It's not your smarts, stupid, it's your arrogance
Ever since the conservative ads critical of Michael Ignatieff hit the airwaves last May, the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada has been on the defensive. As did his predecessor, the hapless Professor Stephane Dion, Professor Ignatieff has trouble making his timid actions square with his bold words. He said often enough that he had "put the government on notice."
They were "on probation" and he would bring them down and force a summer election if the Conservatives didn't do as he wished. In the event he has actually done very little.
One of my cowboy friends invoked some old rangeland wisdom regarding such people: "all hat, no cattle."
The reasons for Liberal timidity in action are obvious enough.
First, they are still far short of the kind of money needed to run an election campaign. Thanks to Jean Chretien's campaign finance "reforms," the Liberals now have to raise money the same way the Conservatives do, from their members. Inheriting the populist tradition of Reform, the Conservatives mastered the necessary fundraising techniques two elections ago.
In this regard the Liberals have not adapted to the new electoral environment. True, they have the opportunity of stealing a march on the Tories by following the Obama campaign and getting networked. But so do the more wealthy and nimble Conservatives. Besides, there is no evidence of such innovative thinking at Liberal Party headquarters.
The second reason, as John Ivison pointed out in the National Post a few days ago, is that a lot of Canadians retain a negative view of the Liberal Party and consider Ignatieff a net liability to the success of the party. Ivison said this is evidence of a "distrust of learning and worldliness." I don't think it's that simple.
A couple of days after Ivison's piece appeared, Nigel Hannaford provided additional evidence of Ignatieff's state of mind to readers of this paper. Hannaford analyzed Ignatieff's remarkable comment to the Globe and Mail where he dismissed the prime minister as "a politician formed and shaped in the radical conservative ideological world of Calgary and Calgary think tanks."
Whatever or whomever Ignatieff had in mind (and he was not at all specific), these were certainly bold words as well. So the interesting question is: notwithstanding their timid actions, why do Liberal leaders make such audacious statements?
The main reason, it seems to me, is that Liberals and especially Liberal intellectuals such as Dion and Ignatieff find it difficult to believe that normal people are not liberals and Liberals as they are. That such an attitude is not confined to Canada is confirmed by the response of their American counterparts to Sarah Palin, both during the 2008 election and after her recent announcement of her resignation as governor of Alaska.
The late William Buckley once famously said he should rather be governed by the first 2,000 names in the Boston phone book than by the 2,000 professors then employed by Harvard. This was not evidence of an anti-intellectual view, he explained, but a consequence of his abiding fear of "intellectual arrogance," a besetting temptation, I can tell you, of professors everywhere.
Traditionally, political parties have been coalitions held together by beliefs and interests of various kinds. The condescension expressed in Ignatieff's disdain for Calgary and the beliefs and interests of Calgarians indicates the presence of a third factor, which might be called a superior sensibility.
With Dion, disdain was expressed in a refusal even to consider that it was intellectually respectable to question the premises of his "Green Shift," including the dogma regarding anthropogenic climate change. Ignatieff is more subtle. Nevertheless, it is clear that he thinks everything about these radically conservative Calgary ideologues is simply in bad taste.
With such people what is a guy like Ignatieff to do? For those sharing his lofty sensibilities, a serious conversation, where one is open to the possibility of actually learning something, is preposterous. It would be worse than deciding to vacation in Moose Jaw rather than Provence.
If Canadians do see Ignatieff as a liability to his party, it is not because of their anti-intellectualism. Quite rightly do they disdain those who condescend to them.
Barry Cooper is a professor of political science at the University of Calgary.
They were "on probation" and he would bring them down and force a summer election if the Conservatives didn't do as he wished. In the event he has actually done very little.
One of my cowboy friends invoked some old rangeland wisdom regarding such people: "all hat, no cattle."
The reasons for Liberal timidity in action are obvious enough.
First, they are still far short of the kind of money needed to run an election campaign. Thanks to Jean Chretien's campaign finance "reforms," the Liberals now have to raise money the same way the Conservatives do, from their members. Inheriting the populist tradition of Reform, the Conservatives mastered the necessary fundraising techniques two elections ago.
In this regard the Liberals have not adapted to the new electoral environment. True, they have the opportunity of stealing a march on the Tories by following the Obama campaign and getting networked. But so do the more wealthy and nimble Conservatives. Besides, there is no evidence of such innovative thinking at Liberal Party headquarters.
The second reason, as John Ivison pointed out in the National Post a few days ago, is that a lot of Canadians retain a negative view of the Liberal Party and consider Ignatieff a net liability to the success of the party. Ivison said this is evidence of a "distrust of learning and worldliness." I don't think it's that simple.
A couple of days after Ivison's piece appeared, Nigel Hannaford provided additional evidence of Ignatieff's state of mind to readers of this paper. Hannaford analyzed Ignatieff's remarkable comment to the Globe and Mail where he dismissed the prime minister as "a politician formed and shaped in the radical conservative ideological world of Calgary and Calgary think tanks."
Whatever or whomever Ignatieff had in mind (and he was not at all specific), these were certainly bold words as well. So the interesting question is: notwithstanding their timid actions, why do Liberal leaders make such audacious statements?
The main reason, it seems to me, is that Liberals and especially Liberal intellectuals such as Dion and Ignatieff find it difficult to believe that normal people are not liberals and Liberals as they are. That such an attitude is not confined to Canada is confirmed by the response of their American counterparts to Sarah Palin, both during the 2008 election and after her recent announcement of her resignation as governor of Alaska.
The late William Buckley once famously said he should rather be governed by the first 2,000 names in the Boston phone book than by the 2,000 professors then employed by Harvard. This was not evidence of an anti-intellectual view, he explained, but a consequence of his abiding fear of "intellectual arrogance," a besetting temptation, I can tell you, of professors everywhere.
Traditionally, political parties have been coalitions held together by beliefs and interests of various kinds. The condescension expressed in Ignatieff's disdain for Calgary and the beliefs and interests of Calgarians indicates the presence of a third factor, which might be called a superior sensibility.
With Dion, disdain was expressed in a refusal even to consider that it was intellectually respectable to question the premises of his "Green Shift," including the dogma regarding anthropogenic climate change. Ignatieff is more subtle. Nevertheless, it is clear that he thinks everything about these radically conservative Calgary ideologues is simply in bad taste.
With such people what is a guy like Ignatieff to do? For those sharing his lofty sensibilities, a serious conversation, where one is open to the possibility of actually learning something, is preposterous. It would be worse than deciding to vacation in Moose Jaw rather than Provence.
If Canadians do see Ignatieff as a liability to his party, it is not because of their anti-intellectualism. Quite rightly do they disdain those who condescend to them.
Barry Cooper is a professor of political science at the University of Calgary.
1 comment:
wow. more cut and paste.
After seeing Harper's brand of arrogance, I think it's rather amusing to read articles like this.
The truth is, arrogant or not, Iggy has brought the liberals back, and is topping the conservatives in many areas, in particular, wiping the floor with them in Quebec, and has turned the tide in Ontario, to the point where nervous conservatives like you, post daily 'doses' of Iggy, and screech when a poll might show Harper above ONE PERCENT (Holy sweet jesus that's a slam DUNK!)
Like I said, it's kinda funny to watch. What I will be laughing at, is when Iggy knocks Harper out of the park when he finally does pull the plug.
Post a Comment