All eyes on Ignatieff

[Fishbone Jones]

Harper didn't win because he beat Ignatieff. He won because the people wanted him and his party. They wanted rid of corrupt, nanny state, socialists.

Iggy lost not because Harper beat him, but because people saw him for what he was. An elitist, self serving leader of an overbearing, pompous 'natural governing party'. They said 'No mas Miguel'

If he is such a high minded intellectual, able to suss the finer points that escape us mere mortals he lost of his own accord. I would expect someone of his stature to not make whine from sour grapes.

Guess he's mortal after all. Who knew?

Not him, obviously.

 

[RangerRay]

In a speech lamenting the vicious tone of the attack ads used against him, former Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff on Tuesday told a law school audience that his party did the same thing to Stephen Harper, unfairly tarring him as a dangerously right-wing, American-style political extremist, bent on undoing cherished Canadian values.

Payback's a b****, eh?

 

[Edward Campbell]

Michael Ignatieff holds forth on Québec in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail and in this case I think he is right, grosso modo about Québec having already decided on sovereignty:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/a-year-after-running-for-pm-ignatieff-warns-of-quebec-separation/article2411663/

A year after running for PM, Ignatieff warns of Quebec separation

The Canadian Press

Published Monday, Apr. 23, 2012

Less than a year after he asked Canadian voters to make him prime minister, Michael Ignatieff now warns that the country is drifting towards a breakup.

The ex-Liberal leader and academic made blunt comments about the state of Canadian unity in an interview with the British Broadcasting Corporation.

Mr. Ignatieff told his audience that, whatever happens in the upcoming Scottish referendum, the United Kingdom will inevitably change as a result.

As an example, Mr. Ignatieff pointed to Canada's experience with the Quebec sovereignty movement; he said Canada reacted by transferring power to Quebec to satisfy its growing aspirations for autonomy – but he suggested that situation is only temporary.

“It's a kind of way station – you stop there for a while,” Mr. Ignatieff said.

“But I think the logic, eventually, is independence. Full independence.”

Asked by his Scottish interviewer whether he was talking about independence for both Quebec and Scotland, Mr. Ignatieff replied: “I think, eventually, that's where it goes.”

After leading the Liberals to a historic defeat in the May 2, 2011, federal election, the longtime journalist and academic returned to a teaching job at the University of Toronto.

In that election, Quebec actually abandoned the separatist Bloc Quebecois – but since then there has been a revival of nationalist fortunes in the province, with the Parti Quebecois now flying high in the polls at the provincial level.

Mr. Ignatieff says he's saddened to see how Canada and Quebec have become isolated, with the optimism of decades past having given way to disillusionment.

“The problem here is we don't have anything to say to each other anymore,” he said. “There's a kind of contract of mutual indifference, which is very striking for someone of my generation.”

It wasn't always this way, he told his British audience.

When he was younger, Mr. Ignatieff suggested, Quebec played a central role in the Canadian identity.

“I can't think of this country without Quebec. Je parle francais. And when I think about being a Canadian, speaking French is part of it,” Mr. Ignatieff said.

“But that's not the way most English Canadians now think of their country. They might have done 30 or 40 years ago, when we thought we could live together in this strange hybrid country called Canada.

“Now effectively, we're almost two separate countries.”

Reports of Mr. Ignatieff's comments prompted some dismay from his federalist allies – along with some head-scratching from friends and foes alike.

Especially puzzling to some were the examples he chose to show how Canada had devolved power to Quebec, as a response to the independence movement and what he called the “near-death experience” of the 1995 referendum.

Mr. Ignatieff cited immigration, natural-resources development, education and health care as examples of powers that had been transferred to Quebec in order to keep peace with the nationalists. “We've kept the show on the road by (making) Quebec essentially master in their own house,” he said, rattling off those examples.

But some of those examples he cited are as old as the country itself, and date back to Canada's 1867 Constitution Act.

Mr. Ignatieff's observation surprised more than one prominent Quebec sovereigntist.

“Did anyone see these (new powers) fly by?” Josee Legault asked, rhetorically, on her Twitter page.

“I believe Quebec got the ‘radical new power' of camping out at UNESCO's Canadian delegation.”

