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.
(more…)