There is a good article in the Walrus on why Canadians have not warmed up to Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff.
Despite his earlier run for the prize, Ignatieff remained an unknown quantity, a stranger in our midst. He was our first deconstructionist politician: he kept repeating that political leadership was about storytelling without ever telling us a story; he said that Canadian unity needed a narrative but didn’t articulate one. Like a critic dragged up onstage to play the lead on opening night, he couldn’t help analyzing his own performance instead of being in the role. Too often, when audiences were looking to him for bold direction, he tormented himself over the details as though still in a seminar at Harvard. He rambled. He mused. He tiptoed ever so cautiously through the minefields. He walked into rooms without any apparent idea of the message he wanted to deliver or who was who. He excused himself on the grounds that he was new, not just to the role but also to acting, which only sowed more seeds of doubt about whether he was genuine and his own man.
I tend to agree with the analysis. I follow Ignatieff closely and after several months as Liberal leader, I don’t know what he stands for other than a couple of cliches he repeats in television ads. Peter Donolo is correct, Liberals need to be more than just opposing the government, they need to be about showing Canadians they are ready to be our next government. That starts with the Leader of the Official Opposition.
The good news for Liberals is that Ignatieff’s problems can be fixed. A narrative can be developed and told and I think he will grow into the role. The question is will his narrative be compelling to Canadians and will his playing of the role be one that we want as Prime Minister?
I guess that’s why elections matter.
(You may also be interested in this ridiculous article about a Liberal caucus revolt, whose members also want to can Ralph Goodale because he hasn’t “delivered” Saskatchewan, kind of like how these four MPs locked up Ontario).