Soon after taking office, Prime Minister Stephen Harper gave Quebec a quasi-official role at UNESCO, the United Nations' cultural organization, and also declared the Quebecois a nation in a House of Commons motion.

But those early overtures to nationalists did not translate into more seats in Quebec for Harper's Tories.

After the last federal election, the Harper government angered Quebec nationalists by appointing non-French-speaking people to key federal positions and reviving symbols of the monarchy that had previously been allowed to fade into the background.

Those moves coincided with an eruption of language debates in Quebec last summer. The PQ, which hopes to win an election that must be held by late next year, has seized on those so-called “identity” issues.

I neither know nor care about Scotland; if the Scots are stupid enough to push for sovereignty then I wish them ...

But Québec has, I believe, made its decision and we are all just waiting for the right circumstances to give effect to it. What we ought to be doing in the interim period is lining up our positions. The plural is important because there are four 'players:'

1. Québec, by which we really mean post independence Québec;

2. Canada, by which we also mean post independence Canada;

3. Ungava - the Northern peninsula of Québec which did not become part of the province until 1912 and, almost certainly, will not be part of post independence Québec. Ungava is, primarily, Cree territory and the Cree, unlike Québec, actually have a decent case for independence in international law; and

4. The new Québec separatists which I expect to be very strong in regions bordering Canada.

The end result, in my view, is that Québec, 10 years after independence is finally voted, will be much, much smaller and poorer than is now the case - it will look a lot like Greece, with about the same GDP, territorial base and prospects for success.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>The problem here is we don't have anything to say to each other anymore

The problem is that politically the conversations always start with "I want...".

 

[GAP]

I think that with each passing year, Canadians grow more and more comfortable that Quebec will separate.

 

[Good2Golf]

I think that with each passing year, Canadians grow more and more comfortable that Quebec will separate, paying Canada $13 billion and keeping half of the previous RCAF F-35 Joint Strike Fighters at Quebec Air Force Station - Bagotville.

There, GAP, fixed that for you. 


Regards
G2G

 

[ModlrMike]

>The problem here is we don't have anything to say to each other anymore

The problem is that politically the conversations always start with "I want...".

In reality the deal will be "I don't care what you want, take it or leave it." I agree with Edward, Quebec will become an insignificant speck in North America, our own banana republic... without the bananas.

 

[GAP]

There, GAP, fixed that for you. 


Regards
G2G

Give them the F18s

 

[Good2Golf]

Give them the F18s

Oh, they can have their share of those too, and the CPFs...bienvenue à l'étage mondiale, nos amis!  Quebec will be broke within a year of independence.

 

[a_majoor]

But Québec has, I believe, made its decision and we are all just waiting for the right circumstances to give effect to it. What we ought to be doing in the interim period is lining up our positions. The plural is important because there are four 'players:'

1. Québec, by which we really mean post independence Québec;

2. Canada, by which we also mean post independence Canada;

3. Ungava - the Northern peninsula of Québec which did not become part of the province until 1912 and, almost certainly, will not be part of post independence Québec. Ungava is, primarily, Cree territory and the Cree, unlike Québec, actually have a decent case for independence in international law; and

4. The new Québec separatists which I expect to be very strong in regions bordering Canada.

The end result, in my view, is that Québec, 10 years after independence is finally voted, will be much, much smaller and poorer than is now the case - it will look a lot like Greece, with about the same GDP, territorial base and prospects for success.

The striking thing about the Soverenty vote is it is concentrated on the historic boundaries of New France (looking at any riding map of Quebec with the Yes and No votes highlighted will demonstrate this). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Quebecref.PNG

The best going away present to give the any independent Quebec should be their share of the National Debt and unfunded liabilities. Knocking off anywhere from 25 to 38% of the national debt (one roughly calculating on a per capita basis while the high figure roughly adds up how much benfit Quebec has received on account of National spending). The United States will strongly insist the St Lawrence International Seaway does not belong, in any way to "New New France", and of course the Cree people will take Ungava for their own (a new national road/rail/power/pipeline corridor running up to Ottawa and across Ungava to Labrador and back down to the Maritimes will probably be the next "National Dream" in that scenario).

