • Emily

            So how does this help Johnston's cause? LOL

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Halo_Override Halo_Override

            NOT LATELY.

          • Orson Bean

            Yeah, right. That's why Iggy has zero confidence in being able to have the Liberal caucus vote with one voice on any bill or motion having substantively to do with abortion.

            Look, I'll grant you that the Tory caucus almost certainly has a higher proportion of members opposed to abortion than the Liberal caucus does. But there are a significant number of Liberal MPs who also oppose abortion, and that has always been the case. To try to pretend that abortion neatly divides up along party lines, so that there's a distinct "anti-abortion" party and a distinct "pro-abortion" party, is fatuous.

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

            Agree with you there. And yet, while Liberals may present a divided vote as each MP upholds his/her principles, the Conservatives–although just as divided–will vote as one. What does that say to you, really! It is great to see Harper has such control over his caucus? Not even a little bit of these MPs have no principles?

            Yes, sure, there is a certain logic in arbitrarily removing an MPs right to choose to support a woman's right to choose. It's just that it's the icky kind of logic.

          • TedTylerEzro

            The Conservatives are whipped not to change the status quo, not whipped to remove a woman's "right to choose" (to terminate her own offspring). In fact, bringing in a private member's bill to do so will get them kicked out of caucus.

            I'm not pleased about it myself, but that's the way it is.

        • Bob

          You're right, sorry – you're opposed because he's a man. So you and one fringe website can start a Facebook petition. Good luck.

          • Emily

            d) married to a man.

            e) have lots of men in my family.

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

            e) have lots of men in my family.

            Me, too! In fact, 50% of my ancestors were men.

          • madeyoulook

            There you go, making up statistics! Wait until ted gives you a wiki link that proves you wrong…

            UPDATE: Forgot something very important… ;)

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/CTM Claudia Lemire

      This is just silly!

      • Emily

        It was when the Cons raised it in the first place.

  • AT1

    Slow news day?

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/CTM Claudia Lemire

      Very slow!

      • Jan

        Hey, this is the first news of what he has actually done. Up until now it's been 'he's a great guy' stuff. I'm thrilled he's stood up for gay rights. Harper's base – maybe not so much. And they always get nutzoid over anything to do with reproduction. Harper probably should have had Charles McVety on that ''non-partisan' panel.

    • Orson Bean

      Exactly. Inane post, and guaranteed food for partisan trolls.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Halo_Override Halo_Override

        Either the Conservative party has made a concerted and consistent effort to slag Harvard by name whenever possible, purely because Ignatieff is closely associated with it, or they haven't. And there's pretty clear evidence that they have.

        It's always been one of the barrels they've shot at him with, the other being "not a Canadian".

        Looks like the strategy has changed to stick to the second barrel, now that insulting one of a close ally's two most prestigious (for better or worse) educational institutions is getting a bit awkward to maintain. Or maybe the PMO has stopped outsourcing to Yalies, I don't know.

        • Orson Bean

          Thanks for proving my point. Guaranteed food for partisan trolls of all political stripes.

          I swear that Wherry makes posts like this to drive up partisan troll traffic. Helps with advertising.

          It's like rolling out a "tough on crime" measure. The results are predictable.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Halo_Override Halo_Override

            Your threshold of "proof" is unenviable.

            If I'm wired to be partisan on the internet toward anyone, it's the NDP, but there's not much point since they're federally unelectable.

            I'd rather see Ignatieff as PM than Harper not because I have a boner for the Liberal party, but because I can't stand what I've seen the Conservative party do with their minority and I genuinely fear a majority rule by the same scurvy crew.

            You personally mix up your views enough in these forums that I pay attention to you as a commenter. When you first arrived I had you pegged as a straight-down-the-line big-C party man, but you're not. Which makes it a sad event to see you stoop low in this thread.

          • Orson Bean

            I was merely commenting on the fact that Wherry's post was guaranteed to generate traffic, and in particular, partisan traffic, over an issue that has been debated to death on these boards. Which it did. I didn't mean my comment to be a personal shot aimed at you — if it came across that way, my apologies.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Halo_Override Halo_Override

            Fair enough.

          • Orson Bean

            BTW, 173 comments and counting. Res ipsa loquitur.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Halo_Override Halo_Override

            The judges would also have accepted quod erat demonstrandum.

            (Suspended my belief that the topic is legitimate for a moment, for the sake of getting my Trebek moment in there.)

            (174.)

  • zwee

    You're pretty tone-deaf here, Wheery. Ignatieff's affiliations were made into an issue not because he spent a couple of years at Harvard (there are actually other Canadian politicians who've done the same thing, or something similar, without it being made into an issue), but because he spent most of his life – virtually all of his adult life – outside of Canada. So it seems likely that if being Prime Minister of the country doesn't work out for him, he'll just trek on back to Harvard. Now, should that disqualify him from seeking office? I don't think so. Some people might even admire it, and have good reasons for doing so. But there's still clearly a great deal of difference between someone like Ignatieff, who's adult life was spent outside of the country up until the prospect of actually running the country presented itself to him, and someone like Johnson, who spent a few years outside of the country, and then returned and spent many years contributing to the country in a variety of capacities before being asked to represent it. If you can't recognize this difference, if it never even occurred to you, and if you can't understand why the one case is going to be a political issue in a way that the other isn't, well, then, maybe political reporting isn't your bag.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/TwoYen TwoYen

      zwee. Don't blame Aaaron. This is just a press release from the Liberal War Room.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/CTM Claudia Lemire

        They really need a good PR agency, who allowed that to be posted?

