The Ol' Trail

Crystal Clear

A few days ago I kind of stepped in it on Stacey Bowman's incomparable blog Tornlake

In it I defended Michael Ignatieff's rise to power over the past few weeks within the Liberal Party. To catch you up with the debate (and to prevent you from navigating away from our website) I have pasted in responses to my comments.  

I have a terrible feeling that, in choosing Michael Ignatieff, the federal Liberals are about to choose a leader who is a political dilettante. Mr. Ignatieff exhibits all the same characteristics of ego and entitlement that made it impossible for John Turner either to mobilize the party beyond the Toronto elite or to connect with Canadians on a national basis. I certainly hope I am mistaken because the last time such a mistake was made, the consequences were two terms of Brian Mulroney.

It is precisely because he is statesman enough to put the interests of his party (and, by extension, the country) ahead of his own -- as he did yesterday -- that Bob Rae should have had his candidacy put before a Liberal national convention. And, had that occurred, the winner would not have to carry the faint whiff of illegitimacy that will follow Mr. Ignatieff for the foreseeable future.

So my initial response was: that's kind of dumb. And I don't want this debate to turn into ad homonym attacks, so let me make it clear that I don't think the person who made the comment was dumb. I just think that the idea in and of itself is unclear and not clearly thought out. Luckily, the editor of Tornlake popped by to clarify the comment:

Kitzy, I think the previous commenter was making the point that, regardless of whether Ignatieff would have won had the leadership been put to a vote at a convention or otherwise, giving him the reigns of the party without going through that process is what might give his leadership the 'whiff of illegitimacy' to some. The point is not whether he would have been voted in anyway, the point is that his leadership will not be validated by those votes.

For my part, I agree with you that Ignatieff may be able to bring new ideas to the party and he certainly brings intelligence and knowledge. But experience definitely counts, and Rae does have more experience.

I sincerely hope you're right and that saying Ignatieff might not be able to mobilize Canadians outside the GTA is a generalization.

Thanks for all your comments -- interesting discussion!!

Now let's just cut right to the chase: "thanks for all your comments"!!?! Why are you trying to silence me Bowman!? And if you think you can, you are very, very, VERY mistaken. This is EXACTLY why I [ed. note: We / Mostly Eric you part-timing piece of garbage] have a blog! Because here, the pointless arguments NEVER cease!! Not until we're proven right!

So in terms of you agreeing that Ignatieff will bring intelligence and knowledge. You're welcome. But as for some of the topics you are more reticent on? Well let's dig in, shall we?

(1) Experience Definitely Counts: I've been CEO of a large company for 30 years! And in those 30 years I have consistently made poor decisions resulting in the mind-numbing failure of a once booming business. Obviously Bob Rae wasn't that bad. I hyperbolize only to demonstrate that sometimes quality of experience is more important that the quantity of it.

(2) A Leadership Validated by Party Votes: Well, for starters, considering that only the best connected and influential Liberals even attend the Liberal Convention, the notion that somehow it would have been some kind of egalitarian democr-orgy had the vote been taken all the way there is a little bit naive. Secondly - and I cannot emphasize this enough - changing the rules on a whim because some people feel like it would do away with a "whiff of illegitimacy" / support their candidate certainly reeks of far more illegitimacy than following the rules of the constitution that have been ratified by the very people whose voices everyone seems to value so much.

(3) Giving him the reigns of the party without going through that process is what might give his leadership the 'whiff of illegitimacy' to some: Anyone who is unwilling to check on the basic constitutional laws that have guided the Liberal Party should think twice about throwing around jagged words like "illegitimacy". It's easy for everyone to get worked up about things like this - I'm reminded of the US elections in 2000 when Al Gore won the popular vote - but there are rules in place for a reason, and at the risk of sounding repetitive, let me echo my sentiments from above: you don't get to change the rules just because the call didn't go your way. In 2008, McCain was poised to win the popular vote while Obama won the Electoral College. He didn't, but if he had, would all the Liberals who had cursed Bush for "stealing" the election say, "welp, too bad we had to 'steal' the election this time"? Elections aren't stolen. They really honestly aren't. Did the Republicans win the recount because they beat the shit out of the Democrat lawyers? Yeah, they sure did! Which is to say, they worked a whole hell of a lot harder and they worked a whole hell of a lot smarter and that's how they won the recount. Complaining about that is a bit like saying, "The Red Wings totally stole that game from us by playing harder, faster and smarter! That's so unfair!!"

But I digress, my point is that, while I guess I can't hold it against people for mistakenly thinking that Ignatieff is an illegitimate selection, I can tell them that they are flat out wrong. And pleasantly, it won't be a matter of opinion. In this one case - and I'm usually willing to carry on discussions - anyone who says that Ignatieff is not the legitimately chosen leader of the Liberal Party is literally, completely wrong. They are wrong. Period! Because he was chosen by the process that was written into constitutional law and ratified by a two-thirds majority of all Liberal delegates. Which is to say, you can like or dislike Ignatieff till the cows come home. But anyone who says he is an illegitimate selection, or even that his selection has a "whiff of illegitimacy" is actually not thinking calmly, clearly or reasonably. And that inability to do so makes the theory stupid.