Ignatieff's Turner Problem - He Really IS out of Touch

Keepitsimple · May 9, 2009

First The Star breaks the Ruby Dhalla story....now Thomas Walkom publishes an accurate, but less than flattering story about Michael Ignatieff being out of touch with Canada. Although it's a breath of fresh air to finally see some balance in their reporting, is some sort of agenda in play at The Star? Here are some excerpts from the story (my bold):

"Do you, sir, support an end to Canada's exports of...asbestos to developing countries?" she asked, according to a recording of the exchange.
"I'm probably walking right off the cliff into some unexpected public policy bog of which I'm unaware," Ignatieff replied. "But if asbestos is bad for parliamentarians in the Parliament of Canada, it just has to be bad for everybody else. So you have to be right, and our export of this dangerous product overseas has got to stop."

It was a clear answer – unequivocal, logical and, in broad public policy terms, almost certainly correct.

But given the importance of the asbestos mining industry in Quebec and the power of the asbestos lobby in Ottawa, it was also decidedly impolitic – so much so that within four days Ignatieff was forced to ignominiously back-pedal, insisting that he meant only that Canada should warn potential buyers about any dangers posed by the mineral.

A small incident? Perhaps. But it also highlights what may turn out to be Ignatieff's greatest political weakness: He is out of touch.

When Ignatieff is asked about his decision to seek Canada's prime ministership after spending more than a quarter-century living abroad, he tends to answer in moral terms, suggesting that critics are questioning his patriotism.
"There's a funny idea out there that you can only be a Canadian if you lived in the country the whole time," he told the Toronto Star's Sandro Contenta recently. "It doesn't seem to me to make any sense. More than 1 million Canadians live and work outside of the country at any one time. Are we saying they are less good Canadians than the people who never leave?"

But the real question is not whether Ignatieff loves Canada. It is whether, after all those years immersing himself in the political debates of his adopted countries (during his U.S. interlude he would write about "we Americans"), he still has an intuitive grasp of what's going on in his native land. For any politician, this is a crucial skill.

"When I was driving a truck, John Turner was dancing with Princess Margaret," Brian Mulroney, the winner of that 1984 election, would tell delighted audiences.
For Ignatieff, the problem has less to do with style (his seems appropriately post-modern) than with content. It's hard to keep up with a place that you visit only during summer holidays – which is why, with the exception of troubled states like Somalia, so few countries seek out expatriates to lead them.

Today, Ignatieff talks of those annual holidays, particularly to an uncle's farm in the Eastern Townships of Quebec, as events that kept him linked to Canada. But in a 1993 essay, he marvelled at how removed from the actual reality of Canada and Quebec those summer visits were.

"The myth I grew up believing was that Canada was a partnership between two peoples," he wrote in Blood and Belonging. "Yet I never actually met any Québécois when I was growing up. ...When I went to Quebec, I went to the English-speaking Eastern Townships, to a house where my Russian grandparents lived."

In many ways, he still seems removed. Take, for instance, his 2006 suggestion that Israel committed war crimes in Lebanon. Faced with howls of protest from within his own party, he quickly reversed himself.
At one level, that was just the standard story of a politician weaving and ducking. But in a more fundamental way, the Israel gaffe – like the asbestos gaffe – demonstrated Ignatieff's ignorance of the modern political Canadian landscape.

In the `60s, during the time of former prime minister Lester Pearson, it might have been relatively easy for a mainstream Canadian politician to criticize Israel. These days, it's virtually impossible without being labelled a terrorist sympathizer, an anti-Semite, or both.

At an important level, his admiration of Pearsonian Canada is almost certainly genuine. But at the same time, it's hard not to suspect that Ignatieff fixes on Pearson because the Canada of the 1960s is the Canada he knows best – the country in which he grew up and from which he eventually escaped so he could, as he writes in his latest book, True Patriot Love, "go out into the bright world beyond and play the palace."

Link: http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/631587

Edited May 10, 2009 by Keepitsimple

Smallc · May 9, 2009

Or maybe the Star has never been as biased as conservatives say it is.

Edited May 9, 2009 by Smallc

Keepitsimple · May 9, 2009

Or maybe the Star has never been as biased as conservatives say it is.

A nice thought.....but I won't hold my breath.

Edited May 9, 2009 by Keepitsimple

Radsickle · May 9, 2009

The Star and CBC are far more balanced than the alternatives. Hooeh for good journalism.

As for Thomas Walkom's opinion piece, he'll definitely provoke debate.

I like the fact Iggy knows his honesty will provoke too:

"I'm probably walking right off the cliff into some unexpected public policy bog of which I'm unaware," Ignatieff replied.