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

    I think the Zwees and Claudias and Bobs are missing the point here. It is the manner in which the Conservatives have attacked Ignatieff. There may also be grounds for challenging him on his time abroad, but at the same time they have clearly gone after the fact that he was at Harvard as a stand alone proof of his disconnectedness and inappropriateness as a PM.

    The truth of the matter is he has been an elected Member of Parliament – 5 years – for longer than he was at Harvard, and yet it is Harvard that is the focus of their comments, not the number of years abroad.

    They aren't talking about his 20 years or so as a broadcaster or his 30 years as a writer winning the Governor General's award along the way or his 12 years (I think) living in London. They attack him for his few years at Harvard, making him somehow a less than ideal choice for PM.

    Which is now, apparently, solid gold for leading the nation as our figurehead.

    • Emily

      Well see, HARVARD is good or evil…and 'not the Canadian way' depending on who you're talking about.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/CTM Claudia Lemire

      That's what the Conservatives say in their ads, but that's not what I think. I do admire him a greatly but he is one of the worst politicians that this country has seen. I love his work and his lifetime achievements, but this is not him, politics isn't his passion or purpose that's why he can't get it, he is not authentic not even with himself, he is just finishing what he started and will probably go back to what he really loves, that's why he is good in college or town meetings, he took a chance and it didn't work, I respect that he will go fighting to the end you can tell he is not a quitter.

      The first thing I thought when I read Johnston bio was Ignatieff he would of made a superb GG and it would of pay a great homage to his regal ties!

      I wish him luck, heck , he doesn't need that, he will do fine and will be really happy when he goes back to his life, weather he teaches here or abroad.

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

        He hasn't even been in one election as leader Claudia!

        Do you remember what people were saying about Harper after the 2004 election? And where he was in the polls?

        I think it is a little early yet, just over one year of leadership, to conclude it didn't work. Heck it didn't work for Pearson either and he was PM for 4 years. He was never a really good leader, a very awkward leader, who never really connected to his own party, let alone the Canadian public. Yet his legacy is cemented for one of the most productive Parliamentary sessions in Canadian history in those few short years.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

          He hasn't even been in one election as leader Claudia!

          You would be hard pressed to say that he was even elected as party leader. "Unceremoniously promoted without the disdainful mess of a contested ballot" would be a tad more accurate.

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

            Oh, for the love of Pete. If we'd had all the time in the world, which we didn't, we might have done things differently. We might also all be rich if only we'd all win the lottery. Liberals are practical. Liberals had, long before it was necessary, put this ability in our Constitution. Our Liberal caucus used it, to the approval of the vast majority of Liberals. So can we please get off this illegitimate rise to leader nonsense!

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

            I am almost certain that the word "illegitimate" does not exist in that text. Please hold while we check our records. (Click. Soothing music that might be pleasant but for the fact that you know you're wasting your time on hold. Click.) Thank you for holding. Indeed, my computer says that the word "illegitimate" appears nowhere in the comment to which you responded.

            In fact, my supervisor tells me that "Unceremoniously promoted without the disdainful mess of a contested ballot" is actually within range of your own "Liberals are practical. Liberals had, long before it was necessary, put this ability in our Constitution. Our Liberal caucus used it, to the approval of the vast majority of Liberals."

            Is there anything else I can help you with? Well then, thank you for calling Words Matter, and have a very pleasant evening.

          • john g

            Um…the only reason you didn't have all the time in the world was because the coalition disaster that your party started demanded that you replace Dion immediately.

            I don't particularly have a bone to pick with how Ignatieff was chosen, but the Liberals have only themselves to blame for being in a position where they had to install a new leader within a few days.

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

            Yeah-huh. Reminds me of that time the insurance man came in and removed the sump-pump, then shrugged his shoulders when the basement flooded and said it was our fault for not having a sump-pump.

            The Liberals weren't the ones who came up with the bone-headed FU Fiscal Update. Perhaps they thought they could get away with it because the Liberals would have to replace Dion in a hurry.

          • john g

            No they didn't. It was a bad fiscal update and the threat to pull party funding demanded a response. But they also didn't have to go for the nuclear option as their first approach either.

          • madeyoulook

            What kind of insurance do you have where your rep removes your sump pump? Why would you let him?

            The FU Fiscal Update would have done far less damage to the country than the budget that followed: a plan to spend the kids' inheritance future paycheques because we're too wimpy to live through our own well-deserved downturn in a cyclical economy that we let rise too high on the appearance of fantasy wealth in the first place. So there.

