Theoria

Michael Ignatieff, a man famous for many bad books and forgotten for one and a half decent books (A Just Measure of Pain and the co-edited volume, Wealth and Virtue, explains why he is running federally in the upcoming Canadian election for the Liberal Part. (A party whose government collapsed sometime around 7:10PM this evening.) What follows is from a glowing review of the moral fortitude of Ignatieff in today’s Toronto Star (or, simply “The Star”). I’ve removed the author’s commentary, leaving only Ignatieff’s comments:

“A student got up and said: `If you love this country so much, why don’t you live here?’ And I thought … `Bingo!’ [At a Massey Lecture at the University of Toronto] I have spent my life worrying about other countries problems, now it’s time for me to worry about my own country’s problems [not specified]. The one burning thing I feel is that I do not want to be 65 [i.e., in seven years], sitting around saying `I bitched about Canadian politics and never bloody did anything about it,’ if you want to know what the bottom line is, that’s it. This is unlike anything I’ve ever done, I don’t know where it’s going; it may go nowhere. I’m not being coy or cute [he's biologically predisposed towards the opposite]… I’ve rolled the dice on the latter part of my career. There are no guarantees, no undertakings, no promises. You spend five years teaching kids how to take political responsibility [to his credit, he is a 'famous man' who does teach intro and survey courses] — it does cross your mind, what would it be like if you had to do it. The challenge is to fashion a new language of national unity [no examples; here, at least]. The thing I want to make very clear is that they ['senior Liberals' who invited him into the party] were not approaching me to start a conspiracy, or a plot. The party has had far too many of those. What happens in the fullness of time is not in my control. It’s not in my control. Yesterday, he stressed his support for Martin [outer conformity of Martin's authority is required for membership; upon his succession to the throne of the party, he purged those who refused to publicly accept this authority] and praised his accomplishments [???] during a difficult minority government. I wouldn’t be running if I didn’t feel the Prime Minister of Canada is doing the best job he can under very difficult circumstances. I’m succeeding a popular MP [Jean Augustine, a black Grenadan woman, whose race was made an issue by the Reform Party in the last election] , an MP who’s been an icon to her community, an MP with a tremendous rapport in her riding. Who the hell am I? That’s the Canada I believe in [referring to Augustine's success in Canada]. Her story is an inspiration to lots of communities.”

Were he to be elected, he’d have a hard time in question period. Ignatieff doesn’t handle questions from the floor well — questions suggest that he may not be the absolute authority on whatever topic he’s going on about. And this goes to my snide comment about his pre-disposition towards the opposite of cute and coy: he’s smug and arrogant. I recall listening to him speak a few years ago, around the time the United States invaded Iraq for the second time since 1990, he was giving a bullshit prize-lecture. One of those things with the name of some donor attached to it that was supposed to attract big names to the university so as to give the university press — and, of course, the people on this circuit have pre-packaged lectures. (We had Steve Pinker another year.) Anyway, he told us, “You see, I’m Canadian, but I live near Washington. I spend a lot of time there. Important people tell me stuff, because I’m also an important person. Because I’m an important person and I’ve been to Washington, I’m going to tell you backwater people, in the capital of Canada, how the world works.” And he did so: we must invade Iraq for the reasons that Bush gave us. Hardly compelling. He also said something about human rights. Something about invading Iraq and human rights. Anyway, at the end of his sermon, he entertained the possibility of comments. While recognizing that an auditorium is not necessarily conducive to discussion, Ignatieff decided to do his utmost to ensure no discussion could possibly take place. Rather than fielding a question and giving a reply, he had everyone with a question or comment raise their hand (or stand up?) and he chose five of them. Those five people got to say their bit — in about fifteen seconds — and then the next person was to speak. Once those five had spoken, he’d answer (or not as he saw fit) the comments. And then he would leave.

He’d make a good minister of citizenship, or something.

(Note: Ignatieff isn’t the first gimmick the Liberal Party has pulled out of its ass. Last election they got Ken Dryden, most famous for being an NHL goalie, to run. And at Paul Martin’s coronation, they had Bono perform — idiotic sunglasses and all. But the Liberals don’t have a monopoly on gimmicks: a few elections ago, Stockwell Day, a candidate in the Reform Party, put on a full-body wetsuit and road a jetski. The press had a field day. And, in the most recent Ontario election, the Conservative Party leader, Ernie Eves, claimed that the Liberal Party leader, Dalton McGuinty, ate kittens. Drama!)

More! The Ottawa Citizen reports that Ignatieff won the Liberal nomination in Etobicoke-Lakeshore only after his opponents were disqualified. The Citizen recounts the following story of

Ron Chyczij, president of the Liberal riding association, was told late Friday that anyone interested in the nomination had until 5 p.m. Saturday to file papers. But when he tried to deliver his nomination papers Saturday, the doors to the Liberal office were locked and those inside wouldn’t respond to his knocks on the door or phone calls. He finally slipped the papers under the door.

Take note: the local party president was unable to deliver papers to his own office! Apparently this is vengeance for Chyczij’s hostile take-over of the local riding association, which wanted to put forward a Ukranian candidate (i.e., himself) in a riding with “one of the largest Ukrainian-Canadian populations in Canada”. The Ukranians are upset that Ignatieff, who they think slandered them in Blood and Belonging will most likely be their MP.

