Several people have asked why I haven't written about the Liberal leadership race. Oh, a lot of reasons. I'm not into critiquing campaigns and theorizing on what might happen. It's just not my thing.
Of course, just because I don't blog about something doesn't mean I'm not paying attention to it. But at this point, my thoughts on the leadership race and the next election are pretty brief.
First, I recall how, after the last election, so many people were absolutely convinced that Harper's Conservatives would win the next election with a strong majority. Many acted as if it were an absolute certainty. But there are no certainties in politics, especially before a government even has a record.
I fully appreciate how important it is to prevent a Conservative majority government. I think it looks pretty unlikely at this point, and, at the same time, I'm anxious to see the Liberals run a strong candidate and a strong campaign.
I was pleased to see a recent survey showing Bob Rae as having the best chance against Harper. Of the four remaining leadership candidates, Rae would be my pick. (I say that with the understanding that when I can vote, I won't vote Liberal, but NDP.)
I'm aware that many people dislike Rae based on his record as premier of Ontario, but having heard such mixed things about his term, I have to put aside those opinions and base my judgments on what he says right now. He seems to me clearly the most progressive candidate, as well as the strongest campaigner.
On the other hand, if the Liberals choose Michael Ignatieff to lead their party, they will confirm my beliefs of how very un-progressive they are. I've been reading Ignatieff's writing in the US for many years, and he disgusts me. I see him as an apologist for US foreign policy. If you want that, you might as well stay with Harper.
I hope the Liberals will realize, in a way the Democrats never have, that their best shot against Conservatives isn't playing Conservative Lite. Faced with real Republicans or fake Republicans, people take the real thing every time.
I also think Ignatieff is open to criticism in that he seems to have returned to Canada solely to try to take the helm of the Liberal party. The accusation of being out of touch with Canada and more American than Canadian is a pretty big Achilles heel.
Those are my thoughts, however mundane. I'll expect to hear yours as well.
23 comments:
Call me paranoid, but I think it no co-incidence that after being an apologist for terrorism for the Bush regime, Ignatieff shows up here and proceeds to rocket up the Liberal ladder. How convenient would it be for the Neo-cons to have both the Liberal leader and the Conservative leader of Canada more or less in his pocket.
It would be convenient, but what's your theory? Ignatieff is a BushCo agent? His support within the Liberal party is bought by BushCo?
I understand the concern, but what's actually the implication?
Yeah, that's the implication. I have no proof whatever. I just look at the way the Neo-cons have thought and operated so far and it seems far too plausible.
I doubt Harper regards himself as a "BushCo agent". I do, though. I doubt Ignatieff would regard himself as such either. But then, I'm still struggling with the idea that a man who wrote articles condoning - approving, really - torture has made it as far as he has in the Canadian political system.
I doubt Harper regards himself as a "BushCo agent". I do, though.
Of course you do, that's fine. But being on the bandwagon politically and actually being a plant are hugely different things.
Ignatieff has been writing and teaching at the Kennedy School of Govt (part of Harvard) for a long time. If he's been a neocon plant all that time, he's done an exemplary job of hiding it.
I think it's safer just to say we loathe what they stand for rather than they are actually on the payroll. Ignatieff could do nothing in Canada without the support of much of the Liberal party. Or is that not true?
I also meant to say: I'm hoping his poor performance in last weekend's debate makes many delegates rethink their allegiances. Losing your cool that easily under fire is a very bad way to get elected.
I guess what I am afraid of is that BushCo DO regard Harper and Ignatieff as plants, and that they put enough financial/"moral"/strategic support into their campaigns to give them (BushCo) more pull with them (Cdn leaders) than they would get through mere ideological agreement.
But you do make me feel that my darkest imaginings are a bit over the top! That's a good thing. It's just whenever I've thought myself excessively cynical, the reality turns out to be that I wasn't nearly cynical enough. I'm trying to be pre-emptive here. ;)
I understand well the fear that the US will be able to bend Canada to do its bidding. But this IMO brings us back to how far away the two countries are, even Canada at its worst.
When Canadians say that Canada is becoming the US, Allan and I (and many other Americans) say "you have no idea". Vigilance is very important, but a reality check is often needed, IMO.
If you ever get a chance to see the movie "H2O"... well, let's just say it's a very good, and very scary, depiction of what would happen if the US *really* didn't like what was going on in Canada.
Heh. Yes.
It's easy to look at ways of thought we find distasteful in Canada and point south of the border. But if no Canadians agreed with these ideas, they wouldn't gain purchase here. I think we have to assume many people in the Liberal party agree with Ignatieff's beliefs. No?
in most leadership conventions ..going in the leader at the time doesn't usually come out the winner...in all of politics the most important speech anyone has to make is at the leadership convention as it really does hold weight and sway the delegates...
I like Kennedy but his french is poor so that's a tough road, Rae just scares me in terms of Ontario voters getting by the memory of his NDP premier days and as far as this "conspiracy' theory goes it's not a issue ..it's the delegates that decide. and then the caucas of the elected leader...the prime minister does not have as much weight in our system...just this week Martin and the other oppposition parties passed the Kelowna Accord in regards to the native Indians and the Conservatives can do nothing to stop it, it will become law... that's the mistake Harper is making he may be the figure-head and trying to be the only spokesman but it won't fly, it just exposes their holes...
any Liberal caucas would be bettrer then this bunch...but it will bve a interesting race in regards to who comes out as the leader as now the leaderless Liberals are in a deadheat in the pollls bad news for the Conservatives...
also the H2O documentary was good but in the free trade agreement Canada (Mulroney) already gave away the rights to out water, and unlimited exports, diversion to the states, so the states has no need to act agressively in regards to our water resource...