          • madeyoulook

            We might also all be rich if only we'd all win the lottery.

            Uh, well, no, you see, if everybody won the lottery, then actually nobody — oh, never mind…

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/hollinm hollinm

            Jenn….you can dismiss it if you want but Canadians saw the Liberals being undemocratic in the selection/election of their leader. No amount of lipstick will change that impression despite your protestations to the contrary.

            Why do you think there is so much discontent in the caucus? Go ahead and deny it but I know for a fact there are many Liberals who are not happy with the world travelled Count. Hence the anonymous comments to the media etc.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/hollinm hollinm

          tedbetts….I don't think Pearson ever got a majority government. I am going from memory but I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong.

          Politics and politicians have come a long way since Pearson. As Claudia says Ignatieff is not coming across as sincere and credible. At the stampede he bragged about how he was wearing cowboys boots made in Quebec, the best in the country. You don't visit hostile country and piss in their bunch bowl as one blogger suggested today. He just can't help himself

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/CTM Claudia Lemire

            The Liberal express started the wrong way!!!

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

            You don't visit hostile country and piss in their [p]unch bowl as one blogger suggested today.

            I guess it depends what kind of party you're at…

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/hollinm hollinm

            madeyoulook…..that is very true. However, this was in Alberta which is hostile to Liberals. If Ignatieff wants to win more voters you don't insult people when you are invited to visit them. Even an elitist like Ignatieff should understand that. However, he just can't help himself.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/CTM Claudia Lemire

          But you know, we are in different world now, where we can actually see and hear what's going on a lot faster than before. Unfortunately, he has made an impression already and it would take a miracle to get him elected, and it isn't only him but the mess with the party and luck is on Harper's side. I will never say never but he has a small chance.

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

      In the unlikely scenario that Ignatieff ever becomes PM, he'll set a new world record. There has never been a single case in world history of someone choosing to live abroad as long as Ignatieff did before coming home and becoming a democratically elected national leader.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/CTM Claudia Lemire

        I agree CR .

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

          Well, Ghandi certainly wasn't elected as national leader but he was much more than that.

          Mandela was in jail for longer. Not the same but it did not suffer him harm as far as "connecting to citizens" goes.

          There is current President of Latvia.

          I know I've read of others but I'm tired of doing all of your work today.

          You should just learn to not make such singularly definitive sweeping statements when you are just assuming something you think must be the case.

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

            You should just learn to not make such singularly definitive sweeping statements when you are just assuming something you think must be the case.

            Pretty weak, Ted. My statement was 100% correct. By saying "someone choosing to live abroad as long as Ignatieff did " I was deliberately excluding cases of exile. The president of Latvia was a refugee from the Soviets, since infancy. She didn't "choose" to live outside of Latvia.

            I have no idea why you bring up Gandhi and Mandela – obviously irrelevant and out of scope.

          • Pat

            Actually, your scope is irrelevant. The examples of Gandhi and Mandela demonstrate that people have become great leaders even after spending decades separated from the people they lead.

          • Crit_Reasoning

            The examples of Gandhi and Mandela demonstrate that people have become great leaders even after spending decades separated from the people they lead.

            Fair enough, but it would be extremely ill-advised to compare Ignatieff's 34 years abroad to Mandela's 27-year imprisonment or Gandhi's persecution.

            Actually, your scope is irrelevant.

            Here's my scope, one more time, just to be crystal clear:

            In the history of the world, no democratically elected Head of Government has ever voluntarily spent as much time away from his own country as Michael Ignatieff (excluding refugees and exiles).

          • David_M.

            After considering your assertion for some time, there seemed to be something missing from the equation. It seemed to me there were 2 things I wanted to know about your position because your posts are among the best on Macleans.
            1. Do you really believe the time away from Canada Mr. Ignatieff spent makes him less capable of being a good PM? Personally, I like the fact that he's an international individual.
            and
            2. If the problem is a disconnect from everyday Canadian life, then wouldn't the good Ms.Vaira Vīķe-Freiberga, exile or not, face an even greater challenge to connect with the folks of Latvia? She seems to have successfully bridged that chasm.

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

            1. Yes, I do. Particularly at the start of his political career, I think he lacked the intuitive understanding of Canadians that comes from actually living in Canada and experiencing this country on a daily basis. He's been getting better, though, as he gains experience and travels around the country.

            2. You mean if there's hope for Vīķe-Freiberga, then surely there's hope for Iggy? I agree – there is indeed hope that Ignatieff can bridge the chasm. I think his 15% personal approval rating will improve if he manages to connect with Canadians as well as Vīķe-Freiberga connected with Latvians.

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

            I'd rather have somebody who lived outside Canada their entire life but spent a good portion of that studying Canada's history, and politics, than someone who lived within Canada their entire life but whose only engagement with Canadian history and politics was when the census takers happened to come around.