You know, put that way (dumping a large fraction of our debts and liabilites, creating a new national level infrastructure project and strengthening our ties to the United States) makes this sound like an Epic Win for Canada...

 

[Maxadia]

So they separate, go broke, and we'd probably end up taking them back in worse shape than before - or the US will.

 

[Journeyman]

Assuming a Quebec separating and collapsing  -- and I'm not willing to accept either, just yet -- but with Germany as a model, having bought Greece's current debt .....is it inconceivable that an India or China would not buy a failed Quebec?

 

[Edward Campbell]

Assuming a Quebec separating and collapsing  -- and I'm not willing to accept either, just yet -- but with Germany as a model, having bought Greece's current debt .....is it inconceivable that an India or China would not buy a failed Quebec?

Assuming that Québec separation goes as I suggest, that is without Ungava, then what does it have that China or India might want?

Now, the new, poor Cree nation-state on the Ungava peninsula is another matter - it will have all kinds of new "friends," all eager to "help" develop its resources.

Germany is buying up Greek debt because the alternative, default and HUGE losses for German banks, is even less attractive. No one, except Canada, has much of a stake in Québec.

 

[Edward Campbell]

The striking thing about the Soverenty vote is it is concentrated on the historic boundaries of New France (looking at any riding map of Quebec with the Yes and No votes highlighted will demonstrate this). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Quebecref.PNG

The best going away present to give the any independent Quebec should be their share of the National Debt and unfunded liabilities. Knocking off anywhere from 25 to 38% of the national debt (one roughly calculating on a per capita basis while the high figure roughly adds up how much benfit Quebec has received on account of National spending). The United States will strongly insist the St Lawrence International Seaway does not belong, in any way to "New New France", and of course the Cree people will take Ungava for their own (a new national road/rail/power/pipeline corridor running up to Ottawa and across Ungava to Labrador and back down to the Maritimes will probably be the next "National Dream" in that scenario).

You know, put that way (dumping a large fraction of our debts and liabilites, creating a new national level infrastructure project and strengthening our ties to the United States) makes this sound like an Epic Win for Canada...

When, IF Québec goes it will be debt free. The bond market will not allow separation on any other terms: the debt will, of necessity, remain Canadian because Québec will not have the fiscal capacity to look after it's own provincial debt, much less any share of the Canadian national debt. Canada will go from a per capita federal debt of about $30,000 or 64% of GDP to a debt of about $37,000 per person (still much less than e.g. Australia) or about 75% of GDP. While our population will decline by about 20% our GDP will fall by only about 15% (to about the same level as Australia's) and many Québec companies, led by Bombardier, will flee to Canada, in search of subsidies.

 

[larry Strong]

And now he backtracks....thank God he never became Prime Minister

Posted with the usual caveats:


Michael Ignatieff backtracks on controversial comments on Quebec

Read more: http://www.canada.com/news/Michael+Ignatieff+backtracks+controversial+comments+Quebec/6509867/story.html#ixzz1t0Vtu2wb

Former Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff backpedalled Tuesday from controversial comments he made during an interview with the BBC that Quebec will "eventually" become an independent country.


Ignatieff, who left the Liberal leadership post after his party was drubbed in the 2011 election, suggested in an interview broadcast Monday on BBC about Scotland's independence referendum that Quebec and the rest of Canada have little to say to each other and that the two are already "almost" separate countries.


His remarks unleashed a storm of reactions in Ottawa and Quebec as federalists tore into his assertion that Quebec is headed straight for independence, while separatists took delight in his comments.


Ignatieff wrote on his Facebook page Tuesday morning in light of the controversy that the interview is "over 10 minutes long and can't be reduced to sound-bites." He later provided a statement to the media to stress his remarks were taken "out of context."


"Since I passionately want Quebec to remain part of the Canadian fabric, and since these friends have defended this idea with courage and pride, it causes me pain to think that anything I said could be used against a cause — the national unity of my country — that they and I hold dear," Ignatieff wrote.


