I've watched this week in horrified disbelieve as many Libloggers, including some very high profile ones, have talked themselves into supporting Michael Ignatieff for the leadership of the party. I imagine this may have something to do with Mr. Ignatieff's electability. After losing so hard in the last election with a less than charismatic leader, many Liberals are looking for an eloquent and engaging leader to take us into the next election. Mr. Ignatieff has these qualities in spades. He is one of the best speakers in the House of Commons in both French and English and has a very commanding presence. If he managed to run a gaffe free campaign, and that is a very big if, I believe he would have the best chance of winning the election.
Unfortunately, he is wrong about almost everything and is the last man, including Stephen Harper, who should be running the country. Mr Ignatieff, in my opinion, is the worst sort of Neo-Liberal. The type that has an almost evangelical view of the market and its ability to grow wealth and help poor people. This of course never happens. For any of you economist types who want to argue that point with me just look at your latest failure. For the last few years the free market parishioners have been telling us about the "Celtic tiger," look at Ireland they would say. They stopped their social programs, sold off their crown assets, deregulated their economy, cut taxes and increased corporate subsidies. Now foreign investment is up and the economy is growing. Same old song they sung while they ruined South America . Well, the Celtic tiger has just become the first European Union country to dive into recession. The Irish will get through it, they have seen tough times before. Of course this time they won't have any social programs to lean on.
Believing in the neo-Liberal fantasy is just one part of Ignatieff's problem. Much more worrisome is his belief in Empire and Imperialism. It is my opinion that Mr. Ignatieff feels we not only have a right to impose our way of life on other countries but a responsibility to do so. If you want Canadian troops to fight and die in Afghanistan for the rest of time never mind Stephen Harper, Michael Ignatieff is your boy.
These are just a few of the reasons I think Mr. Ignatieff should not lead the party or the country, but why take my word for it? I'm just a simple carpenter. What does eminent intellectual and possibly the world's smartest man, Noam Chomsky, think of Michael Ignatieff? Just check out this 2003 interview with David Barsamian. About three quarters of the way through you will find this,
"TRADITIONALLY IF you used the word "imperialism" and attached the word "American" in front of it, you were immediately dismissed as a member of some far left fringe. That has undergone a bit of a transformation in the last few years. Let’s just take Michael Ignatieff, for one. Son of a Canadian diplomat, he’s at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard where he is Carr Professor of Human Rights Policy. He writes in a New York Times Magazine cover story on July 28, 2002, "America’s entire war on terrorism is an exercise in imperialism." Then he adds, "Imperialism used to be the white man’s burden," echoing Kipling. "This gave it a bad reputation. But imperialism doesn’t stop being necessary just because it becomes politically incorrect." On January 5, 2003, in yet another cover story in the New York Times Magazine, he writes, "America’s empire is not like the empires of times past, built on colonies, conquests and the white man’s burden.... The 21st century imperium is a new invention in the annals of political science, an empire lite, a global hegemony whose grace notes are free markets, human rights, and democracy, enforced by the most awesome military power the world has ever known." And he has a new book out, called Empire Lite."
Chomsky continues,
"OF COURSE, the apologists for every other imperial power have said the same thing. So you can go back to John Stuart Mill, one of the most outstanding Western intellectuals, now we’re talking about the real peak of moral integrity and intelligence. He defended the British Empire in very much those words. John Stuart Mill wrote the classic essay on humanitarian intervention. Everyone studies it in law schools. What he says is, Britain is unique in the world. It’s unlike any country before it. Other countries have crass motives and seek gain and so on, but the British act only for the benefit of others. In fact, he said, Our motives are so pure that Europeans can’t understand us. They heap "obloquy" upon us and they seek to discover crass motives behind our benevolent actions. But everything we do is for the benefit of the natives, the barbarians. We want to bring them free markets and honest rule and freedom and all kinds of wonderful things. Today’s version is just illustrating Marx’s comment about tragedy being repeated as farce. "
Mr. Chomsky goes on to talk some more about England and John Mill, then comes back to Mr.Ignatieff,
"I’m surprised that Ignatieff is not aware that he’s just repeating a very familiar rhetoric. And it’s true, even in internal records, when people are talking to themselves. A lot of Soviet archives are coming out, basically being sold to the highest bidder like everything else in Russia. It’s kind of interesting to see that they talk to each other the same way they talk in public. So, for example, you go back to 1947 or so, and Gromyko and those guys are talking to each other and saying things like, We have to protect democracy. We have to intervene to protect democracy from the forces of fascism, which are everywhere, and democracy is surely the highest value, so we’ve got to intervene to protect it. And he’s talking about the "people’s democracies." Well, he believed it probably as much as Ignatieff believes what he is saying."
There is more and I encourage you to read it all. I wouldn't want to be accused of taking something out of context. Now for those of you who say, "this is old news from five years ago," I guess we won't be hearing any talk about "Rae days" then. And for those of you that think I'm wrong and Chomsky is wrong because you believe in "the economic miracle" that is the free market, you just keep on believing it. As for the rest of you, take another look at Michael Ignatieff.
