John Ivison is an often underrated political columnist who really hits the nail on the head every once in a while. His Saturday column on Ignatieff needing to stop talking about Ignatieff is one perfect example of his perceptive proficiencies.
As every political poll, survey and focus group has told him, Michael Ignatieff has failed miserably to build his image and brand as successfully as Stephen Harper. In fact, he’s failed so badly that only fringe party leader Elizabeth May has a less alluring leadership brand.
And of all the things that have hampered Ignatieff, nothing has been so pronounced as his expatriate days when Canada was little more than a vacation home to return to and renew his membership card. As Ivison writes, “it reminds voters that here is a man who is not like them,” in any way shape or form. Regardless of how many times the man tries to explain it in soft light video with archival footage of Harvard, he only serves to further validate the “just visiting” charge from the Conservatives.
But that’s the fault of the Liberal war room. They don’t seem to be able to perceive that the greatest asset of the Liberal leader isn’t what he provides, but what he doesn’t provide: the cult of personality that Stephen Harper has built around himself.
The Liberals are never going to match Ignatieff with Harper in some political gladitorial showdown, as the prime minister is going to win that match every single time. It isn’t about intelligence or experience or wisdom. Some people just “have it” and with Ignatieff, baby, you don’t have it.
What they’re missing, however, is the chance to juxtapose the Liberal brand as precisely the opposite to what many Canadians have come to dislike and distrust about the Conservatives. Instead of promoting the Liberal leader as the central brand, focus on branding the political party as a group of people all working equally toward some common goal.
Instead of the centralizing power of the Conservatives where all political messages have to be filtered through the PMO and Party HQ, where party candidates and workers have to be vetted for common media interviews, the Liberals could focus on being what the Conservatives are not.
The contrast could be remarkable if done properly. Ignatieff could step back and say that it isn’t about him, it’s about Canada and the kind of vision all 308 candidates have for a Liberal vision of the country. The Liberal brand is obviously enduring enough that it can hold a quarter of the electoral loyalty, despite having a weak leader for much of the past half decade.
Of course, that will never happen. Because part of the reason the Conservative strategy works is that it’s true. Ignatieff didn’t come back to Canada to stand out of the spotlight and campaign for a better Canada on ideas alone. He came back to be coronated as the returning monarch of Canada by virtue of his superior human qualities.
And even if that can’t be articulated on a perfectly logical plane of thought, it is the gnawing instinct of mistrust that is what most likely provides the negative feedback loop the Liberals are receiving in polls.
Ah, sounds good as a professor and a mediator when he talks about a civil discussion with respect searching for a consensus on issues etc … ect …. ect … ; Unfortunately instead of Ignatieff being Ignatieff he seems to have been influenced by wanting to win to the point that any consensus building got side tracked into the ” Question Period ” mindset !
So are we seeing the real Ignatieff if he where free of the corrupting influence of Party Politics or rather we are maybe seeing the Ignatieff suffering from a ” Stockholm Syndrome ” having absorbed in his contact with Liberal Party hacks the toxic mentality of opposing just for the sake of opposing ?
Just as a mind exercise imagine if Ignatieff had kept his priority on consensus building and have supported the Conservatives as a true centrist and proposed workable changes to Conservative Policies that would have convinced us that his priorities where what he believed was best for Canada.
If his suggestions made sense to the population he might have been perceived as a wise leader above the petty desire to become P.M. at all costs and although he might have had to support Harper in many cases where he agreed with Conservative policies, the times he would have proposed credible policies changes and been rebuffed his reputation for intellectual honesty might have made him very competitive as an appealing even to Conservatives to Harper !
In such a case it would have made Harper look bad if Harper was unwilling to accept reasonable compromises to policy. If Harper was wise enough to accept changes then maybe the next election would have been a choice between two very good statesmen and Canada would be in good hands whichever one won the next election with a healthy democracy based on what is best for the country rather than short term advantage to win elections.
Naturally this is somewhat ” UTOPIC ” as this kind of putting the country first by both Government and Opposition Parties was never this good even at the best of times, but the present very ” TOXIC ” partisan atmosphere is the exact opposite of the above in my opinion.