"I oppose the separation of Canada and Quebec, as I oppose the separation of Scotland and the United Kingdom, and we need to face any threats to our unity with determination and resolve. "


The former federal politician added he would "never betray the cause" he shares with his fellow federalist friends.


In Ottawa, the governing Conservatives were quick to lash out at Ignatieff.


"This is irresponsible. The Liberal Party of Canada only likes Canada when it is governed by Liberals. Aside from that, Canada doesn't exist," Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore told reporters in Ottawa.


He called on federalists from all stripes to defend and promote Canadian unity.


Liberal interim leader Bob Rae told reporters Tuesday afternoon that he doesn't believe Quebec's independence is inevitable.


"I think it's completely wrong," Rae said. "I don't agree with what Mr. Ignatieff said in that interview," he said, adding that he spoke with him Tuesday morning. "I think there is a glorious future for Quebec and Canada. We have always believed in a strong Quebec within a united Canada," Rae added.


Quebec Premier Jean Charest told reporters in Montreal Tuesday morning he didn't have a chance to hear Ignatieff's interview, but stressed nonetheless that a majority of Quebecers want the Canadian federation to work.


"Quebecers believe in Canada, which is a very decentralized federation. We have made important progress in the past nine years without having to reopen the Constitution," Charest said.


The premier seized the opportunity to take shots at his political opponent, Parti Quebecois leader Pauline Marois.


"It is Mrs. Marois' goal to hold a referendum as soon as possible. Her priority is to make Quebec's independence, not to care about the economy," he added.


Ignatieff told the BBC that a victory for Scottish separatists in an expected 2014 referendum will launch a new effort by Quebec nationalists to fulfil their sovereignist dream.


Earlier in the day, the PQ leader said she's delighted by Ignatieff's comments.


"He remains a high-level intellectual, and in that sense, it's a pleasure to hear his comments," Marois said.

 

[fraserdw]

None of you have considered the third option, that the ROC says no and there is a civil war.  I think that unless Quebec took it's share of everything the man who promises to take it out of their hides will be the next Prime Minister.  Just the way these things go.

 

[Edward Campbell]

More on Ignatieff's backtracking in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ignatieff-insists-remarks-on-quebec-were-taken-out-of-context/article2413268/

Ignatieff insists remarks on Quebec were taken out of context

RHÉAL SÉGUIN

QUEBEC— From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
Last updated Wednesday, Apr. 25, 2012

Federalists were taken aback. Separatists were overjoyed. What is certain is that comments made by former federal Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff about the inevitability of Quebec sovereignty shocked and bewildered friends and foes alike.

In a letter to The Globe and Mail on Tuesday, Mr. Ignatieff tried to calm the debate by saying his remarks made during a BBC interview about the Scottish independence referendum expected in 2014 were taken out of context.

“I oppose the separation of Canada and Quebec, as I oppose the separation of Scotland and the United Kingdom, and we need to face any threats to our unity with determination and resolve,” Mr. Ignatieff explained in his letter. “We are stronger together than apart, stronger in the embrace of our differences and stronger in the prosperous life we have built together over the centuries.”

In the BBC interview, he said that, domestically, Quebec acts as though it were already sovereign, and that Scotland will do the same. “Over time the two societies will move ever, ever further apart. That is I think what the Canadian example will tell you,” he said. “It’s kind of a way station. You stop there for a while. But I think the logic eventually is independence, full independence.”

Despite his expression of regret over the “distress” his remarks may have caused, Mr. Ignatieff’s suggestion that Canada and Quebec were drifting apart caught federalists off-guard.

“What I will tell you is a strong majority of Quebeckers believe in Canada,” Quebec Premier Jean Charest told reporters in Montreal. Then he jumped on the opportunity to attack Parti Québécois leader Pauline Marois. “Her priority and that of the PQ is Quebec independence, not the economy.”

Mr. Charest had refused to give the BBC an interview on the same subject.

Stephen Harpers’ Conservatives said it was “astonishing” for the former the Liberal leader to suggest openly that Quebec will eventually separate. “We have Michael Ignatieff ... saying that this country is going to be ruined no matter what because Liberals aren’t in power is an arrogant, narcissistic and irresponsible position,” Heritage Minister James Moore said.