He's not out of touch. Can't you hear the irony?

The fact he worked abroad means he's not as provincial as most of us.

Edited May 9, 2009 by Radsickle

jdobbin · May 9, 2009

Walkom publishes an accurate, but less than flattering story about Michael Ignatieff being out of touch with Canada.

My feeling is that the Toronto Star is a provincial paper and has always been a little suspicious of outsiders. Some of the reports they wrote on Pearson and King also reflected their concerns about the time they spent outside Canada.

Walkom compares the situation to Turner but Ignatieff hasn't just re-entered politics nor has he just stepped off the plane and doesn't know the lay of the land. He has served in office just as long as Harper was when he became leader.

One could say that Harper is the one that was out of touch. He attacked the BQ annd by extension those that voted for them as separatists. His support in Quebec has dried up as a result.

My feeling is that Ignatieff could be in the country for many years and there would still be some who would try to label him an outsider.

Wild Bill · May 9, 2009

One could say that Harper is the one that was out of touch. He attacked the BQ annd by extension those that voted for them as separatists. His support in Quebec has dried up as a result.

Wait a minute, I must have missed something. Are you saying the BQ are NOT separatists? Or that they are but we should not mention it?

PET must be spinning in his grave!

Leafless · May 9, 2009

One could say that Harper is the one that was out of touch. He attacked the BQ annd by extension those that voted for them as separatists.

A good many of them are separatist and hard core nationalist that will not support a Western leader, no matter what.

His support in Quebec has dried up as a result.

We have four parties in Canada and don't need Quebec to win and don't need someone from Quebec to govern. Majority English speaking Canadians should smarten up and vote culturally, like Quebec does.

My feeling is that Ignatieff could be in the country for many years and there would still be some who would try to label him an outsider.

That is a contradiction.

Ignatief is not an outsider.

Ignatief is an outsider.

Make up your mind, which is it?

Edited May 9, 2009 by Leafless

Radsickle · May 9, 2009

My feeling is that the Toronto Star is a provincial paper and has always been a little suspicious of outsiders.

Couldn't find the Toronto Star in BC... Globe and Mail was a worthy substitute though.

Radsickle · May 9, 2009

My feeling is that Ignatieff could be in the country for many years and there would still be some who would try to label him an outsider.

That is a contradiction.
Ignatief is not an outsider.

Ignatief is an outsider.

Make up your mind, which is it?

Geeze, I guess it's not 1 or 0... can't be true then.

Witless, he was being ironic. I know, it's kinda confusing, like Quebec being both a nation and a province...

Edited May 9, 2009 by Radsickle

Argus · May 9, 2009

One could say that Harper is the one that was out of touch. He attacked the BQ annd by extension those that voted for them as separatists.

Shocking. However could he have gotten that idea?

Smallc · May 9, 2009

Not all Quebecers that vote Bloc are sovereigntists....just as not all Quebecers that vote Conservative and Liberal are federalists.

jdobbin · May 9, 2009

Wait a minute, I must have missed something. Are you saying the BQ are NOT separatists? Or that they are but we should not mention it?

I think what I've said is that he called the people who vote BQ separatists and most assuredly some of them are not.

ET must be spinning in his grave!

And laughing at how Tories still don't understand Quebec

jdobbin · May 9, 2009

A good many of them are separatist and hard core nationalist that will not support a Western leader, no matter what.

10 ridings in Quebec did vote Tory and more would have likely gone that way if Harper could understand more what makes the province tick. But in his desire to make a partisan stab at things, he has injured himself with his own arrow.

We have four parties in Canada and don't need Quebec to win and don't need someone from Quebec to govern. Majority English speaking Canadians should smarten up and vote culturally, like Quebec does.

I suppose so. Will you be voting Liberal next time?

Make up your mind, which is it?

My comment was on the labelling one way or the other.

jdobbin · May 9, 2009

Shocking. However could he have gotten that idea?

That all BQ voters are separatists? You really think so?

OddSox · May 9, 2009

I have a suspicion that some Liberals (dunno how many) are already starting to have second thoughts about the coronation - or they were never really for it in the first place.

Radsickle · May 9, 2009

I have a suspicion that some Liberals (dunno how many) are already starting to have second thoughts about the coronation - or they were never really for it in the first place.

I have a suspicion that you're wrong. Then again, I also suspect Harper and MacKay are making a big to do over Russia these days to insinuate something about Ignatieff's family roots.

Harper is that despicable and xenophobic.

Edited May 9, 2009 by Radsickle

OddSox · May 9, 2009

I have a suspicion that you're wrong. Then again, I also suspect Harper and MacKay are making a big to do over Russia these days to insinuate something about Ignatieff's family roots.
Harper is that despicable.