He is just like Obama – it’s all about him.
I really disliked his going into Eastern Ontario a while back and promoting French on all business signs. That’s all we need – an Office de la langue française in Eastern Ontario. He will also divide the country with his policies which will hurt the West – not to mention going into a coalition with the Bloc which the West will never accept.
From Michael Valpy’s extensive interview with MI:
“I think there are people who would say I’ve been very ruthless in my life. I am someone who has worried greatly about the price my ruthlessness has inflicted on others. I have worried about that. I do worry about that.
“I don’t want to litter the slopes with bodies. There may be people who I’ve left behind who feel that I was ruthless, and if they feel that, then all I can say is — I wouldn’t apologize — all I could say is, I don’t want to hurt people.”
or
“Michael is like an iceberg, nine-tenths below the surface,” says a friend who has known him since they were teenagers.
Yet I have to laugh when Ms. Taber alerts us to MI’s supposed nervousness about the Tuesday debate. A former British high society TV host and lecturer nervous? Beautiful way to lower our expectations.
so Adrian? Will you be voting for the CPC or the Harper govt? Funny stuff.
Between you and I and the walls, I won’t be voting.
Just remember that contrary to what far too many people now think, Mickey I. spent most of his time abroad mainly in the UK (1978-2000), not the US; his other nationality, should one think that way, would actually be British:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ignatieff#University_professor.2C_writer.2C_broadcaster
Mark
Ottawa
Good point Mark. I think many people forget that.
It is important to look carefully and report on the NDP and BQ platforms, as these are what Mr Ignatieff will have to implement in order to achieve his three goals:
1. Grab power as Prime Minister
2. Fend off a hostile leadership review
3. Put down any dissent in his caucus (putting a foot on Bob Rae and the Young Dauphin’s neck is a worthwhile goal for Mr Ignatieff).
Sticking the taxpayers with a $300 million bill, having Mr Layton as a cabinet minister and being the BQ’s lapdog are a small price to pay for his ambitions
Young Dauphin. LOL!
That surprises me. In order to judge and blog over political shortcomings (journalistically of course) a person should always have a dog in the fight. So…..why wont you vote ??
Well, I could say something pretentious about journalistic objectivity, but the truth is closer to the fact that I dislike all the options right now.
So although it’s your choice to not vote if all outcomes are equally unappealing to you, you should consider the Coalition outcome and evaluate it’s probable effects on Canada not just for a year or two but how it might seriously push the West to separate and the real negatives of a country run by the Left.
If you find that ” undisturbing ” then saying that all the choice don’t appeal to you is fine but if it’s something you end up concluding would be very negative then maybe you could vote for a Conservative majority.
Although once in power I would hope that they would listen to a variety of opinions about different issues ?
Maybe without the constant treat of being pushed out of power the Conservatives and Harper might be more willing to listen to amendments to legislation based on logical argument and facts ?
Ivison is wrong, not that I want to help the Liberals at all. In Canada the PM is a central figure and expected to have leadership qualities, even though they can vary from period to period in substance. Iggy lacks these leadership qualities generally and more specifically he still doesn’t understand the nature of the job he is fighting to obtain. Time is running out and I feel no sympathy for a political party that needs almost the entire media to prop them up from collapse.
I think I understand. We have the far far left, the left and the other left that swallowed up Laytons left. Then there is the right leaving a void where the center should be. Just remember , If enough people do’nt get involved we will always get the government we deserve. I like to hold my nose and vote for the closest to my ideals. That can be a stretch sometimes but it gives me something to bitch about until the next election. Truly the sign of insanity. Doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results. (sigh).
Here is a thought for all you people outside of Québec in the ROC who complain about the BLOCK being in Parliament and that they can’t do anything about it: Voting in a Conservative Majority is the best way to kick the BLOCK in the NADS ! Now how is that for motivation.
LOL.
