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
  • OriginalEmily1

    As would I Dr Petrou, as would I.

    • excanuck

      Why in the world did you knowingly waste your vote? Weird.

      • OriginalEmily1

        Because I believe in voting for the right thing, not the popular thing.

        • http://ragingranter.blogspot.com Raging_Ranter

          You struck out on both counts on Monday night.

          • OriginalEmily1

            Well you're a Con…you wouldn't know the right thing if you fell over it.

  • katie smith

    I tend to agree with you. I think Ignatieff did one of the worst things you can do, in politics or anywhere else – he tried to be something he was not. He is a brilliant man and he did have passion – it was jut never channelled in the right way or the right direction. And yes, the day he started saying wars and torture were OK, was the day he lost me, and maybe the day, as you say, he gave up the best parts of himself for a shot at power.

  • Merrill S

    He came in advertized as potentially a new Trudeau, but I think he most closely resembled Mike Pearson. It's too bad our political system doesn't favour thinkers. I wasn't sure I liked him enough to vote for his party when he took the job, but faced with the alternatives, I did vote Liberal and I'd do it again. I think he would have made a good PM.

    • Warren

      Excellent. Absolutely agree, Iggy was a Pearsonian Liberal.

      Disagree with Petrou on the "twaddle" of Ignatieff's support of Iraq's invasion. It's hard to measure just how febrile things get in the U.S. Look what it did to Christopher Hitchens. I have friends in NYC who were walking on eggshells for months. Yeah, Bush lied, but down there you could understand just how much, and how deeply, everyone felt.

      Ignatieff recanted. Hitchens still hasn't. Ignatieff has Character.

    • DerekPearce

      Completely agree as well. I voted for him and I'd do it again. We're in for some hilarity in Parliament the next few years, and I don't mean that in a good way.

  • lchaput

    Using your knowledge acquired in academia and the skills you honed as a print journalist, please explain, in your own words, the assertion that "the Left has a much nobler tradition" in foreign affairs than say the Liberal Party of Canada, or the Conservative Party of Canada.

    • McC_

      I think you've misread. I think MP was saying that "the Left has a much nobler tradition" in foreign affairs than those policies/positions currently promoted by the NDP as the model of Left foreign policy in Canada. MP contrasts a time when Canadian socialists and social democrats joined in the Spanish Civil against the Fascists with the view that today's NDP would appease the contemporary equivalents of fascists in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. I find the latter point slightly caricatured, but yours is a far worse caricature.

    • excanuck

      I like your question. Its about time someone started the job of debunking common myths about the glorious leftards and their so called philosophy. Thanks for starting the ball rolling.

  • Leasa

    He lost me when I realized that when he left the UK, he still did not choose Canada to make his home. He had already lived and worked in the US so it had nothing to do with being a 'world traveller', it was a snub to Canada. He never contributed to Canada yet, when he wanted to add Prime Minister to his resume, he suddenly found Canada and we were to forget the nasty things he said about Canada and the fact that for all of his adult life we were never good enough for the self-important professor. Not this lady.

    • OriginalEmily1

      Actually he taught and worked all over the world. Including in Canada.

    • John D

      You think living in the US makes you a world traveler?

      • Jan

        You should check his bio – he did a lot more than live in the US for a few years.

    • YYZ

      Luckily, saying nasty things about Canada doesn't disqualify a person from being Prime Minister.

    • Warren

      Alright, go ahead, make ridiculous arguments. Leasa, go get a PhD., write some terrific stuff, become something of a media darling, get offers of enormous prestige and great pay and tell me you're going to turn them down.

      There are approximately 1 million Canadians making a living in California. And I guess they're all "snubbing" Canada.

      Leasa, you define parochial.

      • http://ragingranter.blogspot.com Raging_Ranter

        I don't see any of them coming back and immediately auditioning for the PM's job. A distinction you seem to gloss over.

  • Mike T.

    I feel that if the decision came up about whether to follow Americans into a foolish war, Ignatieff would make the wrong decision for the right reasons and Harper the wrong decision for the wrong reasons.

    • http://ragingranter.blogspot.com Raging_Ranter

      So it's all about feelings then, and not results. Ignatieff made a mistake, but he had the "appropriate" feelings. Harper made the same mistake, but he had "inappropriate" feelings, and therefore is evil. Never mind that it's the same war with the same end result we're talking about here.

      • Mike T.

        whatever job you hold in your workaday life, if it requires being able to distinguish between two completely different words, you are underqualified for it.

        • http://ragingranter.blogspot.com Raging_Ranter

          If it requires deciphering your cryptic posts, I am woefully unqualified.