            Time spent in a country as vast as ours means practically nothing. Live in Drayton Valley, Alberta all your life and you may as well have been living in Portland, Oregon for all the experience that gives you with Canada.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

            Wow. While Jenn struggles with how to describe Ignatieff as a "super-Canadian" without it sounding, ahem, pretentious, Thwim is now busily identifying "lesser Canadians" for us.

            You two might want to consider that maybe, just maybe, there are less divisive ways to try to encourage support for your guy.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/hollinm hollinm

            madeyoulook……that's the trouble with the Liberal supporters. They know the "just visiting" label has stuck to their guy and they don't know how to turn that into an advantage.

            So they argue about how much more Canadian he is because he has lived outside the country. Or how much better equipped he is to be PM because he knows how the Americans and the Brits live and think.

            In the meantime he criticized Canada while living abroad and in fact had little contact with the country that he supposedly wants to lead. What's wrong with this picture?

            The answer…the Liberals are having trouble finding ways to defend their feckless leader. The impression has been created and it is going to be tough to remove it no matter on many times Ignatieff runs around on a bus.

          • Pat

            Actually, I think most liberal supporters see Ignatieff's time away from Canada as a non-issue when it comes to his credentials to lead the country.

            They see it as a false issue the Conservatives have been able to milk for all its worth, not unlike the false claim the Green Shift was a tax on everything.

            I have lived abroad, and have family members who have lived abroad far longer than I have. They, like me, remained connected to Canada, followed what happened in the country, visited often and still consider themselves Canadians. This is how Ignatieff conducted himself as well, despite your false statement that he had little contact with Canada.

            Being out of the country does not take away from his Canadianess, any more than it did for Gandhi or Vīķe-Freiberga. You simply cannot reconcile those two examples with your claims about Ignatieff, even with the irrelevant factor that Ignatieff chose to leave Canada in order to pursue his academic career.

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

            Try reading. It has nothing to do with greater or lesser Canadians, it has to do with suitability for the role. One would think that someone who espouses libertarianism like you do would be arguing for the ability of people to get any position they're qualified for, regardless of where they were born/raised/lived. Seems the hypocrisy becomes evident the moment that high-minded ideal doesn't jibe with your petty resentment toward the Liberal party.

            You might want to consider that a role such as PM has a skill-set and amount of expertise and knowledge attached to it. Maybe, just maybe, you might want to consider that these qualifications are not instantly awarded to anybody who lives within Canada, or instantly denied from anybody who lives outside of it.

            But I mean hey, if you'd rather Karla Homolka be Prime Minister than Margaret Thatcher because Karla happened to live here all her life.. well. that's on you.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/hollinm hollinm

            Thwim……now you have lost all credibility and are just plain being silly.

            Tell me was Jean Chretien a world traveller? Tell me was Joe Clark a world traveller? Tell me was Paul Martin a world traveller before they all became politicians?

            My point is we are talking about politics here. Being wordly or home grown you first of all need to contribute to the country in some fashion, get elected and then maybe just maybe you can become the leader of a party.

            You just don't simply get parachuted in from the United States and say I am here now make me PM. I don't care what worldly experience he has he is seen as a carpetbagger and not a very good come lately politician.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

            One would think that someone who espouses libertarianism like you do would be arguing for the ability of people to get any position they're qualified for, regardless of where they were born/raised/lived.

            Now YOU try reading, and show me where I state otherwise. Before or after you head on over to Drayton Valley, Alberta, to explain why that somehow disqualifies the good people there on Canadian experience grounds; your pick.

            I have never made Crit's case that Ignatieff is disqualified just because he spent time away. I AM permitted to consider his argument that the guy showed up thinking he's just plain entitled to it if we would all just smarten up a bit. And I will certainly knock ANY party that feels it's just too smart for the average Canadian to even figure out how good we would have it if only we would wise up to that allegedly blatantly obvious fact, supported by "well, just look at those evil dumb Tories" evidence.

          • Gayle

            In the history of the world, no aliens have won an election either.

            You can invent any scope you want. That does not make it relevant.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/john_g2708 john g

            Dalton McGuinty!

            (Otherwise known as the Evil reptilian kitten eater from another planet)

      • Law Student

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaira_V%C4%AB%C4%B7e…

        By my count, well over 40 years of living abroad before being elected President of Latvia.

        • David_M.

          uh – I'm pretty slow at this stuff apparently.

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

          She was an exiled refugee. She didn't "choose" to live abroad, like Ignatieff. I used the word "choose" above specifically to exclude refugees and political exiles.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/David0M David_M.

        There may be the case of an eastern European country that prevailed upon an Canadian Citizen to return to lead. I'll do a litte search when I get home from work. However, it may not stack up as this was a rather small country and she was leaving Canada to go 'home'.

        • Emily

          Numerous leaders in world history have lived abroad and returned home to become leaders.

          See, it helps to get out of the bunker.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/CTM Claudia Lemire

            Who by their own choosing?

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

        Which, as pointed out above, is irrelevant to this article.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/hollinm hollinm

        CR…..I agree.

