Iggy still not convincing

Michael Ignatieff, leader of the Liberal Party, doesn’t impress me. And I get the feeling the rest of Canada feels the same way.

Liberal Party leader Michael Ignatieff, seems more like a daddy trying to explain to his four year-old why Stephen Harper is a bad man than an effective political leader.

When he ran for Liberal Party leadership in Dec. 2006, Ignatieff was vaunted as a Trudeauesque intellectual with a capacity for making young people chant his name while coming up with bold, insightful policy ideas. The party was shocked when the owlish Stephané Dion came up the middle to claim victory at that convention.

After almost two years of ups and downs including a poor election performance and failure to capitalize on the second chance that was the “coalition crisis” the Liberal Party rejoiced when Dion announced his resignation. Almost immediately, Ignatieff was crowned saviour of the Liberal party and installed as its new king.

The Liberals had reason to hope again, for the era of the bumbling, ill-spoken professor was over.

After the public opinion honeymoon, Ignatieff began to flounder.

With the third economic “report card” he demanded from the Conservatives due in the fall of 2009, Ignatieff began the election talk. His support sharply dropped and was made to look like a fool when Jack Layton wisely made the decision to support the government budget update to avoid an election nobody wanted. Let’s not forget the mishandling of the Denis Coderre issue. That incident was poor politics in Québec, the one region where the Liberals have a consistent advantage over the Conservatives. The only thing worse Ignatieff could have done was insult Toronto, the most Liberal-loyal area in the entire country.

Now Ignatieff has a new chief-of-staff in Peter Donolo and appears to be making better political decisions. He’s even coming up with–gasp!–policy positions. Canadians appear to be willing to give him a second chance.

But as someone who identified strongly with the Liberals, I remain unconvinced.

First of all, Ignatieff has never been able to come off as sincere—unless you count Question Period. That’s where he looks like someone sincerely peed in his Cheerios. Other than that, though, I just don’t get the feeling he means what he says.

That’s one of the few things I admired Dion for—his readily apparent concern for Canadians. I can distinctly remember watching the English language debate in the 2008 election when Dion looked into the camera. When he looked at you and spoke, you saw and heard a man of compassion, intelligence and sincerity.

Fast forward to the infamous “Narnia” ads the Liberals ran around the middle of 2009. When Ignatieff looked into the camera and spoke I perceived something rather different. He was patronizing, aloof and arrogant. I didn’t perceive the powerful intellect of a highly intelligent man. Instead, Ignatieff was more of a daddy trying to explain to his four year-old why Stephen Harper is a bad man.

In addition to failing at sincerity, I still don’t know what kind of vision he has for the country. Oh sure, I could tell you some of the stuff he wrote while he was at Harvard, like how torture can be justified, but I still don’t know what he wants for Canada.

I don’t know if I would vote for him because I don’t know what would happen if he were elected. Maybe he would give everyone free iPhones. Maybe he would ban cheesy teen soap operas like Beverley Hills 90210 from being broadcast over Canadian airwaves. He’s in the gray. Michael Ignatieff doesn’t raise the bar.

This is a problem I have with all the federal party leaders. Instead of giving a clear-cut choice between two good leaders who differ on principles, or between someone who would be a good Prime Minister and who would be a bad Prime Minister, the 2008 election gave Canadians something much different. We got four leaders we could look at and say, “meh.”

Elections in a democracy shouldn’t be a choice between the lesser of four evils. There should be a plurality of good candidates or a leader who stands out above the rest.

The acclamation of Michael Ignatieff as leader of the Liberal Party of Canada was supposed to give Canadians that democracy. Instead, we’re still looking at the Conservatives, the NDP, the Bloc Québécois and the Liberals, shrugging their shoulders and saying to each other, “So, did you go to see Avatar yet?”

Canadians don’t want to be patronized or pandered to in an insincere way. They get plenty of that from the current Prime Minister. Neither do we want a guy who could pass a law requiring every university student in Canada read his plethora of books because he needed an ego trip.

Canadians certainly don’t need more of the same boring political sludge that’s been served up ever since Mulroney stepped down from office. Canadians need a leader of principle who will explain and not patronize, lead with a clear vision and stir up political debate on important issues. Michael Ignatieff isn’t that man.

And that’s why I’m not convinced.

As published in the March 12th edition of the Queen’s Journal.

Advertisement