  • Amateur Hour

    Ignatieff's early text, A Just Measure of Pain: The Penitentiary in the Industrial Revolution 1750-1850, profoundly changed the fields of criminology and social history. Add to this his biography of Isaiah Berlin, The Rights Revolution, Blood and Belonging — and one can see how Ignatieff the author has influenced (even redefined) many field and professions. I hope he keeps it up.

    • Andrew (not PorC)

      Maybe his talents are better used in academia, besides. There are less talented individuals who would make better politicians.

      • Amateur Hour

        One of the interesting aspects of Ignatieff's career is that his work hasn't been limited to academia. His books sold well and were influential beyond the ivory tower. His journalism, documentary work and even fiction writing were also consumed by a wider public than just academics and policy wonks.

        • Joshua

          Including "Talk show hos"

          • Ken

            Talk show host, like Oprah, only not making so much

  • alfanerd

    I would have certainly seriously considered voting for him. I think it takes courage to take an unpopular (and correct) position such as being in favour of the Iraq war, and if a liberal takes that position, it takes even more courage. I would have respected that immensely. His flip-flop really disheartened me though and I could not have voted for him in a million years.

    • http://ragingranter.blogspot.com Raging_Ranter

      The Iraq war was not unpopular in the US at the time. Bush's approval ratings were through the roof when he went in. So much so that the media didn't dare ask the hard questions. Even the media has to worry about public opinion. Ignatieff only changed his mind about it once he moved back to Canada.

  • Joshua

    Now maybe our country will get back to some kind of normal.
    Mr. Harper doesn't have to worry about someone constantly attacking him and he can get back to running the country as he should..
    I think Layton will start behaving now that he has no backup to encourage him to do otherwise.

    The show is all yours Mr. Harper, take us to the top..

    • Jan

      What is your definition of 'the top'?

    • Warren

      Way to go Joshua. What Canada doesn't need is someone who talks truth to power. What we need is someone who answers to no one. Ve neet a shtrong leeter. Ein volk. Liebensraum.

      Oh, and as many corporatist powers as you can imagine.

      There is no left or right. There is corporatist and not so corporatist.

      • http://ragingranter.blogspot.com Raging_Ranter

        And not-so-subtle Nazi references are just so appropriate.

  • Ken

    That guy beside you Iggy, its called a backstabber, you were their sacrificial lamb. The LPC is not a kind one.I dont hate you, I just did'nt like you.I hated the way you lectured me.Enjoy the US of A

    • Sean W

      Lectured you about what? When?

  • truthintoronto

    An excellent, excellent piece. The Michael Ignatieff who stood up to the moral relativists, apologists and hand-wringers on the left and defended the liberation of Iraq on principaled liberal grounds was an inspiring example for many.

    The fact that Ignatieff later through that courage out the window in order to curry favour with those same moral relativists, apologists, and handwringers who now dominate the modern Liberal party reduced Ignatieff to a disgraceful shadow of his former self.

    The parallel with Stephane Dion is somwhat striking. Dion received multipe bruises as a courageous and unapologetic opponent of the sovereigntist movement during a time when such views were far from popular throughout Quebec… only to throw that legacy out the window when he tried to cut a deal with those same sovereigntists during the coaltion debacle.

    • http://ragingranter.blogspot.com Raging_Ranter

      Excellent analogy. Guys become leaders and they throw their principles out the window. Harper's done much the same thing. I hope he rediscovers his before it's too late.

  • Olivier

    No matter how you look at it, going into Iraq was dumb. Not only was it dumb, but the Bush administration lied to everybody as to why they went in.
    Everybody agrees that Saddam Hussein was garbage and that the world is better place without him.

    That was not the point.

    • Judith

      Sorry rubbing my neck from the logic whiplash there. You think its good Saddam is gone but invading Iraq was an error? Make up your mind please.

      • Thwim

        Saddam being gone is good. Taking our eyes off the ball in Afghanistan to do so was a bad move.

      • Olivier

        How hard is it to understand?

        The US got rid of Saddam, great. The US also ruined itself doing so and made itself look like an aggressor thus proving anyone claiming that the US is evil and wants to crush Islam right. The American government also lied to the world about why they wanted to invade.
        The ends doesn't always justify the means.

        • Sig Sakowitz

          Correction: Your perception is that "the American government" lied. Fair enough. Perhaps the Americans were guilty of the same illusions you appear to exhibit but I wouldn't accuse either you or the Americans of a deliberate lie. Misguided? Perhaps, but how is it possible for you to know what the American government “wanted” or what they believed to be true or false? History will undoubtedly prove whether the Americans were right or wrong by invading Iraq and removing Saddam from power. It is far too early to make the judgements you profess.

