The World Desk

The World Desk

Michael Petrou writes about international news and Canadian foreign policy.

So long, Michael Ignatieff. I miss who you used to be.

by Michael Petrou on Thursday, May 5, 2011 12:33pm - 93 Comments

Andrew Potter’s essay on Michael Ignatieff reminded me of the influence Ignatieff had on my own life, well before he entered politics.

In 2002 I faced something of a dilemma. The previous year I had begun my first real job in print journalism at the Ottawa Citizen. It hadn’t started well. No one ever tells aspiring writers that they’ll start their careers covering car accidents and asking distraught parents how they feel about children drowning in their backyard pools. But this is how it begins. I started thinking about a new line of work.

Then al-Qaeda flew jet planes into New York skyscrapers and murdered thousands. I begged my editor to send me to Afghanistan. He did. My career took off. By 2002 I had the sort of job I always wanted: covering foreign news for the National Post.

In the meantime, however, I had applied to study for a doctoral degree at the University of Oxford and was accepted. I saw a looming fork in the road. But in truth I wanted to do both: journalism and academia; the thrill of breaking news and the deeper satisfaction of digging into a topic for weeks or years, rather than hours.

Michael Igatieff, at the time, straddled both worlds. He was a rare academic who wrote lucid and important journalism. On a whim, I sent him an email at Harvard, where he was running the Kennedy School. His reply was long and thoughtful. Go to Oxford, he said. You’ll never be intellectually intimidated again. As for journalism, and especially freelance journalism, it’s a tough way to make a living, but you’ll be a free man. And that’s worth something.

I admired Ignatieff’s ideas then. He was an internationalist who believed there were times when Western nations must use force to stop slaughter and other human rights abuses in sovereign nations. When a country devours its children, I recall him telling a Radio Canada interviewer, the West has a duty to intervene. And few countries in the 20th century had devoured as many of its children as had Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

Ignatieff’s defence of America’s invasion of that country was brave and principled. It owed more to a liberal tradition than to the neoconservative one he is too often tarred with. There was a time, in the 1930s, when the NDP’s forefathers in the CCF took a stand against fascism in Spain. That the NDP has abandoned its heritage and now seeks accommodation with those they once fought is its own shame. But the party’s current morally bankruptcy on foreign affairs doesn’t change the fact that the Left has a much nobler tradition.

Still, Ignatieff disappointed me as a politician. He spent decades making the moral case for humanitarian intervention, and then cast all this aside for a shot at power. His apology for supporting the Iraq war was self-abasing twaddle. He blames himself for being too moved, too influenced, by the passions of Iraqis who suffered genocide — as if such emotions are not understandable and good, as if solidarity with those who have suffered genocide shouldn’t play a role in our foreign policy. He once wrote that those we too quickly abandon in broken countries will have reason never to trust us again, and then he didn’t make the case for staying, and fighting, in Afghanistan for as long as it takes. He was no less resolute than Stephen Harper, but that’s not saying much.

Ignatieff jettisoned the best parts of himself when he ran for office. I’ve often wondered what he would have said to a student who asked him in 2010 whether he should go to Oxford. In my most cynical moments I suspect he would have suggested the student stay in Canada and study at Trent. But then what else could he say? The Conservatives made Ignatieff’s world experience a stain.

And yet the shallowness of Canadian politics didn’t strip Ignatieff of everything. He remains a thinker. He wasn’t a good politician, but he is a good man. He respected Canadians. He answered them. That Harper hid behind the braying cheers of his supporters when faced with difficult questions from reporters says a lot about the kind of person he is. Ignateiff wasn’t intellectually intimidated. He didn’t hide. Ignateiff said he’s leaving politics with his head held high, and he’s right. I voted for Harper in 2006, back when I thought he believed in something. I voted for Ignatieff on Monday. I’d do it again.

Bookmark and Share
  • Claudia Lemire

    Hahaha

  • PoorDeadNed

    I find it deeply disturbing that Michael Petrou and the vast majority of the posters here seem to think that the invasion of Iraq was a good idea. It should have been obvious back in 2003 that it was a horrible idea in many, many ways. But to have that opinion today is like believing the Hidenburg is the height of 21st century transportation technology. Have you all been living in sensory deprivation tanks for the last decade?