During the televised interview, Mr. Ignatieff said that based on the Canadian experience, the Scottish independence referendum would forever change politics in the United Kingdom. “So either way, win or lose, the game is going to change,” he said, adding that Scotland would end up with more powers. He warned that holding a referendum would create a irreparable rift as it did between Quebec and the rest of Canada.

“We had a near death experience in 1995 ... What we learned from that was that the way to keep the show on the road was pretty radical devolution, and effectively, Quebec is master in their own house. ... The problem here is that we don’t have anything to say to each other anymore. There is a kind of contract of indifference ... Now effectively, effectively, we are almost two separate countries,” Mr. Ignatieff said.

In Ottawa, interim Liberal leader Bob Rae condemned the remarks.

“There is no culture of indifference in Canada. There is no calling into question the Liberals’ commitment to national unity,” Mr. Rae said.

Ms. Marois concluded that to have a prominent federalist arrive at the same conclusion as herself was another sign that her cause was just. “We have been convinced for years. But I would say that history is moving quickly....Mr. Ignatieff is a prominent intellectual and I am pleased to hear him say these things.”

And here is Prof. Ignatieff's letter to the editor:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/letters-to-the-editor/quebec-separation-michael-ignatieff-responds/article2412891/

Quebec separation: Michael Ignatieff responds

Globe and Mail Update
Published Tuesday, Apr. 24, 2012

Re A Year After Running For PM, Ignatieff Warns Of Quebec Separation (online, April 23):

Remarks of mine, taken out of context in an interview with BBC Scotland, have caused distress to federalist friends across the country, both francophone and anglophone. Since I passionately want Quebec to remain part of the Canadian fabric and since these friends have defended this idea with courage and pride, it causes me pain to think that anything I said could be used against a cause – the national unity of my country – that they and I hold dear.

The interview on the issue of the referendum on Scottish independence made clear that Canada offers an internationally recognized model for the conciliation of political differences. I also shared my concerns about the future of this country: We must not drift apart and we must not allow illusions about each other to divide us. Canada is bigger than our differences. We need to affirm our faith in a country that has always proved strong enough to embrace the national identities, language and culture of us all.

I oppose the separation of Canada and Quebec, as I oppose the separation of Scotland and the United Kingdom. We need to face threats to our unity with determination and resolve. The argument we need to make to our fellow citizens who choose the separatist option ought to appeal to hope rather than fear. We are stronger together than apart, stronger in the embrace of our differences and stronger in the prosperous life we have built together over the centuries.

If any of these themes – which I have believed all my life –failed to make their way into my interview with the Scottish broadcasters, I can only reaffirm them now to my federalist friends across Canada and repeat that I will never betray the cause that we share.

Michael Ignatieff, senior resident, Massey College, University of Toronto

Now I'm going to jump to Ignatieff's defence: he's no longer a working politician, he has reverted to his accustomed position as a "public intellectual," and while his remarks are interesting, even newsworthy, they matter because they might provoke some thinking (in Scotland and Canada), not because of who Michael Ignatieff was. But: blaming the media for taking one's comments "out of context" is the normal last resort of politicians - I wish Ignatieff had said, "I'm sorry you worried more about the politics than the substance of what I said, but, while I remain opposed to separatism, in Scotland and in Québec, I fear that the lack of reasoned debate with the UK and Canada promotes it and I hope that my comments will promote that necessary debate about how modern, multicultural nation-states work, or don't."

 

[Old Sweat]

John Ivison, writing from the point of view of a Scot, makes some interesting points in this piece from today's National Post. It is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act.

John Ivison: Michael Ignatieff has a point about Quebec separation

Apr 25, 2012 – 4:05 PM ET | Last Updated: Apr 25, 2012 5:49 PM ET

Love, we are told, is a mix of intimacy, passion and commitment. It seems to me there is no great love for Canada in Quebec — and, judging by the rising demands for autonomy in Alberta, the thrill has gone for many in the West.

The response was damning, not least from Mr. Ignatieff’s old friend, interim Liberal leader Bob Rae, who called the analysis “factually incorrect” and “completely wrong.

