With the Conservatives already planning their attack ads against Michael Ignatieff in preparation for the next election, one has to wonder just how swayed they can expect the public to be against their second straight Liberal opponent in under a year. Ignatieff has laughed off the threat, sarcastically quipping that he’s “shaking” at the thought. Defiant words, considering the negative impact the relentless bombardment of attack ads directed at Stéphane Dion had. Now it’s the same party with a different personality at the helm, but perhaps that projection of confidence, the cocky/defiant confidence which the more appeasing Dion lacked, is exactly what might bolster the new leader with voters and put the Grits back into office. It’s possible, for what makes a party worthy of governance, and what makes their leader resonate with voters doesn’t seem to be the same thing necessarily, and the Grits numbers have improved since Ignatieff became leader of the party. But is it enough? Will his personality triumph over the inevitable onslaught of smears? Or does anyone really care? Ignatieff, while seemingly more popular than Dion, still doesn’t inspire the same kind of political zeal in Canada that Barack Obama has in the US (or in Canada for that matter). In fact, just about the only safe bet in Canadian poltics these days would be if Barack Obama ran for, well… anything. You see, Canadians are Obama crazy. In fact, some polls during Obama’s presidential campaign run suggested a staggering 80% of Canadians would have voted for Obama given the chance. 80% in any democracy is beyond a landslide. It’s actually getting into ‘was that rigged?’ territory. When Obama visited Ottawa for a few hours a couple weeks ago, Canadians scrambled from all over to get to Ottawa, just to get a chance not to see him. So it’s fair to say that Canadians have Obama mania. It’s all somewhat understandable; by all accounts he is a bright, principled man, but what’s more than that, he’s clearly an exceptional orator, inspiring the basic fibers of inspiration wherever and whenever he speaks, so much so that he unfortunately seems to trigger a reflexive Canadian self-loathing anxiety. For as much as Canadians love Obama, they can’t seem to talk about him without lamenting about the state of their own politics; carrying on about how they ‘wish we could have an Obama’, ‘our politics are boring,’ etc. It’s envy as much as it is mania, and it’s an attitude that’s replete in Canada. Where and how Canadians get this attitude is somewhat of a mystery, because Canadian politics, like the politics of any country, can be very interesting, and there are plenty of good politicians in the fold. So why the self hate?

I’ve given this question some thought, and I have come to a sad conclusion: Canadians don’t know anything about Canada or Canadian politics. From here, it’s easy to see why Canadians may be uninterested: they don’t know any better. During the recent federal crisis, in which our own Prime Minister closed down Parliament just to save his own job (which, for the record, is really interesting), the Dominon Institute did a little polling… It found that just over the majority of Canadians thought our Prime Minister was directly elected (untrue). 42% of Canadians thought the Prime Minister was the head of state (untrue); 41% couldn’t identify Canada as a constitutional monarchy (which it is). These results are unfortunately nothing new. In 2007, only 9% percent of Canadians could correctly answer the year of Confederation. In the Institute’s Canada Day quiz/poll, they found that when paired with American questions, Canadians on average knew more about the USA than they did about Canada. This emabarrassing level of ignorance isn’t just the fault of Canadians though; clearly, there is a lack of civic and historical knowledge being taught at schools throughout the country. And with education being provincial jurisdiction, people in one part of the country might be learning even less about the (federal) nation than people in others (perhaps not surprisingly, considering their provincial nationalism, Québecers almost always came out as the worst informed federal Canadians in the country). So really, considering that our history isn’t taught, our political institutions aren’t understood, and the majority of our media is American, it’s really no wonder why Canadians, beyond just loving Obama, seem more interested in American politics than they do Canadian politics. They already know more about America.

Of course, it’s only natural to take an interest in our neighbour to the south, as it is the most powerful country on earth. We once had this ‘prime minister’ (wiki that, if you’re not sure what it is) named Pierre Trudeau who said that living beside the United States is “like sleeping with an elephant. No matter how friendly an even-tempered the beast… one is affected by every twitch and grunt”. The beast has been doing a more than just twitching and grunting since the early years of the Bush administration, and part of the Obama allure is the belief he’ll spell good news for Canada, and Canadian-US relations. His party’s views more closely parallel those of the Canadian political mean, and many feel his presence in the White House will influence a more progressive output from our own Parliament Hill. He is a man who campaigned on ‘change,’ after all. But lest we forget that Canada, even with Harper, sits slightly to the left of the USA, and that change is not a policy, nor is inspiration. What Obama will do is merely steer the ship on a slightly more leftist course, ostensibly attempting to make the US more like Canada.