      • http://ragingranter.blogspot.com Raging_Ranter

        Actually it makes perfect sense. There's no illogic there at all. The world would have been much better had his head just exploded, or he ate a poison mushroom, or got hit by a truck or something. The world is NOT better because of the invasion.

        I supported the Iraq war and I have no trouble admiting it was the WRONG position to take. If someone as reasonable and as intelligent as Tony Blair can be taken in by cooked intelligence reports, what chance do the rest of us have?

  • Keith M

    Michael, you and the left keep missing the mark about Ignatieff. Someone being abroad for 30 years then coming back to run for Prime Minister is simply ridiculous. If someone wants to go abroad to get a degree, all the power to them.
    It was the Liberal brain trust that forced Ignatieff to change his views on Iraq. I personally like and respected what he originally said.

    • http://ragingranter.blogspot.com Raging_Ranter

      You realize that you can't bring up the fact that Ignatieff spent 30 years outside the country without being accused of repeating Conservative talking points don't you?

  • T Smith

    Ugh. No one wants to state the simple truth that Ignatieff is a waffling political hack with no defining principles.

    Everyone wants to blame regular Canadians or attack ads.

    We continue to treat this person with kid gloves even after his brand of directionless apologism has been rightly rejected by the Canadian people.

    Ignatieff was an incoherent communicator and an unprincipled leader who was more concerned with blaming Stephen Harper for problems than offering solutions.

    Go back and watch the English debates and try to tell me this is a man with a vision beyond his own arms reach.

    Good riddance!

    • truthintoronto

      I think you miss Petrou's point. Once upon a time Ignatieff did, in fact, stand for something. Not anymore. That NYT editorial in which Ignatieff recanted the values he used to stand for will go down as every bit the embarassment as his electoral drubbing.

      The Liberals thought Ignatieff would change the Party for the better. Instead, the Liberal Party changed Michael Ignatieff for the worse.

      • T Smith

        I do not miss his point. I reject it as embarrassed apologism, just the kind Ignatieff himself was so often guilty of.

        I reject the notion that Ignatieff ever stood for anything. He was an opportunist, and not a particularly crafty one.

  • Mike514

    Agreed! When Ignatieff first ran for the Liberal leadership (in '06, was it?), I listened closely to what he said, and seriously would have considered voting for him. I felt his int'l experience was an asset, and the only thing I didn't appreciate was the opportunism (coming back to Canada and immediately making a power grab, but aside from that…).

    But then '06 Ignatieff became '10/'11 Ignatieff. He reversed himself on many controversial positions, he leaned left, he came across as insincere on certain occasions, etc etc. And I stopped seeing him as a viable alternative to Harper.

    • http://ragingranter.blogspot.com Raging_Ranter

      I too once liked Ignatieff. The fact that numerous lefties screamed "NEOCON!!!!" every time his name was mentioned, along with the fact that Bob Rae seemed downright distraught over Ignatieff's decision to run for leader, made me instantly like him. It was only once he started capitulating to his detractors on the left that I lost total interest. I still would have supported Harper. But I would have been comfortable with the 2006 Ignatieff as PM. The 2011 Ignatieff was a hollowed out shell. And contrary to the popular theory being peddled at MacLeans and elsewhere, that hollowing out began long before the first attack ads ran against him.

  • George Radojcic

    T Smith teed it up and hit it out of the park.
    The "principled" Ignatieff, for whom I had also had some respect and admiration , revealed himself to be as callow and arrogant as the party that anointed him, startiing with the removal of the putative nominee in his "chosen" riding. No need for this intellectual colossus to toil in the Elysian fields of Canadian constituency politics.
    He richly deserves his fate because I am sure that he and his classmate, the ever reliable sofa salon socialist Bob Rae and his fellow travellers in the LPC braintrust had concocted a constitutionally valid but a very politically risky and unpalatable scheme(hence the refusal to clearly state that they would defeat a minority and restore their version of the ancien regime). He outsmarted himself like Wallace Shawn in the Princess Bride.
    Clearly, the Count could not count(cheap shot). How else do you explain the disastrous decision to force an election?
    I can hardly wait for the real story and some intellectual candour from him when he is safely back in the academic cloister.
    Big Rad

    • http://ragingranter.blogspot.com Raging_Ranter

      Bang on. Ignatieff was a good and decent man, who lacked only a spine and political instincts. His fate was sealed before he ever became Liberal leader. The coalition albatross weighed heavily around his neck, because he signed onto the damned thing. Signed his own political death warrant that day too.