    • Halo_Override

      Maybe not missing the point so much as stepping around it.

    • hollinm

      tedbetts…..for God's sake give it a rest. You are losing the argument but you don't know when to give up. You can argue whether it was 25, 30 or 35 years the fact is the man had no intention of returning to Canada to live until the backroom boys of the Liberal party came aknocking. Harvard is just an example and because you don't have the ability to argue the case you pick on the number of years. The man is a carpetbagger pure and simple.

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

    I see nine references to Harvard simply as "not Canada", making the point that things at Harvard are not necessarily reflective of things in Canada, one reference to Harvard as a university vs. real life, three references to how good a school Harvard is, and one reference that actually implies the pejorative that Wherry is after: namely Watson's "Harvard way" comment.

    One out of fourteen. That's pretty lame Wherry.

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

      Shhh! You're getting in the way of Wherry's cherry-picked, straw-man narrative that Conservatives view "Harvard" as a pejorative, because they're cretinous idiots. Don't you appreciate how many search queries Wherry had to type in order to compile that list?

      • Jan

        All you need to do is watch QP. As I said – it's constant and chronic.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

        Wherry's cherry-picked, straw-man narrative

        That's his specialty.

    • Halo_Override

      Then why say "Harvard"? Why not "America"?

      Because "not Canada" isn't anti-intellectual-elitist enough, and badmouthing "America" loses the voters they're trying to gain by picking on the egghead.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

        Harvard hired him. America didn't.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Halo_Override Halo_Override

          And he chose to go. To America.

          "How dare that man from America come waltzing back to try to be taken seriously as a potential Prime Minister of Canada."

          Wouldn't play to the base.

          • s_c_f

            Frankly, I disagree. You're conflating two issues. There are two types of angles at play:
            -the just visiting angle, which refers to america/britain/harvard/whatever
            -the elitist angle, which refers to harvard, perhaps the bbc, tea and crumpets

            Conservatives have used either angle. You are just confusing the two. There have been plenty of occasions when they've referred to america with the just-visiting theme, and not harvard.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Party_of_One Party_of_One

    Does anyone else think this nattering on about who was where and for how long makes Canadians look rather, well…provincial?

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/David0M David_M.

      Yes

    • Emily

      Oh gawd yes….we can be so very small and petty at times.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/CTM Claudia Lemire

        Me three : )

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/SunshineCoaster SunshineCoaster

      No, it makes us look very Reform minded.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Party_of_One Party_of_One

        Same thing, isn't it?

    • s_c_f

      No. It's not the most interesting topic out there, but it's something worth discussing.

      Canada happens to be one of those places where people obsess about just how "Canadian" everything is, such as TV, magazines, music, businesses, clothes, and so on. Rather than worrying about how much they like something, they prefer to worry about whether it was constructed by a group that consisted of a majority of people living within the confines of the Canadian border. Now that's provincial.

    • hosertohoosier

      We are provincial. We are the descendants of gruff rejects from Europe, who came to settle in a frigid backwater. Perhaps Canada's greatest military hero – Isaac Brock – wanted desperately to be assigned to Europe. Our most successful residents move elsewhere. Many of us ARE beer-guzzling hicks that like watchin' the hockey. Ricky, Bubbles, and Julian are as Canadian as Pierre Berton or Conrad Black. Some of us appear to have the delusion that we aren't because Canada does include French people, but those folks have obviously never seen the usual reaction to a Quebecois joual in Paris.

      Yet at the same time, we have the best country in the world to live in. We have one of the most mobile class systems in the world, without resorting to extreme redistribution that would jeopardize economic growth. We are more welcoming to foreigners than anybody else on the planet. We don't have a legacy of slaughtering our original inhabitants. Canadians ARE pretty provincial, but they don't need to impress anybody.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Party_of_One Party_of_One

        Sez the guy in Indiana! ; )

        To me, it's not about whether we "impress" anybody or not, it's about(in this instance, at least) whether we properly consider the most important aspects when determining the suitability of someone to lead the government, or represent the Queen. And I'm sorry, I just don't think whether someone has lived in Canada all his/her life…or not at all…has any real bearing on that determination. So I see obsession about that as provincial, and not in a good way.

        • hosertohoosier

          I agree that the fact that somebody might have spent some time abroad going to school, etc. should have little bearing in our evaluation of their suitability for a job. At the same time, I think the just visiting argument has some merit. We aren't just talking about somebody that went to grad school abroad, we are talking about somebody that left for 40 years, and only returned 5 years ago (when it looked like he had a solid shot at becoming Prime Minister).

          I suspect that Canada is one of the few countries where that wouldn't result in instant disqualification from consideration. And not without reason:

          One of the most valuable things people (and particularly politicians) have is social capital. The social ties, relationships and so on that people have to other people and other communities is a very big deal. How one conducts oneself in office can impact one's social capital. I am sure Harper has lost friends since becoming PM, and he would surely lose more if he was a terrible or corrupt PM. Worse, his friends and family would as well.