Canada has a long history of being more progressive and tolerant than the US. For example, while California still struggles in the wake of bill 8, homosexual couples in Canada have now been able to marry legally for years. We have no equivalent of Guantanamo. We didn’t join the war (see. invasion) in Iraq. We already have universal health care. Yet these are some of the things Obama is looking to rectify. These are some of the things that are (somewhat ironically) inspiring Canadians. And while a more tolerant and multilateral US is an exciting prospect to most, the inspiration factor doesn’t make a lot of sense for a country that is already tolerant and multilateral. Regardless, Canadians regularly lament the lack of a leader who will do for Canada what Obama looks to do for the US. But considering what Obama will do (at best) is make his country more like ours in terms of policy, what exactly are Canadians expecting from their own politicians and political system? What exactly is it that they feel is lacking if the results are already there? Clearly it’s not just policy that people are interested in…

That being said, one policy area where there does seem to be reason to look toward Obama for leadership is the environment. Environmentalists are hoping Obama will be ‘green’, and he’s already talked about a cap and trade system to curb the output of CO2. Canadians wish they had someone who would be so forward thinking… but Jack Layton just proposed the same thing in the last election and got nowhere with the platform. Stéphane Dion proposed the entire country make a green shift, and called for a plan where CO2 would be taxed, with the proceeds going back to Canadians in the form of breaks on their income tax return… but Dion, who by all accounts is also a very bright, principled man, got kicked to the political curb. And why? Perhaps the answer lies in the polls… and the attack ads. Canadians didn’t seem as concerned with policy as they did with ‘leadership qualities’ during the run-up to the last election, because even though a majority of Canadians polled thought that Harper was the leader to most likely have a hidden agenda, they also said he was likely the strongest leader. On the other hand, Dion, perhaps with a little help from Conservative denigration, seemed to fail to inspire. So what makes a leader if it’s not policy? Is it a projection of confidence? Is it good looks and being attractive? Is it the ability to communicate? Obama has all of these characteristics. And let’s face it, Dion, who could potentially have been an even more progressive leader than Obama is likely to be able to be in the US, was kinda dorky looking and couldn’t get his points across in English very well. So perhaps that is what Canadians want. They want the charm; the looks; the charisma; the leadership ‘qualities’, even in the face of a more progressive alternative. While perhaps these are natural, or superficially hard-wired desires of an electorate, it seems unfortunate. It seems unfortunate because of something the Dominion Institute pointed out: our PM is not the head of state. He/she is the head of government. Their job, as an elected and representative member of parliament, is to table legislation and make policy that benefits the constituents of this country. It is not their job to be good looking, or charming, or even a great speaker. Sure, those aspects can be inspirational to voters, and inspiration can help people to move mountains, but the most important thing is in which direction the mountain moves. Dr.Martin Luther King Jr., a man who coincidentally helped pave the way for Obama’s recent ascent to office, once said that he hoped to one day see his children judged not on the colour of their skin, but on the content of their character. It’s an ideal that still resonates to this day, and it’s crux, to judge individuals based on content, should still be applied today, judging our leaders based not on how ‘leader-like’ they are, but in the quality of their ideas, and in the benefits their policies can bring to their respective societies. Personally, I’d take beneficial policy over charm any day, and hope that good politicians, and/or good parties will not be turned aside in our forthcoming elections because they fail to strike the right superficial chord; that personality attack ads will be dismissed in the face of real credibility, better platforms, and stronger convictions. While our own Obama might be nice, Canadians should feel no shame in having someone less charismatic as long as he/she take us where we need to go. And while Mr. Ignatieff, the front-runner to challenge for the PMO, is certainly not wanting for charm, the smear campaign is about to begin. One can only hope that faced with these repetitive tactics, Canadians will rely more heavily on the ideas this time around, rather than the personalities.

Related posts:

1. Canadian Government Lacks Serious Leadership When it Comes to the Environment Just as I was starting to panic and think that...
2. Obama Comes To Canada Unless you have been buried beneath 40 feet of Newfoundland...
3. Stephen Harper Declines the Opportunity for Canadian Leadership on Climate Change at the Commonwealth Summit At the recently concluded Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM)...
4. Unite the Left? Democracy is about choice. It’s about the right to look...
5. Political Profile: Michael Ignatieff On December 10th, 2008, Michael Ignatieff became the interim leader...

Tags: conservatives, liberals, michael ignatieff, stephane dion, stephen harper

This entry was posted on Monday, March 16th, 2009 at 9:21 am and is filed under Federal Government. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.