Mr. Ignatieff claims his comments were taken out of context and he is right. It’s doubtful if many of the people who were quick to anger actually watched his 10-minute interview in full. I did — and as a Canadian and Scotsman, the process he described is self-evident.

Related
Kelly McParland: Liberal leaders find their voice in retirement

Wayne K. Spear: What difference does it make what Michael Ignatieff says?

Ignatieff backs off prediction Quebec will become independent

Barbara Kay: Michael Ignatieff hands Quebec separatists an unexpected gift

What he actually said is that in the aftermath of the 1995 referendum, Quebec was given effective mastery in its own home, in order to appease separatist sentiment. How can anyone deny this? From Paul Martin’s asymmetrical federalism to Stephen Harper’s resolution of the “fiscal imbalance,” the accommodation of Quebec in recent years has, in Mr. Ignatieff’s words, been “pretty radical.” Mr. Harper even gave the province its own seat at the United Nations Education, Science and Culture Organization, recognition that its specificity should allow it to play a role in international relations.

The problem, according to Mr. Ignatieff, is that Quebec and the rest of Canada now have very little to say to one another. He certainly did not encourage or wish for Quebec separation. In fact, he said: “I can’t think of this country without Quebec.”

In the context of warning Scots what to expect after the forthcoming 2014 independence referendum, he said Canada is now “effectively almost two separate countries…. we survived the referendum but it did us damage.”

Why the fuss over the suggestion that two nations within the same state will drift further apart if the devolution of powers is unremitting?

Loath as I am to make predictions in the wake of the Wildrose pundit/pollster omni-shambles, it looks safe to suggest the tensions in the Canadian federation will be stretched to snapping point in the coming years.

The conditions are all there. Wildrose, with its agenda to blow up the equalization program that sends $8-billion a year to Quebec, lost this time around but it will be back.

There is sure to be growing tensions between Ontario and Quebec, as the country’s largest province claims a growing share of shrinking federal transfers, at the latter’s expense.

And Quebec separatists are in the ascendancy provincially, with the latest CROP poll showing the Parti Québecois in the lead.

Optimists will point to another poll this week that has the federalist NDP with a massive lead in Quebec, in part because of the election of a native son, Tom Mulcair, as leader.

But I come back to my original point – there is no love for Canada there. Quebecers, like many Scots, favour the union for what it gives them – and fear its dissolution for what it might take away. The new Coalition Avenir Québec may be doing better if it had called itself The Cynics’ Party – but then people would only join for what they could get out of it.

If the resource rich Western provinces decide they have had enough pandering to real and imagined historical grievances and subsidizing services better than they offer, Quebecers may decide they no longer want to live under the Canadian roof. Both Scotland and Quebec are, in Mr. Ignatieff’s words, parked in “way stations” on a road that leads to independence.

The difference is, many Scots only want what Quebec already has – control of its domestic affairs. They may decide to stay put, if the rest of the United Kingdom offers a plausible package that gives them more autonomy.

It is hard to see what more Canada can do for la belle province, beyond a fond kiss and the blessing to sever.

National Post
jivison@nationalpost.com

 

[GAP]

Michael Ignatieff heading back to U.S. with half-time post at Harvard
Canadian Press | Sep 8, 2012
Article Link

TORONTO — Former Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff is taking half-time teaching posts at Harvard and the University of Toronto.

Ignatieff joins the Munk School of Global Affairs at the University of Toronto with a half-time appointment as professor this month.

In January he is to assume a half-time appointment as professor of practice at the Harvard Kennedy School.

The 65-year-old academic and author had already been teaching some courses at the University of Toronto.

Before becoming Liberal leader in 2009, Ignatieff enjoyed a career as an international intellectual, writing books and teaching at universities including Oxford, Cambridge and the Kennedy School at Harvard.

His short-lived political career ended in 2011 when the Liberals suffered their worst-ever election defeat and he lost his own seat in the Commons.

Janice Stein, director of the Munk School of Global Affairs at the University of Toronto, said Ignatieff’s appointment will benefit students.