More! Jack Layton says “Ignatieff, WTF? Not only did he usurp his nomination, but he doesn’t even live in Canada. Oh, and Ignatieff, Layton reminds us, is an imperialist (“lite”).

More! And local Liberals still don’t like Ignatieff’s nomination (the one that saw his two opponents disqualified thus preventing the question — and, I remind you, preventing the question is a favourite passtime for Michael when he’s in public). The Toronto Star reports that the “nomination” meeting last night at the ever-so-classy sounding Valhalla Inn in Etobicoke was protected by “police in bullet-proof vests“. The Ottawa Citizen’s version is much more subdued. For them, Ignatieff remains the “Harvard academic turned Liberal star”. Oh, and they mention people wearing those frightening Bush masks outside the meeting. The question, therefore, is whether the police were there to protect Ignatieff from protestors inside or outside the Liberal party?

More! Students says Ignatieff suffers from “John Kerry syndrome” and his “patrician demeanour” may not appeal to the “average voter”. Meanwhile, Ignatieff assures us that he’s “not naive as I look”. No word on the arrogance. Except from the student. Finally, from the same article, Ignatieff admits to rookie ministerial duties: “pledges to find a way to occasionally lecture at the university in some form should Liberals form a government and he be chosen for a cabinet post”.

More! Two days after the publication of an article in the Harvard Crimson, where Ignatieff said he would beg to be allowed back at Harvard should he not be elected (note: he’s already not been elected once and that hasn’t stopped him from taking the position anyway), Ignatieff changes tune in an interview with another paper, The Globe and Mail. Apparently he’s already become a politician: tell one story in one paper, tell a completely different story in another, and leave everyone else (or, at least, all of four Ignatieff-watchers) really, really confused. But then, maybe Ignatieff’s understanding of the “joke concept” is as good as his understanding of the “question and answer concept”. But, again, Ignatieff is the sort of person who writes, “I have reasons to take the Ukraine seriously indeed. But, to be honest, I’m having trouble. Ukrainian independence conjures up images of peasant embroidered shirts, the nasal whine of ethnic instruments, phony Cossacks in cloaks and boots . . .” (in Blood and Belonging) and then says, “What? I love Ukranians? Anyone who was read my book can see I love Ukranians.” Another joke, no doubt. The Ukranians in his ridings, especially those who weren’t allowed to seek the Liberal candidacy in opposition to him, are certainly not laughing. I, however, am laughing — at Ignatieff.

More! Le Devoir compares Ignatieff to another annoying pop-philosopher (and, no, I don’t mean Mark Kingwell): Bernard-Henri Lévy, “C’est un peu le Bernard-Henri Lévy du Canada anglais : un intellectuel flamboyant doté d’un statut de clébrité.” For those who don’t read French well, Le Devoir says that Ignatieff i the “Bernard-Henri Lévy of English Canada”. They might be on to something: both pompous, both uninteresting, and both like to speak as though they have a direct connection to the truth. And, I don’t like either of them. My friend, Asad, has some more to say on this.

More! Failed (and righfully so) “intellectual”, Robert Sibley, manages to have a two-part feature on Ignatieff in this week’s “The Citizen’s Weekly” in the Ottawa Citizen. (It remains unclear to me how a single article in a single issue can be construed as having a distinct “Part 1” and “Part 2” — but then, I’m not a “Senior Editorial Writer”. And we know he’s a failed intellectual because he prefaces his much-too-long matinee feature on Ignatieff with a quote from Plato’s Republic. It’s a newspaper, dumbass.) Rob reveals his fascist desire to eradict people he doesn’t like (for instance, Ukranians) by stating “There’s nothing in Blood & Belonging that can be construed as “disdainful” of Ukrainians.” Hurry up before the Citizen removes the article (note: singular) from their online site. For a large newspaper that wishes it were important, it really takes content offline quickly. Too bad they don’t treat their “Senior Editorial Writers” in a similar manner.

More! Ignatieff’s lecture (and I stress the variety of meanings the word has) to the convention that crowned Paul Martin as current ruler of Canada. And, one of the original predictions of Ignatieff’s dream of ruling a country. And another. One wonders: what the hell is it with hack Maclean’s columnists and Ignatieff?

More! “Integrity. Commitment. Service” — the OFFICIAL Michael Ignatieff website. Statement by Ignatieff on his candidacy.

More! Detailed and extensive commentary on the Ignatieff Affair.

More! It’s not nice to be treated as something other than a human being. Ignatieff tells us so, “Look, I’m a human being.” That means he has rights: a self-organizing campaign, not having to do any work, having nominations handed to you, only being exposed to people who like you, not hearing criticism, etc. (People who do the opposite should be deprived of sleep and food, forced to listen to loud noises and have hoods put over their heads.) According to Ignatieff, it is much nicer to be in a room of chosen people — chosen, that is, to be there. By that he means, ‘None of those pesky Ukranians’. The Toronto Star reports: “In the midst of the imbroglio over his nomination as Liberal candidate in Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Ignatieff, 58, walked into a room of supporters of Jean Augustine, the MP who bowed out on his behalf, and they rose to give him a standing ovation.” It’s also nice, Ignatieff tells us, to not have to do any work at all — unlike his rivals in the Liberal Party: “The team put itself together,” he said. “One of the wonderful things about this experience is that I don’t think I made a phone call.”