  • TimesArrow

    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.

    I'm very proud of the way Maclean's writers and those who have been influenced by MI are speaking up – it says a lot about Macleans – all of it good. It gives me heart and courage to struggle on as a lib.
    On

    • TimesArrow

      One could say MI's self abasement that took place in order to enter the hallowed halls of Canadian poitics and even more so the sanctimonious bosom of the LPC is his own fault, he should have fought back – can anyone imagine PET allowing himself to be neutred in such away? Still, it speaks volumes about the party and the country generally – i'm very very angry today…but i'll get over it…what other choice do i have?
      As for the quote…no truer word said in a while @ Macleans. If you wont fight for what you stand for; just what do you stand for? Convinces me more then ever that the LPC needs a sea change, and that it should be saved. Thx Mr Harper…we'll be back!

  • Leo

    Well he has his new job:

    Outgoing Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has been appointed Senior Resident at the University of Toronto's Massey College.
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/05/05/…

    Hmmmm…the Munk School of Global Affairs – maybe he will learn something.

    • http://ragingranter.blogspot.com Raging_Ranter

      It's a pefect fit for him, and he'll be a much better professor than a political leader. Nothing wrong with that. I'd make a terrible professor and even worse political leader.

  • truthintoronto

    Seems to me the democratic system worked fine Joan. Canadians cast their ballots in a free election — and clearly, they do not share your bitterness towards our Prime Minster. I hope you let it go. Four years is a long time hold such simmering rage.

    Accusing people who disgree with you of supporting 'autocracy' is itself contemptuous of democracy.

  • Thwim

    I suggest to you that they were not willing to vote in an autocracy, but rather that they did not know they were doing so.

  • Ariadne

    Not only did the liberals transplant a long absent Canadian to become their leader, it seems they also did brain transplant on Ignatief. That was the most unprincipled campaign Liberals ever did. Funny to see biased one thought attack media whining and crying the morning and probably years after.

  • http://ragingranter.blogspot.com Raging_Ranter

    40% of Canadians were willing to vote in an autocracy…

    …because 40% of the electorate are stupid, old, fat white guys. Old fat sexually repressed white guys. With bad skin. And bald. Really bald. And ugly. Ugly bald wife-beaters. If they had wives. Which they don't. Because they're too old, fat, ugly and sexually repressed.

    Don't just leave us hanging there. Finish your thoughts!

  • Tony

    The Shallowness of Canadian Politics -hahaha as compared to?.?…ofcourse, for many chaps like yourself Oxford represents some sort certificate to/of the world – you are very amusing.

    • Tony

      Yeah, here it is:

      While We are busy bringing peace to the Middle East and simultaneously ending poverty in Africa, here is a little pack of chicken with fries and extra coleslaw…uh.uh I mean a Family Pack for you silly little people that haven't even been to Trent let alone Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard. Etc. – You misunderstand the gravitas of our 'intense' discussions of how to spend your money solving all the troubles that bother us.

  • danR

    .
    Ignatieff was an apologist for Washington exceptionalism.

    Give him 10 years and he'd become and apologist for Beijing exceptionalism.

    Ignatieff held the officially liberal and proper stance of 'Castro as monster'. A safe, Carteresque, position. OK.
    If he ever visited the man, I suppose, like Carter, he would have had a few 'friendly' chats, and then stood up in public and given him lectures on democracy and freedom. Very courageous.

    Trudeau held the honourable, principled, and personal stance of 'Castro as my friend.'
    .

    • danR

      .
      Now I've thrown meat before the dogs.
      .

      • Yanni

        Yeah, if you think Castro is anybody to be friends with, or that Cuban domestic policy has anything worth praising, then you are insane. Even the Cuban government itself has recognized that communism doesn't work, and are trying to bring in reforms slowly enough to maintain their power (as China did). Fidel Castro is a monster, and his brother Raoul isn't much better.

        However, I'm not sure if economic disengagement is necessarily the way to deal with him. Like you said, it gives you the chance to lecture them publicly on democracy and freedom. More money going in means more (illegal for now) entrepreneurs who have their own assets to challenge the regime. More trade means more communications technology such as cellphones and computers.

        After all danR, everytime you insult Harper and a Cuban reads it, he starts to wonder why he can't speak against the socialist government that you admire so much. Everything you say in criticism of your own government means I win on foreign affairs.

  • Tony

    GOD DAMMIT!!! I spent 6 days in Kosovo in 'the the shiat' for chrissakes!!! and 3 weeks in some 2 star Hotel in Crotia!! What the hell do these people want?

From Macleans