    • keith c

      That's because it wasn't obviously a horrible idea in many ways.
      Lots of fuzzy thinking on why the Iraq war was a bad idea. It was a bad idea because of the execution risk: Bush and his team were incompetent, we had had 30 years of an omnipotent America winning in all foreign interventions. It was not immediately obvious that America couldn't conduct yet another act of sucessful surgical regime change, and had bitten off more than it could chew. This is what got people like Tony Blair and Paul Martin and Ignatieff onside: it's good to get rid of murderous dictators, and America always wins and has infinite money to pay the bills of doing so, right?
      The great mystery of Chretien's career is what made him decide not to participate in the war, because by all accounts he was on the fence until the very end. I've always thought it was because Chretien's canny political instincts sussed out that Bush and Rumsfeld had no idea what they were doing.

      • Sig Sakowitz

        When was Jean Chrétien asked to participate in the Iraq war? Who asked and what exactly was requested? This is but another example of "when myth becomes reality, print it!"

        • Leo

          If I can recall, it was assumed we would participate, as the UK answered the call to arms. Do you remember Chretien's response to the reporter who asked what he needed to believe the WMD claim? “A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It’s a proof. A proof is a proof, and when you have a good proof, it’s because it’s proven.”

          • Sig Sakowitz

            I couldn't have said it better myself. There has never been any evidence that were asked to participate in Iraq to a degree any greater than we were at the time. We were already exhausting our potential capacity in Afghanistan. The House did not vote on the issue and any claim by Jean Chretien that he turned down any specific request from President Bush has not been substantiated.

  • keith c

    Anyway, mostly a great piece by Petrou except for this line:
    "That Harper hid behind the braying cheers of his supporters when faced with difficult questions from reporters says a lot about the kind of person he is."
    No it doesn't. It says a lot about the kind of politician he is, one who learned the hard way to avoid sticking his foot in it. Like Mackenzie King, Harper the human being will remain a bit of an anglo-saxon mystery.

    • Sig Sakowitz

      Difficult or silly? It's all in the mind of the beholder.

  • keith c

    I have often wondered how Ignatieff's career would have gone had he become a Tory. I look at someone like Chris Alexander and think about how in some ways he's the Gen Y version of Iggy. Iggy's self-image as a man of the left and memories of his youth made him join the wrong party. (Much like his old roommate Bob Rae did!)

    • http://tigeronpolitics.wordpress.com Ben (The Tiger)

      He'd be Minister of Foreign Affairs in a Harper majority elected in 2008, with a year to go in its second mandate.

      That's how Ignatieff's career as a Tory would have gone. And he wouldn't have had to swallow himself whole to do it — the air of fakeness would not have come, because he could have embraced all that he had preached during his career as a public intellectual.

  • BJB

    The scion of failed Russian nobility never inspired me to vote Liberal — the Dippers did along with every craven extremist in the other camps. To me, Iggy was the lesser of several evils. It's sad he seemed unable to retain his integrity on entering politics. It's too bad his party strayed so far to the Left pushed by a phalanx of grasping guttersnipes and has-beens. They fail to see how profoundly overburdened taxpayers want their government to be fiscally responsible without abandoning the hopes of a more progressive society. By moving more to the centre — allaying people's fears of a less caring ministry — Harper may herald a long period of Conservative rule. Liberals need to contemplate that for a while before deciding on who their next "leader" will be and what policies they should champion. They will lose my vote permanently if a merger with smiling-Jack and the Dipper-heads comes about. Prolonged chatter about a fusion of the two will simply drive me further from the fold. The party of Laurier merits better.

  • Guest

    It seems a little late in the day (and just a tad opportunistic) for all you MacLean's guys to be wringing your hands at the treatment of Mr. Ignatieff and suddenly waxing lyrical about what a great intellectual he is. Both you and Andrew Potter come across as pretty crass trying to up your own intellectual cred by trotting out your academic bona fides and moral/intellectual superiority ('Hey look, I'm a great thinker too, and isn't it terrible the way we great thinkers are treated!') Please.

    Where were you guys (Wells included) when, as he writes, "Muttart had the party register a website in Montenegro so its URL could be http://www.ignatieff.me, reinforcing the notion that the Liberal was “just in it for me.” They stuffed it full of embarrassing old quotes. Ads ran for weeks on television and radio…

    I thought that site was the work of some juvenile ad hoc mischief maker. It would have been relevant to know it came from the Prime Minister's office. Wy didn't you journalists tell us at the time?

    Or, during the election, this candid bit from the same Wells' post mortem might have been useful for voters:

    “They say that we try to portray Ignatieff in our ads and so on as a weak and flailing professor,” the war room staffer said. “No, that’s how we portrayed Dion. Dion was weak, you know, Dion was ‘not a leader.’ …Michael Ignatieff, in our narrative, is a political opportunist who is calculating…“He’s a schemer… he’s an opportunist …‘He’s a malicious human being.’… that’s kind of the sentiment we’re getting at. With Dion, we were trying to portray him as weak. You can’t trust him to lead us out of the economic recovery because he’s a weak man. With Ignatieff, it’s ‘He’s a bad man’…

    It's not just about how Ignatieff was treated. It's about the depths to which our current government is willing to go. But I don't recall you guys writing much about any of this while it was happening. So take your regret and shove it.

