Frank Foer's mistaken analogy.
At The Plank, Frank Foer gets his Canadian-American political analogies wrong (and his snitty, anti-Canadian update was rude and unnecessary!). Michael Ignatieff is not "the Al Gore of Canada". Foer bases his reasoning on the fact that Ignatieff is a former (though not recent) TNR contributor. But lots of elected Democrats have been TNR contributors. Most recently, Eliot Spitzer has been filling the elected-pol-as-neoliberal-intellectual role for the magazine. And anyway, Ignatieff was a TNR contributor before he got elected to Parliament in Canada (if he gets elected to Parliament in Canada). Plus, the reason Canadian Liberals are so excited about Ignatieff is that he's glamourous, a rare thing in Canadian politics. (Granted, by Canadian political standards, Gore would probably also be considered glamourous, and really glamourous back in the 80s when he was writing for TNR. I mean, Belinda Stronach is considered glamourous.)
On the other hand, there are a limited number of figures in North American politics who came into the family business with initial reluctance after watching their traditional-liberal fathers hold seats in the legislatures for decades without quite making it all the way into the upper echelons of party leadership; who cast their own careers as post-Keynesian neoliberals with consistent but somewhat idiosyncratic left-wing views on specific issues; who ran for the party leadership at a point considered by pundits as audaciously early in their elected careers; who spent the 90s nudging their more charismatic, less disciplined bosses to hold the conservative line on fiscal issues leading to (or at least correlated with) years of growth and fiscal balance but also the decline of the welfare state; who were bequeathed scandals by said bosses with which they had very little to do but over which voters aren't entirely prepared to forgive them; and who are apparently terrific, competent and (I think) well-meaning and underrated government managers but lousy, lousy campaigners.
I have no strong feelings about Michael Ignatieff (although I certainly hope he wins his riding). He is carpetbagging, and I disagree with him strongly on the war. But I mainly like the kind of liberalism he represents. But, really, Paul Martin is the Al Gore of Canada.
Update: The Globe and Mail has more on the Ignatieff scandal. To be fair to Ignatieff, the quotes from his 1993 book about not being able to take Ukrainian statehood seriously do seem to have been taken seriously out of context. On the other hand, the quotes offered from his self-defence at his nomination meeting (in the G&M and elsewhere)are appalling as political soundbites -- defensive, evasive and elitist-sounding. If Ignatieff is going to enter Liberal politics while holding controversial positions, he damn well better be able to explain himself... like he might have had to do in the riding nomination contest that isn't going to happen but maybe should have.
Not that this sloppiness on the Liberals' part changes my views on the election; one day into the campaign and Harper is already talking about turning back the clock on same-sex marriage. Sure, the "hidden Harper agenda" will sound tiring the 200th time some Liberal MP mouths it. But that doesn't change the fact that it's probably true.
On the other hand, there are a limited number of figures in North American politics who came into the family business with initial reluctance after watching their traditional-liberal fathers hold seats in the legislatures for decades without quite making it all the way into the upper echelons of party leadership; who cast their own careers as post-Keynesian neoliberals with consistent but somewhat idiosyncratic left-wing views on specific issues; who ran for the party leadership at a point considered by pundits as audaciously early in their elected careers; who spent the 90s nudging their more charismatic, less disciplined bosses to hold the conservative line on fiscal issues leading to (or at least correlated with) years of growth and fiscal balance but also the decline of the welfare state; who were bequeathed scandals by said bosses with which they had very little to do but over which voters aren't entirely prepared to forgive them; and who are apparently terrific, competent and (I think) well-meaning and underrated government managers but lousy, lousy campaigners.
I have no strong feelings about Michael Ignatieff (although I certainly hope he wins his riding). He is carpetbagging, and I disagree with him strongly on the war. But I mainly like the kind of liberalism he represents. But, really, Paul Martin is the Al Gore of Canada.
Update: The Globe and Mail has more on the Ignatieff scandal. To be fair to Ignatieff, the quotes from his 1993 book about not being able to take Ukrainian statehood seriously do seem to have been taken seriously out of context. On the other hand, the quotes offered from his self-defence at his nomination meeting (in the G&M and elsewhere)are appalling as political soundbites -- defensive, evasive and elitist-sounding. If Ignatieff is going to enter Liberal politics while holding controversial positions, he damn well better be able to explain himself... like he might have had to do in the riding nomination contest that isn't going to happen but maybe should have.
Not that this sloppiness on the Liberals' part changes my views on the election; one day into the campaign and Harper is already talking about turning back the clock on same-sex marriage. Sure, the "hidden Harper agenda" will sound tiring the 200th time some Liberal MP mouths it. But that doesn't change the fact that it's probably true.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home