Iggynation

Now that most of the Liberal good old boys have been cut out of the leadership race, I’ve been trying to figure out the one who gets my vote. (I’m not actually a card-carrying Liberal, but I could be). Both Bob Rae and Michael Ignatieff get me excited about a return to the glory days of Chrétien federalism after watching Paul Martin virtually sell the farm during his ill-fated government.

Ignatieff’s very own Liberal red book (”An Agenda For Nation Building”) is actually a very fine read. He presents three main areas of policy: economics, national unity, and Canada’s role in the world. In terms of economics, there’s nothing really new in terms of policy. One bit that really stands out though is his commitment to move education transfers outside of the lump-sum CHST to the provinces and define them at a federal level. That’s the thing about well-educated folk like Iggy: they value education.

Ignatieff is a staunch (and seemingly aggresive) federalist. I’m attracted to that. An over-arching theme throughout his red book is the “spine of citizenship”, his brand of federalism that balances regional cleavages with the need to maintain a common economic and social backbone and the need to “protect equality of citizenship”. He speaks of Québec as a civic nation (le Québec est ma nation, le Canada est mon pays), but not in the sense that such recognition should lead to further transfer of power to the provinces. Best of all, he talks about the need for Canadians to experience different parts of the country, the importance of bilingualism, and the importance of preserving Canadian culture. It is a horrible thing for an officially bilingual country to have such a large population of monolinguals.

Ignatieff’s foreign policy is mixed. It is most certainly a break from Bob Rae’s vision of Canada as a steward of international peacemaking and human rights. Instead, Ignatieff views Canadians in the world as “governance specialists of the emerging international order”. Ignatieff is a clear supporter of Canada’s presence in Afghanistan, even in our current active combat role. Rae doesn’t go as far as Jack Layton to suggest that we should try reasoning with the Taliban (!), but he certainly finds Canada’s current role there hard to stomach.

Most of the criticism directed toward Ignatieff is consistent with one of the following themes: he has spent most of his adult life outside of Canada, he’s too much of an intellectual elitist and lacks “common touch”, and his foreign policy views are too American-friendly.

Ignatieff himself actually had the best response to the first criticism. I can’t quote this exactly because I don’t remember, but it was something like this: sometimes you view Canada best from far away. It sounds a bit silly, possibly even trite, but I do think it’s true. After living in the United States for the past year, I feel that I appreciate Canada and understand what’s important to protect in Canada much more than I have before. So let’s give Iggy a break on this one.

One downfall of Ignatieff’s Québec policy is that he strongly advocates re-opening constitutional debate and bringing Québec into the constitutional framework. This may prove to be his undoing, but he’s aggresive enough that it just might work. Just remember though: many have been burned by this one before. People don’t have much stomach for constitutional reform, but maybe a decade after the last attempt we’ll all welcome it with open arms. Rae apparently was an adament supporter of Charlottetown and Meech Lake and is interested in re-opening the debate, so it’s not like Ignatieff is alone in his lofty constitutional goals.

Ignatieff’s American-friendly foreign policies have not been receieved well by some people, especially with Canadians coming home from Afghanistan in body bags on a weekly basis. Ignatieff’s “empire-lite”, a term he assigned to American military and aid operations in failed states to promote American national security, is a scary thing for a lot of people. I find it scary. These were academic musings though, and it’s important to consider that.

The only other criticism I have of Michael Ignatieff is that the dude seems a bit boring. He needs a fashionista to inject some color into his woeful navy-suit-red-tie-blue-shirt look. (and why does he always look so tired?) Of course, one must demonstrate some degree of reserve when dressing as a politician, but take it up a notch, Iggy!