          Ignatieff is not constrained in the same way. His social capital is international. If he ends up being a terrible Prime Minister he can return to Harvard, or London or whatever. His children weren't born in Canada, and have lived most of their lives elsewhere. The stigma of being the sons of some villain would end as soon as they took a plane out of the country.

          Just as you would prefer a manager who invested his own fortune in the company stock, it makes sense to prefer (living abroad should not be a qualification) political leaders with strong ties to this country. Harper cannot leave Canada without losing the network he has built over the years. At the same time he will eventually be somebody's neighbor, he will eventually need to walk into restaurants as a former PM, and his kids will continue to go to school – whether he does so as a great ex-PM or a leper matters immensely to his well-being.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Party_of_One Party_of_One

            So you're arguing that peoples' concerns about their social capital constrains their actions and statements? Nice idea, maybe wishful thinking, but I don't buy it. The social circles that ex-politicians, ex-prime ministers, etc., move in tend not to hold politicians accountable for what they did while in office, and are much more interested in the connections that they may have made, both in the public and private sectors, and both on the national and international stage. Mulroney/KH Shreiber comes to mind, as does Jaffer/any one who met with him!

            I don't think either Harper or Iganatieff are going to have to deal with public "shunning", unless one of them does something criminal.

  • http://www.zombo.com Out There

    While Mr. Wherry's list is impressively comprehensive, it's probably worth remembering that the Conservatives' attacks on Ignatieff are purely tactical. The Conservatives don't really care whether Ignatieff went to Harvard or not – they just picked anti-eggheadism because their market research indicated that this tactic was the most effective.

    If one of their own had spent time abroad or was educated at some fancy school, the Conservatives would praise his or her breadth of experience and depth of knowledge without batting an eye. Their basic idea is that when our guys do it, it's okay, but when their guys do it, it's bad.

    The only fun part is watching certain Conservative apologists twist themselves into knots trying to find a nonexistent internal consistency. Perhaps the consensus will be that 11 years, 8 months is the maximum amount of time that a politician can spend out of the country without losing legitimacy. Who knows?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/sourstud sourstud

    How about some from the Dippers:

    Charlie Angus. "In a region like mine, where we have cattle farmers, where we almost lost our pork industry, where we have lots of first nations, these people will be taking it right on the chin for the political expediency of the Prime Minister and the Liberal leader from Harvard"

    Thomas Mulclair. "He used his position at Harvard to write learned papers to provide Dick Cheney and George W. Bush with the terminology, the Orwellesque terminology for torture. It was going to be enhanced interrogation techniques."

    Both of them like using Iggy's Harvard past against him as well, and have demonstrated it multiple times in the house.

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

      To be fair though, the first of those is a "not Canada" reference, and the second is a reference to how influential Harvard is. In neither case is Harvard being mentioned as something to be looked down on (i.e. it's just like 13 of the 14 examples Wherry provided above).

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Halo_Override Halo_Override

        On the Angus quote, I can't agree, I think it reeks of anti-intellectualism given the context of the entire sentence.

        (And I speak as someone who generally votes NDP, and who probably won't be supporting Ignatieff unless he seriously raises his game.)

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/amherstvw amherstvw

    … Harvard ! … [pointing out some wonderful rich irony]

    Some honourable members: Oh, oh, oh !

    I don't think any of the leaders are particularly appealling as leaders. But we are getting into the habit (through careful "grooming" by the PM) of giving *everyone* a dominant *label*. Separatist/traitor … not a leader … socialist … losers … Harvard = ? … dunno … "mockery, derision" as stated.

    The other side of the coin, is that if party leaders and GG designates could actually "lead" political organizations and citizens … we would gladly follow them because they would truly represent our hopes and aspirations for our country. Governor-General Vanier had been in a war and had lost a leg … for that reason alone, as a kid, I thought he deserved my respect.

  • Wascally Wabbit

    Let's scotch this canard right here. The CPC would have been happy to have – as an example Lewis McKenzie – run for them – in fact I do believe he did. Similarly "Scumbags" Hillier.
    i'm sure if you examined either record – you'd find a good deal of their adult lives were spent outside Canada.
    So…what's your point?

    • hosertohoosier

      There are a few fundamental differences between Lew Mackenzie and Michael Ignatieff. Mackenzie was outside of Canada, but served Canada, while surrounded by fellow Canadian troops. In contrast, Michael Ignatieff went abroad for his own gain. People's actions reveal their preferences, and Mackenzie's reveal a desire to serve Canada.

      Relatedly, the socialization of Mackenzie and Ignatieff are profoundly different. Mackenzie's friends and associates are primarily Canadian, while Ignatieff's are not. One way to think of this is as an investment of social capital. For Ignatieff, taking actions that went against the views of his cosmopolitan friends and associates would risk his social capital. For Mackenzie, actions that crossed his largely Canadian associates and friends would risk his social capital. It should be obvious which state of affairs is preferable.

