The Martin period was an aberration - but, ultimately, seasonal and arguably necessary. Like cicadas, Liberals turn every twenty years or so to political disasters (eg. Turner, Martin), get reminded why out-of-touch, out-of-work business executives make lousy leaders, and then get back to finding real Liberals. It'll happen in another twenty years, just you watch. In the interim, they'll be okay.
So do all of these nice words mean this former Chretien aide hankers for the rough-and-tumble of federal politics again? Let's put it this way: a lot of former Liberals will remain former Liberals until the Martinite thugs are exiled to Serbia or, ideally, Mars.
And that, at the end, is why Stephen Harper is probably most optimistic: the Martinite elements in the Liberal Party, whose names are interchangeable with 'losing,' are still around. They haven't learned their lesson, yet. Until they do, Stephen Harper is pretty safe. It's not a permanent condition, but it'll sure feel like that for a lot of Liberals for the next while. "
And of course today's chief heir to this losing legacy is Michael Ignatieff, who has somehow managed to convince a good portion of the Libs that the way back to power is to embrace the same policies (groveling before the American Empire) that caused people to reject the Tories for so many years (and caused so many people to have issues with Martin's leadership).
Meanwhile, while selling out the soul of the Liberal Party, Iggy plans to combat Stephen Harper by "intervening in" and "deconstructing" the Tory "narrative". And I don't know why this kind of nonsense is playing so well to liberal bloggers. I can only assume that many of them are snot-nosed, pimple-face punks who flunked out of English in the 1990's and get some kind of hard-on when they hear big words.
But believe me, that crap don't play in Mushaboo, or anywhere outside the salons of academe.
Listen to Kinsella. Find yourself a real Liberal.
10 comments:
Kinsella is indeed a 'real Liberal'. As henchman to the thug-in-chief, Kinsella will never get over Martin's "let's get to the bottom of adscam" preferring instead da boss's "so what if a few millions went missing" dismissal of the whole thing. And given the gullibility of the public at large where Liberal sleaze is concerned, the Kinsella/Chretien approach probably would have worked. The Libs are now terrified that Iggy, a high-minded moralist untainted by the LPC's years of graft and corruption and not beholden to the Party elite, will unearth a few more rotting corpses, for instance, what happened to hundreds of millions in gun registry overruns. It's a shame it will an American academic to clean out the Liberal swamp. Kinsella better keep his day job.
I found your analysis interesting, especially this paragraph:
And of course today's chief heir to this losing legacy is Michael Ignatieff, who has somehow managed to convince a good portion of the Libs that the way back to power is to embrace the same policies (groveling before the American Empire) that caused people to reject the Tories for so many years (and caused so many people to have issues with Martin's leadership).
Is anti-Americanism so rabid here as to cloud any notion of reality? How does Ignatieff 'grovel to the American empire'? Ignatieff supported the Iraq war based on his principles and informed analysis (an analysis far more informed than the vast majority of Liberals/Canadians), and did so as an independent academic with no ties to the Bush administration and thus no need to bow to American power in anyway.
And it was his 'grovelling to the American Empire' which caused so many people to have issues with Martin's leadership??? What planet are you living on? Martin was in no way close to the Bush adminstration and often at odds with it. People lost faith in his leadership because of his lack of principle, penchant for dithering, and how he handled Adscam.
And finally, "that crap don't play in Mushaboo". I don't know where or what Mushaboo is (maybe it's an expression, excuse my ignorance), but if you're suggesting that Liberal candidates should play to rural or small town Canada, instead of talking up to self-satisfied Torontonians, you're out to lunch.
Is anti-Americanism so rabid here as to cloud any notion of reality?
This is the smear that will not die. Unless you've been unconscious over the last five years, you must have noticed that every pronouncement that was critical of the Bush administration was characterised as "anti-American" and frankly, anyone who still uses this automatically discredits himself.
I am one of Kinsella's biggest detractors (although, since I'm a nobody, it hardly matters) but on this point, I agree with both him and BigCityLib. The Liberals will be constant losers if they remain out of touch with Canadians who desparately want to see this country maintain independent economic, social and foreign policies that result from our own, democratic and deliberative processes, and that's certainly not what we can expect from the respected human rights professor who did more harm than good when he got seduced and over-stimulated by the transformative power of the silly concept of "Empire-lite." and other similar delusions emanating from Iggy's ivory tower.
It was his grovelling to the American Empire' which caused so many people to have issues with Martin's leadership?
Which was revealed by his ridiculous dithering which you yourself pointed out. It's like Marin wanted to finesse the relationship with the American administration (which is Canada's endless purgatory) but simply did not have the leadership skills to do it.
Finally, these cheap shots about Toronto are stupid. I don't live in Toronto, and I haven't always been that keen on the city (Montreal...now that's a city!) but Torontonians like everyone else participate in this country's governance. If you're walling off people from participatory democracy based simply on where they live, then you are not a democrat.