Huh?

Keepitsimple · May 10, 2009

My feeling is that the Toronto Star is a provincial paper and has always been a little suspicious of outsiders. Some of the reports they wrote on Pearson and King also reflected their concerns about the time they spent outside Canada.
Walkom compares the situation to Turner but Ignatieff hasn't just re-entered politics nor has he just stepped off the plane and doesn't know the lay of the land. He has served in office just as long as Harper was when he became leader.

One could say that Harper is the one that was out of touch. He attacked the BQ annd by extension those that voted for them as separatists. His support in Quebec has dried up as a result.

My feeling is that Ignatieff could be in the country for many years and there would still be some who would try to label him an outsider.

My point is that The Star - with a circulation 50% greater than it's nearest competitor (G & M) - has recently published at least two potentially damaging (to the Liberals) stories - the Ruby Dhalla saga and the article by Thomas Walkom. Like them or not, The Star is a very influential newspaper and I find it interesting that they have taken what appears to be a somewhat adversarial approach to Ignatieff's leadership. The Star has ALWAYS taken every opportunity to bang the Liberal drum. I'm not exactly sure what it all means but it does not bode well for the Liberals.

jdobbin · May 10, 2009

I'm not exactly sure what it all means but it does not bode well for the Liberals.

I'm sure they are going to endorse Harper next election.

Radsickle · May 10, 2009

I'm sure they are going to endorse Harper next election.

:lol: as if anyone's that desperate for subscriptions.

August1991 · May 10, 2009

First The Star breaks the Ruby Dhalla story....now Thomas Walkom publishes an accurate, but less than flattering story about Michael Ignatieff being out of touch with Canada. Although it's a breath of fresh air to finally see some balance in their reporting, is some sort of agenda in play at The Star?

I reckon that, for a variety of reasons, Ignatieff is throwing Ruby under the bus. (Although I wouldn`t be surprised to learn that Harper is behind this Ruby scandal. I suspect that Harper is behind the scandal in Montreal.)

Walkom? God knows. Perhaps it helps journalists if they appear occasionally to be "balanced".

IMV, Walkom is one of those sophisticated "progressive" journalists who can, in the words of Lenin, take one step back in order to make two steps forward. (What a concept! As if society is progessing by steps towards some better future or that "progressive" people such as Walkom can even know the direction).

Radsickle · May 10, 2009

My point is that The Star - with a circulation 50% greater than it's nearest competitor (G & M) - has recently published at least two potentially damaging (to the Liberals) stories - the Ruby Dhalla saga and the article by Thomas Walkom. Like them or not, The Star is a very influential newspaper and I find it interesting that they have taken what appears to be a somewhat adversarial approach to Ignatieff's leadership. The Star has ALWAYS taken every opportunity to bang the Liberal drum. I'm not exactly sure what it all means but it does not bode well for the Liberals.

Please, it hasn't `ALWAYS' regurgitated whatever the Liberals want. Your article is proof. But let's not exaggerate the Liberal-destroying weight of two articles, eh? Unless you are playing Harper's version of politics...

You titled this topic Ignatieff "IS" out of touch. In my humble opinion, you're an imbecile trying to manipulate a few recent headlines.

Like the CBC, the Star practices good journalism. As a long-time Star fan I'll tell you the paper is allied with its founding publisher, Joseph E. Atkinson.

The Atkinson principles. It is why the Star is so widely respected:

Atkinson Principles

Edited May 10, 2009 by Radsickle

Radsickle · May 10, 2009

IMV, Walkom is one of those sophisticated "progressive" journalists who can, in the words of Lenin, take one step back in order to make two steps forward. (What a concept! As if society is progessing by steps towards some better future or that "progressive" people such as Walkom can even know the direction).

Waiting for the great leap forwards...

Edited May 10, 2009 by Radsickle

Keepitsimple · May 10, 2009

Please, it hasn't `ALWAYS' regurgitated whatever the Liberals want. Your article is proof. But let's not exaggerate the Liberal-destroying weight of two articles, eh? Unless you are playing Harper's version of politics...
Like the CBC, the Star practices good journalism. As a long-time Star fan I'll tell you the paper is allied with its founding publisher, Joseph E. Atkinson.

The Atkinson principles. It is why the Star is so widely respected:

Atkinson Principles

It's respected mostly by left leaning Canadians.....and there's nothing wrong with that. We all have to live together and make Canada work. As a Conservative leaning Canadian, I've always found the Star to be supportive of Liberal and Left policies.....and that's OK too - a newspaper is entitled to their biases. That's why I found it refreshing to see the Dhalla and Ignatieff articles. Sort of out of character.