Is Michael Ignatieff The Next Pierre Trudeau Or The Next Adlai Stevenson?
Clearly, one of the main reasons the Liberals recruited Michael Ignatieff was for nostalgic and pragmatic purposes. They wanted another Pierre Trudeau. With polls suggesting the Liberals under Ignatieff are hemorrhaging support and the Conservatives are gaining support, this bold initiative seems to have withered into a false start.
Those bright, bookish types sometimes have it hard. When they are rising in the polls, their articulate communication and serious demeanor are used for favourable comparisons with charismatic leaders like Obama, Trudeau, and John F.Kennedy. When they sink in the polls, those same traits are used for disparaging comparisons to diffident, “egghead” leaders like Adlai Stevenson and Stephane Dion.
It does appear to be true that intellectuals generally do not do well in politics. According to psychologist Martin Seligman, their tendency to ruminate and their lack of optimism turns the electorate off. Canadian Political Scientist Stephen Clarkson agrees and cites Trudeau as an exception to the rule. But is he really an exception? I believe that Trudeau deserved his intellectual reputation, but he often did not behave like most intellectuals. A lot of his writing for example was polemical and argumentative in style, which does not mean he was a lightweight, but is a very different approach from most academics. Furthermore, during election campaigns, his gunslinger pose and his visionary and optimistic speeches were not anything like the staid, quiet lectures of an Oxford don. On those occasions when he did appear professorial (most notably his Philosopher King campaign of 1972), the results were near disastrous.
Likewise, JFK did not approach things like most intellectuals. Clearly, he was an intelligent man, but according to some biographers, only information that was useful and practical really appealed to him.
Ignatieff’s intellectual and cosmopolitan reputation then does appear to be a political liability and at least a partial explanation for his poor showing. As outsiders, we can’t be sure exactly what is going on; after all, we are not shadowing his every move. There are some observers who claim he does not listen to advice, especially from experienced politicians like his former U of T roommate Bob Rae. Then there are others who say he is headed in the opposite direction by not following his own instincts and by listening too much to others who recommend that he display Joe lunch pail qualities. Recently, there have been reports that Ignatieff is making changes in terms of staffing and advisors. This may help curtail the Liberal slide in the polls.
There are probably other explanations for the Liberal’s dive in the polls. Some observers attribute it to a lack of interest in an election that the Liberals are pushing. An obvious reason is Stephen Harper’s formidable political experience and Michael Ignatieff’s lack of political experience. Trudeau is sometimes used as an argument that lots of political experience is not necessary for political success. But academic and even business experience (as pointed out by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty) are not really transferable skills when it comes to governing and to electoral politics. Does that mean Trudeau’s success was a fluke? Not really, since one could argue that Trudeau had lots of political experience and that experience is a major explanation for his success. He did work briefly in the Privy Council Office of the Louis St.Laurent Government which was useful politically. But there were other experiences he received that were akin to politics. Whatever you think of trade unions (and popularity surveys suggest most Canadians do not think highly of them), the fact remains that union activity is not unlike political work. You have to run in elections, you have to campaign and participate in protests or organized activities, you have to manage conflict and diverse interests, and you have to persuade others with reasoned argument or propaganda. During the 1950s in Quebec, Trudeau engaged in all of these activities as a labour lawyer, supporting asbestos workers and fighting the Duplessis Government.
I don’t claim to have all the explanations for Ignatieff’s difficulties. Moreover, nor do I have the solution, other than that he listen to advice and that he channel his inner Trudeau or even his inner Mackenzie King. However, polls are simply a snapshot in time, and they have been known to be inaccurate and they have been known to change. Those who support the Liberal cause are invited to post ways that the Liberals can climb out of their hole, and those who support the Conservative or NDP cause are invited to post ways that their parties can prevent a Liberal resurgence.
Related posts:
- Michael Ignatieff is Playing the Waiting Game As we’re all probably aware of by now, (since NOTHING...
- Was Pierre Trudeau the Last of Canada’s Bold Leadership? As the first decade of the 21st century passes into...
- Political Profile: Michael Ignatieff On December 10th, 2008, Michael Ignatieff became the interim leader...
- Ignatieff Blames Harper for Upcoming Budget Deficit Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff lashed out at Harper for the...
- Mssrs. Harper and Ignatieff are Practically Indistinguishable Harper and Ignatieff have functionally the same views on the...
Tags: adlai stevenson, michael ignatieff, pierre trudeau, stephane dion
Loading ...
October 28th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
Thing is, grassroots Liberals really didn’t choose Mr. Ignatieff. There was no race. After Chretien, Liberals have been in a tailspin, led by the Martin mantra that Chretien was a loser and Manley a potatoe head. That’s all they had to offer. Criticism. Even after Chretien won three consecutive majority governments and Martin barely pulled off a minority the Martin camp still insisted they knew best and still “influence” party practices. I don’t remember, did Martin even accomplish a minority? Didn’t he announce his resignation the night he lost big. Loser. The Liberals need to rebuild, 100%. Whether Mr. Donolo can help or not, only time, very little time, will tell. What pisses me off the most is that government’s can get away with murder when there is a weak opposition and Liberals are that, in spades.
October 29th, 2009 at 2:24 am
You got me thinking about Trudeau, a man that I do not admire. While Canada, in terms of social justice became progressive the structure of government, something few understand and thus almost no one talks about, became burdensome, impractical, and frankly too big for our tiny population. The end result is the largest per-capita government in the world! There is a reason why we are both the most resource rich nation in the world but relatively poor compared to Americans, Germans and the French – our 1:11 ratio of general population to those on government payroll (direct or indirect). When did this giant swelling occur – Trudeaumania. The social revolution that Trudeau is given so much credit for would have happened with or without him – it was a phenomena of the Zeitgeist and did not need him at all. Year later this has worn off. so now that Gays can marry, the government is fixing treat violations with natives and abortions and birth control abound (all of which I am 100% for) what is there to being a liberal? Well the answer to this used to be in the Cretian government when Paul Martin was pulling the financial strings and getting Canada down to business. When Mr. Martin (now seldom if ever mentioned) had to get out of the way of the storm he created for himself the liberals have lost the financial genius that kept the Cretian government going strong. YOu see it is and always will be about the money. In the last 30 or so years the liberals had both social and monetary platforms to run on. With the social issues they once stood for now held up in force in our courts there are no conservatives to demonize and say that those rights will be taken away – they can’t. Courts strike down legislation remember! So now it comes back to money and the conservatives have been since the Cretian years been plotting along these lines all the while the Liberals have been eating up environment and other “issues” that they are willing to back irrespective of the cost. Canadians now this and will not vote liberal because of it. Every plan that the liberals have tabled calls for an increase in the size and therefore expense if government. As a nation we are too tapped out to let that happen. So we won’t. Until the liberals are able to put meaningful cash in the pockets of Canadians coast to coast they will be lost and living on Trudeau mania, or worse yet trying to place the crown of rock-star politics on the head of his pudgy and smug oligarchical heir. So desperate are the liberals for their old glory days they are stupid enough to push guys like Ignatieff to live in them and he is pushing back, all the while the tension is killing it for them. I for one, despite the fact that I dislike socialism in a Canadian context, may just vote NDP just to train wreck the de-facto bipartisanism we have had since 1867.