“He brings a deeply global perspective to our biggest policy challenges and will work with our students to give them the analytic skills they need in today’s connected world,” she said.
More on link

 

[Edward Campbell]

And The Hon Michael Ignatieff wades back into the fray with an address at Stanford University about which John Ibbitson comments in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/michael-ignatieffs-timely-warning-on-the-politics-of-fascism/article4753299/

Michael Ignatieff's timely warning on the politics of fascism

JOHN IBBITSON
The Globe and Mail

Published Tuesday, Oct. 30 2012

A wise voice is warning that fascism lies at the bottom of the English-speaking world’s dangerous political decline. That voice belongs to Michael Ignatieff.

Mr. Ignatieff is a rarity: a public intellectual who once held the title of Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition.

That word “loyal” is telling, as Mr. Ignatieff explained in an address at Stanford University earlier this month. Democracy, he said, depends on politicians respecting the roles that other politicians play.

“The opposition performs an adversarial function critical to democracy itself,” Mr. Ignatieff observed. “Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of the same sovereign, servants of the same law.”

But that vital underpinning of respect is being lost in the United States, where a Democratic president is fighting for re-election against a Republican opponent whose supporters, in some cases, maintain the President seized office illegally using a forged birth certificate.

And although Mr. Ignatieff avoids referring to his personal circumstances, we all know he was the victim of a Conservative attack machine that questioned his loyalty to his country. Remember “Just Visiting?”

You could argue this is sour grapes. But Mr. Ignatieff came down from the stands to fight in the arena. Now back among us in the stands, he speaks with a unique authority.

In his speech, Mr. Ignatieff bore down on the high price paid when politicians treat each other as enemies rather than adversaries.

When you think of your opponent across the aisle as an adversary, “you reject arguments, not persons; question premises, not identities; interrogate interests, not loyalties,” Mr. Ignatieff said.

But when politicians look upon each other as enemies, “legislatures replace relevance with pure partisanship. Party discipline rules supreme, fraternization is frowned upon, negotiation and compromise are rarely practised, and debate within the chamber becomes as venomously personal as it is politically meaningless.”

In that light, the American Congress and the Canadian House of Commons share much in common.

Godwin’s Law stipulates that the longer an online discussion carries on, the greater is the likelihood one side will compare the other side to the Nazis. But Mr. Ignatieff invokes the spectre of fascism with more credible intent.

“Fascism took the fatal step from a politics of adversaries into a politics of enemies,” he warned. “We are not there yet, but it is worth remembering that the fatal declension occurred in a democracy not so dissimilar to our own, in a society plagued by economic crisis, among a battered population looking for someone to blame.”

Treating politics as a war against enemies is a mortal threat to democracy because it corrodes compromise. The willingness and ability to compromise permits politicians to make deals, and making deals is essential to a healthy democracy, whatever purists might think.

“We have politicians precisely to make the deals the rest of us are too fastidious to make,” Mr. Ignatieff pointed out with telling accuracy. “We need leaders prepared to take the moral risks with their own integrity in order to make the compromises that keep us together.”

If your opponent is an enemy, however, then compromise is not an option. Victory or defeat are the only possible outcomes. Which is why journalists – who are themselves becoming more polarized and less respectful of opposing points of view – increasingly resort to military metaphors to describe political contests. No other words are appropriate.

How do we reverse this dangerous descent? Mr. Ignatieff’s solution to an American audience is threefold: Limit the power of money in politics; encourage wide-open primaries in which anyone can stand for office, even without the endorsement of party leaders; loosen the bonds of party discipline in the legislatures.

Such solutions are only partially applicable to Canada. But Mr. Ignatieff’s most important lesson could be applied by all:

“We should focus martial energies where they are needed: [against] those adversaries who actively threaten the liberty of other peoples and our own. Towards those within our borders, however heatedly we may disagree, we should work from a simple persuasive, but saving, assumption: In the house of democracy there are no enemies.”

Something to think on, the next time the Prime Minister and the Leader of her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition confront each other in the House.

Some good thoughts in there: "Treating politics as a war against enemies is a mortal threat to democracy because it corrodes compromise ... loosen the bonds of party discipline in the legislatures ... focus [our] martial energies where they are needed: [against] those adversaries who actively threaten the liberty of ... our own [people]."