Conversely a vote for the Liberals or a vote for the NDP is a vote for the BLOCK is those votes don’t add up to a total of Lib. and NDP seats greater than the Conservatives. ( And if you are happy with a Government of the Left then go for it ! Just don’t complain later if a Conservative minority Government, that you want, turns into the LIBNDPBLOCK Government that you didn’t want ).
Typo treat should be read as threat.
Iggy is full of himself but so are most of the National press Gallery. Birds of a feather!!
The media has carried Dalton McGuinty election after a election and look how that is working out for Ontario.
If the coalition take over after this election then I will happily vote for the west to separate. I have watched Quebec make one demand after another and I am sick of it.
Ontario has the power to vote to keep this country together or divide until the end of time.I believe this will be a historic election one way or another. If you don’t vote then don’t complain!!!
If you don’t vote then don’t complain!
I agree this may be the most important and dullest election at the same time and people not awake enough to notice how this may completely change the future history of Canada are really not paying attention !
Forget the national campaign for a moment, how are your local candidates? Are the both of such low calibre that you wouldn’t vote for either?
I appreciate your point about the greatest asset of the Liberal leader isn’t what he provides, but what he doesn’t provide.
Jason Kenney made an announcement about promoting freedom of religion as part of our foreign policy. Good idea to promote a basic human right (and Canadian value), but it’s difficult to see what is going to be accomplished with a mere half million dollars.
That said, Bob Rae played a political game with it, (as Mr. Kenney may well have been doing) and Liberal MP David McGuinty made a bizarre claim that promoting a basic human right was somehow eroding the separation of church and state in Canada. Mr. Kenney and Mr. Rae might be playing politics as usual but Mr. McGuinty is playing on fear and anti-religious bigotry to gain points. It’s pathetic.
But here’s the contrast. Mr. Ignatieff came out and said the idea was good and something all parties should support. He didn’t just say “it’s from the Conservatives therefore it must be bad” and he didn’t grab everything as a way to villify his opponent.
That suggests that Mr. Ignatieff may have an asset in something he doesn’t provide: rabid partisanship. After all, the man highly successful outside of politics. I think the Liberal party needs him more than they’ll admit and a LOT more than he needs the Liberal party. That’s not a bad thing for a party leader.
I will vote, but I haven’t decided how I’ll be voting yet. We have a new Conservative candidate that I know nothing about and I actually haven’t seen a Liberal sign in my riding yet.
Good point. I knew that, but I rarely thought of it.
In any case, I don’t consider time spent abroad relevant. So what? I travel as well and living abroad is a perfectly reasonable thing for a Canadian to do.
The “just visiting” smear might work on some, but it creates disgust at the Conservative party in me. (And I voted Conservative in the last election).
“Enough about myself, let’s talk about me.”
I think there’s more truth to that title than most people have noticed. When you consider just how many opposing points of view that Michael has on any given subject, depending on the time of day, it seems as though he believes that all voters are idiots.
I think he has a split personality. Oh well, if he loses this election, at least he’ll still have each other.
Travelling or living abroad is perfectly O.K. but if 90% of your adult life was spent abroad it means you missed a great deal of the daily and yearly experiences that you would not have shared with those spending a high proportion of their life in the country meaning you may be clueless about a great many issues that affected canadians over many decades.
If you became a new citizen of another country would you have an intuitive feel about what the country is about enough to become the leader f that country ? Well, maybe yes, but it would be a legitimate thing for political rivals to bring up and up to people to decide if it’s important or not !
The question is also not only being abroad for so long but the motive for coming back being mostly or only being offered a chance of being a future leader of the Liberal party on a silver platter ! Would Ignatieff have come back to live here if he had not been told that he would have a good chance of being P.M. ? The people from the Liberal Party who recruited him where looking for a new Trudeau philosopher King type of guy and Ignatieff seemed to them to have the ” Royal Jelly “, at least at the time !
Like many academics I think this flip flopping comes from debating for something and then doing the debating game exercise of immediately debating the same issue from the opposite side: This is great as an intellectual exercise but it predisposes one to be maybe so open to ideas and points of view to not have one for yourself !