  • Wascally Wabbit

    On the other hand – We have a Prime minister – with limited (or no) experience out of Canada – making up Foreign Policy as he goes along – while having titular Ministers like Lawrence Cannon run day to day opoerations for him!
    Again – what is your point?

  • hosertohoosier

    There is fundamentally a difference between a head of state and a head of government. You want a head of state that commands respect and has lots of gravitas. The head of state is SUPPOSED to be better than the common man. In contrast, you want the head of government to be the kind of guy or gal who is able to get their hands dirty in the sausage factory of government. You also want somebody that has at least some common understanding with average folks.

    This is the great challenge of American presidents. On the one hand they need to be presidential, while on the other, they need to do embarrassing bowling photo ops even if they are terrible at it.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/ChrisInKW ChrisInKW

      I want someone in charge who is way smarter than me and has seen as much of the world as possible. He or she needs to have a very wide perspective. For all its breadth and depth, living in Canada as if on an island leaves one less prepared as an executive than one who has a wide world view and the experience to match it.

      • hosertohoosier

        The fallacy you (and John D) is making is the idea that there are fundamentally correct and incorrect decisions which governments may or may not make. I suggest that this is rarely the case, since democratic electorates are made up of different people with different values and interests. The main job of governments is to make tradeoffs between different bundles of goods – guns vs butter, equality vs. freedom and so on. In this task, empathy is far more valuable than intelligence.

        • ChrisInKW

          Governments versus leaders (and individuals). One is a collective, intended to make decisions for the collective. The other is required to facilitate this process, bringing to bear his or her experience to make the best decisions possible based upon the best evidence and fact.

          If we truly want someone "of the people" to lead or otherwise be involved in the executive decisions that guide our country, we should reinstate the ancient practice of Democracy and fill these offices through random lottery.

          • hosertohoosier

            A focus on leaders is even more supportive of my argument. Leaders have smart people working with them (and some outside actors not working for them) who do most of the fact-checking, debating, and so on related to a decision. The intellectual heavy lifting is not done by leaders, at least at the national level.

            By the way, I don't think being of the people is sufficient qualification. Most people do NOT have sufficient empathy to be good leaders. They tend to have narrow views rooted in their own personal experiences. The notion that worldly people are superior in this respect gets things ass-backwards, however. "Worldly" people tend to travel in cosmopolitan post-national circles that are relatively homogenous. Moreover, this is a perspective that is already well-represented in any given cabinet or government department.

    • John D

      I'd rather the other way around. Can we have a smart person running our government, and a herp-derp-derp-I'm-a-man-of-the-people type as the symbolic position?

      • ChrisInKW

        Was that a Beaker-type sound? Very effective.

  • pdpd

    I'm happily stipulate that Ignatieff isn't a real Canadian if conservatives would stipulate that Harper isn't a real Albertan. Just visiting!

    • TedTylerEzro

      Well, a lot of people do feel that he isn't a real Albertan. ;)

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Stewart_Smith Stewart_Smith

        I think there is an unfortunate cring-worthy photo out there that makes it pretty clear.

    • PCJ

      Funny how that never gets put out there, innit?

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Party_of_One Party_of_One

      Please? Pretty please? With sugar on top?

      Lord knows there's enough to be embarrassed for as an Albertan; Klein, Stelmach, Stockwell Day, Jaffer….Harpers' not the worst of them, but any relief would be appreciated!

  • Stewart_Smith

    It is a little shocking that this debate continues, about two leaders with apparent aspirations to lead a major (at least semi-major) democracy. One spends too much time away, too much time with the great leaders and thinkers of the day, too much time with the Queen etc. The other spends his days, closeted from the mainstream of Canadian life, hanging on as a failed hack for an oil company before getting a real non-job as a professional whinger, living off other people's wages, running down Canada in comparison with other countries while never actually bothering to go outside, leave the country for a while and make some real connection to the outside world.

    Whether CR or Ted is right (although very, very important to CR) is really beside the issue. Both Ignatieff and Harper have demonstrated on numerous occasions that they are extraordinarily knowledgeable about Canadiana both in terms of big, important stuff and obscure but interesting stuff. True, they have not lead the typical life of the average Canadian citizen. Shocking, absolutely and totally shocking!

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/hollinm hollinm

      Stewart_Smith….While I agree with much of what you said I am still trying to get my head around the fact that you believe that Ignatieff is "extraordinarily knowledgeable" about Canadiana. I must admit though like many Canadians I have not read anything that he has written. In fact I never heard of Ignatieff before he was seconded back to Canada.

      So I may be being unfair to him but I have not seen anything that has come out of his mouth since returning to Canada which would convince me that the understands Canada, its regional diversity and the wants and needs or the aspirations of the ordinary hard working stiff.

      What I see of Ignatieff is that he is an accomplished academic who was filled a bill of goods by the Liberal party and came back to Canada thinking he could cap his successful international career by becoming PM.