Uh, that was not a documentary.
sorry about the spelling errors, broke wrist the other day so just a one-handed typer...frustrating..
No spelling police here. How did you break your wrist?! Must have been painful.
My primary concern about Rae isn't so much about his policies or his persona (although his whole "picking a leader isn't about who has the best ideas" thing gives me pause), but about how defensive he has at times been about his previous association with the NDP. Since his opponents are likely to throw that in his face, I'd be afraid that he'd feel the need to distance himself from even the possibility of working with the NDP in the case of a minority government. I admit, though, that this concern is based more on paranoia than on any actual evidence.
playing basketball, no not really just thought I'd fallen on it funny but next day, quite painful..it'll heal...my mistake I was thinking about a show I saw on CBC A while ago in regards to our water and the states shortage of such and it's rising value as a commodity etc. and various inputs from some senators from the states, and the talking of the free trade agreement..it was a documentary
The only reason I said that ("it wasn't a documentary") is b/c the movie Scott mentioned is a futuristic paranoid thriller. It may come to pass one day but let's hope not.
yea no problem, my girlffriend straightened me out I thought it was the show we watched, I'm going to watch the H2o flick...thanx
I admit, though, that this concern is based more on paranoia than on any actual evidence.
I could see it being a barrier to getting the leadership, but once elected, I wouldn't think that would be an issue. But that's an assumption, what do I know.
I'm still struggling with the idea that a man who wrote articles condoning - approving, really - torture has made it as far as he has in the Canadian political system.
I think it's because, really, most people don't know that. If they know anything at all about him academically, it's that he supports Anglo-American hegemony. As part of the Anglosphere, it's not surprising that that position appeals to some Canadians. But, fortunately, not as much as it does to people in the US, UK, and Australia.
Rae just scares me in terms of Ontario voters getting by the memory of his NDP premier days
The really wonderful thing about the Conservative Party is its ability to take the most downtrodden and despised of its defeated enemies and rehabilitate them simply by doing such a piss-poor job that anyone else looks little short of brilliant. I give you the latterday ascendency of Trudeau from villian to a statesman on the level of a Father of Confederation by his death thanks to the toxic alchemy of Brian Mulroney... and, I dare to suggest, a Bob Rae now in serious contention for the top slot in the corporation thanks in part to Ontarians who endured a decade of Mike Harris and Ernie Eves (though the latter has always enjoyed my grudging sympathy). There'll be mutterings, sure, but they'll come mostly from people who wouldn't vote left of Generalissimo Pinochet anyway. I think that, in general, Ontario would take Rae over Harper any old time.
There'll be mutterings, sure, but they'll come mostly from people who wouldn't vote left of Generalissimo Pinochet anyway.
I love this. I always use "Genghis Khan" but I think I'll switch to Pinochet. :)
I think that, in general, Ontario would take Rae over Harper any old time.
I think you're right.
I think that Bob Rae is underestimated in terms of his ability to be electable (as opposed to his ability to govern the country well, which is frankly beyond my limited powers of analysis!)
But from what I can gather about the mood of Ontarians, based solely on conversations with co-workers, family, some friends, and surfing the various internet forums out there, is that even centrist-to-right Ontarians who are just a little bit thoughtful are able and willing to put his past behind him. I really do hear a lot of "well, people change, he's made mistakes but maybe he's learned from them, I'd prefer to see a leader with experience than one without, etc".
There is of course a whole lot of Rae bashing out there, but I get the sense that it comes from people who would vote NDP or Conservative anyway.
I really hope that the Liberal delegates don't get more freaked out by Rae's baggage (which I think has been overplayed) than they do by Ignatieff's baggage, which in my view is much much larger. Ignatieff (to me) is unelectable because of the optics. He comes across BADLY, like an overeager apple polisher who when it comes down to it isn't all that bright (I'm not saying he isn't - it's just how he comes across). He's stiff, kind of slow on his feet, and the whole not living in Canada for the last 30 years along with the impression he leaves that this leadership candidacy is all about another notch on his CV is bound to be a big turnoff.
Sadly, I don't think that his defence of American empire is the issue that will be the defining "turn-off" for Canadians. The fact that he's just not up to the media spotlight and that Harper will crush him in debates is, to me, the bigger factor.
Rae, despite the "baggage", is still in my opinion far and away the quicker fellow, better speaker, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, he has an evident sense of humour, which is one of Harper's bigger weaknesses. Even Rae's "flip floppiness", which is certainly a problem given that many people think of the Liberals as big old opportunists, might work in his favour against the insanely ideological Harper. In any case, if the opportunist charge is the Liberals' biggest weakness, then Ignatieff is even more especially NOT the way to go!
I'm following this leadership bid closely because I really really really don't want a Harper majority, and I really really really worry that with Ignatieff at the helm that's what we'll get.
L-Girl, I think that this has been recommended before (certainly by me), but it's really worth checking out The Agenda (TVO's reinvented Studio Two). In the last week or two they've interviewed Rae, Ignatieff and Kennedy, and it's interesting viewing. You can view past shows on their website (google
"the agenda" and "tvo" and it's the first or second hit) if you're interested. On that note, they did a show last night about "anti-Americanism", which was a bit...incoherently all over the place..but they did address interesting issues about the huge differences between Canadian, European, and say, Middle Eastern anti-Americanism, anti-Americanism as ultimately being anti-capitalism, and the issue of nationalism in general. Though the German Republican was a bit annoying (however, he did say, as a surprising number of American "guest" panelists do, with obvious sincerity, that "this was a really intelligent debate, thank you").
This always warms the cockles of my (reluctantly) nationalist Canadian heart!
Thanks for your opinions about Rae and Ignatieff in terms of electability, Lisa. I concur!
Post a Comment