  • Sig Sakowitz

    It appeared to me that the opposition parties played into Harper's hands without fail. The majority, if not all, charges laid repeatedly against the Conservatives were specious if not simply ridiculous. A group labelling themselves as "NOT HARPER" here in Kings-Hants, constituency of Scott Brison, were seemingly comprised of misfits and oddballs. When asked what it was about Harper they disliked, their answers were consistently vapid and incoherent. With widened eyes and bulging nostrils, they proclaimed Harper to be "evil" but their looks and demeanour suggested that it was "they" who were unhinged. Had Harper really killed the census? Was it he who refused to reform the Senate? Did he fill the pockets of Conservative friends with public monies, as the Liberals had done? NOT HARPER! Sadly, those who proclaimed these specious charges, for the most part, except for the brainwashed i.e. the so-called “Raging Grannies” etc., knew they were not true. It was not Harper who was guilty of contempt, it was really those in opposition exhibiting contempt for the Canadian electorate.

  • http://twitter.com/davidlrattigan @davidlrattigan

    I didn't vote for Ignatieff. Too many issues with the Liberal Party and particularly my local candidate. But I agree, he can hold his head high. There were moments when he did and said dumb and even wrong things, but on the whole, I think he ran the campaign with integrity — something his enemies didn't do with an attack campaign that exploited xenophobia and anti-intellectualism to discredit Ignatieff.

  • alfanerd

    When a country devours its children, I recall him telling a Radio Canada interviewer, the West has a duty to intervene. And few countries in the 20th century had devoured as many of its children as had Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

    I would have voted for that Ignatieff, not for the one who changed his mind for political expediency.

  • McC_

    honest q: how is it better to have voted for a party led by a man who refuses to acknowledge his position on the Iraq war for political expediency? (assuming you voted CPC, which is suggested by your comments in this place)

  • alfanerd

    well, Harper has never really reneged his position on the Iraq war, although he doesnt publicize it much, for obvious reasons. so in that sense it is better, he may not scream his position from the rooftops, but he hasnt done a 180 on it just at a time when that position became politically inconvenient.
    (and yes, I did vote CPC)

  • Mike T.

    it is strange indeed we probably have the only sitting world leader who still feels the invasion of Iraq was justified. It is my sincere hope we don't face that kind of decision again while harper is in power.

  • shouldIsellyourwheat

    In the Mansbridge interview, a couple of weeks ago, Harper said his support for the Iraq War was a mistake. He said he learnt he was too trusting of the people providing the "bad" intelligence.

  • alfanerd

    yeah, it would be so much better if only Saddam Hussein was still around. And now OBL is dead too. Im so sorry for your loss.

  • McC_

    it's not about "doesn't publicize it," he "has never really reneged his position on the Iraq war" because he flat-out refuses to discuss what his position was, or what his position is now, ever since that position became politically inconvenient. We have no idea what his position is today on the Iraq War.

  • alfanerd

    at the time it was an actual issue, he chastised Chretien for not participating, didnt he? and people certainly seem to believe his position is one of support (read Mike T's comment below).

    But you bring up a good point, it would be preferable if he discussed it openly and stood by his convictions.

  • McC_

    yes, Harper's position was quite clear in 2003, my point was that "ever since that position became politically inconvenient" Harper refuses to discuss what his position was or is. I think that's cowardly. Ignatieff may have only changed his position once his former position became politically inconvenient, as you suggest* but to do so at the very least required acknowledging the existence of his previous statements. This isn't much on the scale of courage, but not much is still more than 0.

    *or he might have changed his mind, I don't really care either way. Ignatieff's never been a "consistent" thinker, even from one paragraph to the next, and I don't worry much about his reasons for changing his mind.

  • http://www.lyracrostic.com CrescentHeightsGuy

    Really classy of you Alfanerd. OSB has zero to do with this subject, but true to form you smear away.

    For the record, Canada, under a Liberal Government, went to Afghanistan to fight the Taliban and OSB. And the Liberal Party continues to support that war, despite the cost in Canadian military lives.

  • McC_

    mercifully, no one cares what the Liberal Party thinks anymore.

  • Mike T.

    interesting! harper is definitely a man you want in control ten years after an important decision needs to be made!

From Macleans