Oliphant, glad you found it intertesting:
Firstly, I am not anti-American, and if there had been blogs back in the 90s you would have seen me cheer on Bubba in Kosovo, and salute the U.S. Feds on many progressive policies at the time. Unfortunately, since then the nation has been taken over by a dangerous man at the head of a dangerous party,who should be opposed whenever he does something stupid, like attempt to lead the rest of the Western world into ill-advised Asian land wars.
As for Iggy, I have criticized his explanations for his support for Gulf War II in many places, and won't repeat all that here.
However, two things:
-- he is wrong and/or lying about Saddam's not cooperating with weapons inspectors.
--he is wrong, and insulting the nation of Canada itself, to say that Chretien kept the country out of the war because of his fears of Quebec seperatism.
Iggys support of the war was wrong and ridiculously so. Moreover, he has been unable to admit his mistake and instead covered it up with lies and baloney. Thereore he is unfit to rule.
With Martin, you must get to the essence of his dithering, which was over the missile defense initiative. Martin supported this (and probably would have got us into Gulf War II had he been in power at the time), and it took the weight of national opinion to get him to do the right thing. Thank god he never got a majority.
Finally, I think a certain segment of the Liberal party is attracted to Ignatieff because they see him as a kind of sexy intellectual in the Trudeau mold. Whereas I tend to see him as a post-modern pseudo who escaped from the 80s with his portentious vocabulary intact. And that kind of character will not play outside of Toronto.
The ridiculous irony of this post - saying Kinsella is a real Liberal and we need more of him back in the party - is that Kinsella has repeatedly praised Ignatieff for his stance on radical fundamentalist terrorism and our need to be vigilant and strong against it.
So, I'm with you BCL: we need more Kinsella Liberals!
Ted
Cerberus
Right, Ted, but we need them to support someone other than Iggy.
Hey guys (Ti-guy/BigCityLib),
I don't see criticizing American policies as anti-Americanism. But I think trying to boil down Martin's failures and Iggy's faults as being due to their "grovelling before the American empire" is overly simplistic, and is a criticism by association. That's what I take issue with, and see as implicitly anti-American, or anti-Bush, or whatever.
I percieve anti-Americanism as discrediting a candidate not based on the issue that you disagree with (eg. saying Iggy was wrong to support the Iraq war), but instead framing Iggy's decision to support the Iraq war as "grovelling to the American empire", as if it was the agreeing with the US that is the problem.
Perhaps I missed the part in your original post where you say why he is wrong other than because he supported the US. But to me, it seemed that your criticism was that he agreed with the "empire" (I think they prefer the term "republic") on policy, not based on the policy itself (at least in your original post). Do you see a difference?
Furthermore, if he's the "empire-lite" candidate, can you give another example (one that actually might be an issue in the leadership race) where he grovels to the Empire?
Lastly, Ti-guy, you say "these cheap shots at Toronto are stupid...Torontonians like everyone else participate in this country's governance. If you're walling off people from participatory democracy based simply on where they live, then you are not a democrat."
I wasn't Toronto bashing, but making the very point that the candidates have to play to Toronto (and other urban centres) exactly because they play such a huge role in the nation's, and the Liberal party's, governance. So aiming to win votes in Mushaboo (where BigCityLib says Ignatieff's character will not play) is wrong-headed, in my opinion.
What I'm saying, I suppose, is that if Ignatieff's character will play in Toronto/Big urban centres (which seems to be the consensus), than it's better for the Liberals than if it played in rural/small-town Canada.
Furthermore, one would suspect since the Conservatives control alot of rural Canada, a more right-wing Liberal would play easier there, and possibly steal some seats, than a left wing candidate, his "sexy intellectual" character notwithstanding. Is my logic off?
Kinsella is trying to ressurect the feud between the Martin and Chretien camps. He fails to acknowledge that the infighting itself also undermined the Liberal party's chances of winning the last election. Instead he blames every problem on the Martin camp and tries to cast himself and his allies as the white nights who will return the Liberals to the glory days of perpetual governance.
Liberals can work together and try to rebuild the party or they can can continue with the internal power struggle. Kinsella appears to have chosen the later.
william fudger
sedum@telus.net
I'm lost. I thought there was a distiction between anti-American and anti-Americanism,the former being prejudice and the latter being against that which seeks to dominate the world economically, militarily and any other way.
If it's assumed that I'm being simplistic I can rattle on for an hour and still come to the same conclusion.
Enlighten me.
I see Ti-Guy just about everywhere and not just value his opinion but have come to rely on him to sort out puzzling remarks from other commenters. I know this is asking a bit much but I'd like to know who he supports right now. I'm ancient and get cross-eyed surfing the b-sphere and playing Jon Stewart clips again and again.
Post a Comment