      Unfortunately for Ignatieff he may be book smart but politics is a rough sport and you don't start at the top to learn the game.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/hollinm hollinm

      Stewart_Smith…..hollinm continued

      It takes many years and many slings and arrows to reach the height of political success in any country. He has shown that he does not have a natural aptitude for politics and Canadians instinctively recognize this and are giving a thumbs down on his leadership and their desire to see him in the PM's chair.

      It must be tough for a person like Ignatieff who is proud and has had such a successful career outside of Canada. I am sure that he wakes up many mornings and says to himself "who needs this" but soldiers on anyway despite his heart not being in it.

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

      Whether CR or Ted is right (although very, very important to CR)

      I'm arguing that Ignatieff spent 34 adult years abroad. Ted is arguing that it's all a big lie and Ignatieff only spent 25 years abroad. Guess who's right? And yes, it logically follows that I place a greater importance on being right than Ted does, as you point out.

      Your characterization of Iggy's years abroad ("too much time with the great leaders and thinkers of the day, too much time with the Queen") made me laugh out loud. You actually think Iggy spent his time hobnobbing with "great leaders" and the Queen? Your characterization of Harper's background ("hanging on as a failed hack for an oil company… living off other people's wages") is equally slanted and ridiculous.

      • Stewart_Smith

        (Ok, since I am with the master lets start by quibbling. Yes, before he became leader of the opposition, Ignatieff had infact met with the Queen twice. That may well be as close to hobnobbing as Elizabeth gets. I don't have access to party lists, but frankly given the types of books Ignatieff writes, and his years as a television personality it would be more than a little surprising if he had not been brought in on numerous occasions by to up the intellectual content of a politically connected social event.)

        On a more serious note by continuing to hang on the "just visiting" farce, you guys keep forcing Ignatieff to go on and on. The dairy farm in Quebec, the Vancouver years, the aunt from the prairies, the great New Brunswick debates on and on and on and on. I recognize that Hohum is comfortable not reading (or apparently listening) to anything directly from Ignatieff and taking his talking points as delivered from chet. You however are held to a higher standard and you should take responsibility for the damage you are doing to the rest of us. If you keep this up, we will soon hear about the great Ignatieff ancestor that crossed the Bering land bridge some 15,000 years ago bringing the invention of fire to North American.

        Asking Ignatieff to demonstrate his Canadian roots is a little like asking Ken Drydren to go into detail. Its not that either is incapable of delivering, but it still is not a good idea.

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

          If you keep this up, we will soon hear about the great Ignatieff ancestor that crossed the Bering land bridge some 15,000 years ago bringing the invention of fire to North American.

          Good point! At this rate, Ignatieff will have to write a follow-up to his latest book: I Swear To God I'm Canadian True Patriot Love.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Stewart_Smith Stewart_Smith

            and btw… I really do think the Prime Minister's prepolitical CV is fairly pathetic… and most of the time he did live by begging contributions from other productive taxpayers with real jobs.

          • Crit_Reasoning

            begging contributions from other productive taxpayers with real jobs

            Wouldn't that description apply to any nonprofit organization? At least the NCC solicited contributions from its 40,000 members, instead of suckling at the public teat.

        • hollinm

          Stewart_Smith…..I assume you were referring to me as Hohum. A tad arrogant would you not say. You may not agree with what I have to say but you don't need to get all smarmy about them.

          Ignatieff does not have to do anything but prove he can lead his party, is an effective politician, propose policies that can win the hearts and minds of Canadians. Only then can he prove his bona fides. This other crap does not do him any good and in fact emphasizes the stereotyping he is experiencing.

          Comparing the PM to the devil is already getting the magical mystery bus tour off to a rocky start. If you saw the Canada Am interview this morning you must be disappointed in his performance. Calling his referral to the PM as the devil a joke is disingenuous in the extreme. He spoke jingoistically, in platitudes and instead of focusing his message he was all over the place. The media are going to follow him big now looking for all the gaffes.

          By the way I didn't ask Ignatieff to prove his Canadian roots. You said he was extraordinarily knowledgeable about Canadiana. I asked you to show me where he demonstrated that. Obviously you can't.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/CTM Claudia Lemire

            Hollinm I agree with you 100%!

            Ignatieff is wasting his time and the Liberals time, they screwed up and will learn their lesson the hard way, he is truly one of the worst political leaders this country has seen!

  • Out There

    Something that struck me just now: if Michael Ignatieff has spent too long outside the country to be an effective prime minister, has Elizabeth Windsor spent too long outside Canada to be an effective Queen?

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

    It seems to me that Johnston was able to bring the theoretical learning of Harvard into a practical reality (the things he's done over the years are practical things) whereas Igantieff has no sense of the practical, period. That would be the difference between them.

    Note: practicing as a professor is like being stuck within the theoretical world.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/CTM Claudia Lemire

      Exactly!

  • http://www.pointingtrade.com/ Wholesale Shoes

    YOU MUST NOT MISS IT!!!

    ————– http://www.pointingtrade.com ———–

    a leading worldwide wholesale company (or ucan say organization). We supply more than 100 thousand high-quality merchandise and famous brand

    name products all at wholesale prices.

From Macleans