[BRIEF NOTE] On how Ignatieff destroyed the Liberal Party of Canada

[rfmcdonald]

Props to Antonia Zerbisias on Facebook for linking Derrick O'Keefe's rabble.ca post criticizing the Liberal Party of Canada's fatal selection of Michael Ignatieff as leader. He kept the Liberals from achieving power under a coalition government agreement with the NDP, and his failure to distinguish Liberal policies as clearly different from the Conservatives' was fatal.

In the wake of his spectacular failure, a liberal meme has gathered steam: Canada was just not ready for an intellectual like Ignatieff; he was 'too smart' for the job. Having studied Ignatieff's intellectual journey, I would assert that this rationalization is the product either of partisan Liberal arrogance (hubris can apparently remain after a fall) or of a complete disregard for the man's actual record as a public figure. In reality, as a public intellectual -- notwithstanding a brief youthful dabbling in socialist academic writing -- Ignatieff has served power, advocated war and greased the skids for the rollback of civil liberties in the so-called 'war on terror'.

[. . .]

In January 2005, three insiders from Canada's Liberal Party came calling on Ignatieff at Harvard. Writing in The Walrus, Ron Graham described the meeting. The kingmakers from Ottawa outlined a scenario whereby Ignatieff would return to Canada after three decades abroad, win the party leadership and in short order become prime minister of Canada. The Liberals were the country's "natural governing party," after all. It's not known whether there was mention of sweets and flowers. Ignatieff accepted the invitation.

[. . .]

[The catastrophic May federal election] was the culmination of a decade-long implosion of historic proportions for what was the most successful political franchise of the 20th century -- having held power for more of those 100 years than any other party in the western democracies. The Liberal juggernaut began to stall early in this century, as Paul Martin fought a vicious battle with supporters of then Liberal prime minister Jean Chrétien to speed up his long awaited succession. Martin, the Gordon Brown of Canadian politics, finally took over from Chrétien, but the internecine battles had taken their toll and he lost power in short order.

In 2006, Ignatieff's first leadership bid was upset by Stéphane Dion. Ignatieff's prominent role in advocating for the war in Iraq and justifying Bush's rollback of civil liberties in the 'war on terror' was fresh in people's memories, and this played a role in his loss. Though defeated, Ignatieff never really dismantled his campaign team, and undermined Dion on key issues like Afghanistan and climate change.

[. . .]

After Dion's 2008 resignation, Ignatieff wrested the leadership of the Liberals without a vote by the membership. The deal was cut in the backrooms after Harper had, through misinformation and scaremongering, won the war of ideas against a proposed opposition coalition government. The agreement would have seen Dion installed as prime minister in coalition with the NDP and supported on key issues by the Bloc Quebecois. Harper unleashed a massive campaign, denouncing the Liberals' deal with "socialists and separatists." He asked and received a rare prorogation of Parliament, essentially in order to buy time, and in the interim the Liberals ditched Dion in favour of Ignatieff.

When Ignatieff took over from Dion, it was to much relief from Bay Street Liberals. Hopes were high in the Toronto Liberal establishment. (Ignatieff's coronation was rubber stamped in an uncontested vote by delegates at the May 2009 Liberal convention in Vancouver). He spent much of the first two years of his Liberal leadership positioning the party on the centre-right of a number of key issues.

In fall 2010, as leader, Ignatieff again propped up Harper's extension of Canada's mission in Afghanistan beyond 2011. Around the same time, Ignatieff absented himself in order to kill a private member's bill from his own party that would have given refuge to Iraq war resisters from the United States. Ignatieff was careful to match Harper statement for statement in support of Israeli occupation and the siege of Gaza, turning away from his own writing that had once compared the occupied West Bank to apartheid South Africa.

Ignatieff ditched Dion's talk of a carbon tax and other measures to tackle global warming in favour of boosterism for Canada's tar sands, the biggest oil reserves on the planet. He belittled National Geographic after a critical article on the tar sands, and talked about Canada's "economic destiny" being played out in the West. This pandering reaped no fruit -- the Liberals never gained a seat in Alberta and have been reduced to four seats in all of Western Canada.

Columnist Chantal Hébert identified the Afghanistan decision as the moment that Quebec voters "lost interest in the Liberals." The 'Orange Wave' of the NDP then swept away both the Bloc Quebecois and any hope of a Liberal resurgence in that crucial province.

Having moved to solidify the support of business and foreign policy hawks, Ignatieff then tacked to the left at the start of this spring's election campaign, criticizing Harper's wildly expensive no-bid purchase of F-35 fighter jets, and outlining a number of modest reforms that echoed many of the points in the NDP platform. The result was that almost no one in Canada bought it, opting either for Layton's warmed-over social democracy -- far more convincing and delivered with a gentler face -- or Harper's Conservatives.

O'Keefe notes that, in 2009, Dion's wife Janine Krieber wrote a scathing note about the party's future. The Toronto Star has the full, translated text. Below is the core of Krieber's remark.

The Liberal party is in a free fall, and it won't recover. Like all the liberal parties in Europe, it will become a poor little thing at the mercy of ephemeral coalitions. For having refused the historic coalition that could have placed it at the head of the left, it will be punished by history. Well, I was convinced the moment Paul Martin treated Jean Chrétien so cavalierly. That moment signalled the death of our party. If the elites of Toronto had been more alert, humble and realistic, Stephane was ready to take all the time and the hits to rebuild that party. But they couldn't accept 26 per cent, now we're at 23 per cent.

The time has arrived to make a choice. I don't want the Conservatives to continue changing my country. They are in the process, slowly, just like any dictatorship, of changing the world. Torture doesn't exist, corruption is a point of view. Do we really have the right leader to discuss these issues? Can someone really write all these insanities and make us believe he's simply changed his mind? To justify violence, he must have really given it serious thought. Otherwise, that's very dangerous. What guarantee would there be that he wouldn't change his mind again? The party base understood all of this and Canadian citizens are in the process of understanding. Ignatieff's supporters didn't do their homework. They didn't read his books, didn't consult his colleagues. They contented themselves with his ability to navigate the cocktail circuit. Some of them are enraged now. I hear: 'Why didn't anyone say anything?' We told you loud and clear. You didn't listen.

I have begun seriously reflecting. I don't want to give my voice to a party that risks winding up in the dustbin of history. I'm looking around and there are certain things that please me. Like a dedicated party, one that doesn't challenge its leader with every dip in the polls. A party where the order of the day is happiness, and not assassination. A party where work ethic and competence are respected and where the smiles aren't phony.

How is she wrong? Seriously, to reiterate the point, Ignatieff was a terrible choice. As I pointed out before, even in the midst of the slaughter Dion kept his seat. Maybe the Liberals should ask the superior politician to return to his prior position.