Why Ignatieff Hasn't Captured Our Imagination

Maybe the issue is not only the time he spent abroad, but where he spent it, and the unusual way he came to hold office.

In the business of politics, a compelling, attractive image is always at a premium. The people involved in this transaction are the sellers – the politicians and handlers; the buyers – the public; and in between, the journalists.

From the seller’s perspective, this transaction goes a lot more smoothly when the burgers are charred to perfection, babies smile when kissed, and large crowds cheer wildly.

But because fortune is fickle, these scenarios are rare. Burgers go from rare to overdone in an instant, babies cry, and negligible crowds pout in the rain. Or buses break down, as Michael Ignatieff’s Liberal Express did last week during the cross-Canada tour aimed at winning over a public that is strangely resistant to the party leader.

So in the media world, where pictures tell the story and analysis is shallow, the innocuous and quotidian event of a malfunctioning bus became an easy metaphor for Ignatieff’s repeated failure to capture the loyalty of the electorate. But going beyond the superficial events of that day, the question remains: Why has Michael Ignatieff failed to capture the imagination and trust of Canadians?

There is no shortage of both analysis and theory: the disarray of the Liberal party; a lack of depth of policy and ideas; Ignatieff’s inability to articulate himself when pressed on policy issues; a general lack of distrust of politicians; the effect of repeated minority governments; a cold and disingenuous façade; an elitist bent associated with his years at Harvard and the London School of Economics; a disloyalty to Canada after years abroad; and an affinity for the United States.

There has been plenty of debate over all of these points, and they have all been both proven and refuted. But there seems to be something deeper and more intangible preventing Canadians from even liking a politician who, on paper, has all the ingredients for successful leadership.

Maybe it’s the unconventional manner in which Ignatieff entered the Canadian political realm that has thwarted his success and – whether it’s fair or not – yielded only dismal ratings in the polls.

A brief recap of the story that is now part of Canadian political mythology: Ignatieff had spent 30 years abroad when a Liberal party member was inspired by a 2005 speech and convinced him to give up his job at Harvard University and return to Canada. Ignatieff won a Toronto seat in 2006 and then the Liberal party leadership race in 2008.

Despite the hype and high hopes, Ignatieff never cracked the key to winning over the Canadian electorate, which seems to prefer the dependable consistency of Harper’s cold manner.

Taking a step back: it’s a modern notion that a public declaration of ambition for political office is respectable. It used to be distasteful to express such inclinations. Rather, political office was held in such high regard that it was thought to exert a magnetic force on those deemed worthy of the post. As a result, people were urged by their peers to run for office, which in turn, maintained the integrity of the post. It seems this was the case in Ignatieff’s situation.

In more modern times, theorist Max Weber, in a lecture called “Politics as a Vocation,” discusses what have become the two traditional means of entering public office: that of the professional politician who seeks to survive via politics, and that of the individual who lives for politics and makes a personal sacrifice to this end.

Ignatieff never publicly appeared to express ambition to hold office, but rather was involved on the outskirts, participating mainly as a writer and a thinker. Nor does he now appear to need the profession as a means of subsistence. He was called to the profession idealistically, partly based on a perception of him being a charismatic individual.

Weber also, of course, famously discusses this charismatic politician, and at least in the media, neither Ignatieff nor Harper exhibit this quality. But the non-arrival of such a leader might speak more to Canadians’ unwavering cynicism and resultant low expectations of late about those who represent them: we are satisfied with a manager as opposed to a leader.

Overall, the suggestion that Ignatieff has failed to catch on with Canadians as a result of his background is not meant to cast doubt on Ignatieff’s motivations, or on his patriotism. Indeed, he has written extensively on his love for Canada and its role in the world and how the country can continue to capitalize on its reputation as a world leader in human rights and tolerance.

Neither is this discussion intended to raise questions as to his familiarity with or capability to lead a country in which for three decades he did not live. There is, doubtlessly, value in the experience of living abroad. Witness Pierre Elliott Trudeau and William Lyon Mackenzie King, both of whom studied briefly in the United States and Europe. And indeed, these two leaders captured the public’s attention and votes.

These suggestions are also not meant to question the merits of the various ways in which one comes to hold office. Although many of Canada’s office holders are lawyers and businesspeople, a wide variety of backgrounds is preferable, especially over a professional politician who holds little other experience.

But perhaps the issue is the length of time spent away from his country, and the particular place in which he lived. Given the Canadian preoccupation of defining the country as what it is not (American, among other things), maybe Ignatieff’s long-term presence in the U.S. and abroad makes Canadians uneasy. Add in the untraditional method in which he came to hold office, and perhaps this combination is the intangible quality that makes Canadians uneasy and prevents them from connecting with this leader.

It is slightly ironic that Ignatieff’s uncle and philosopher George Grant warned (in an admittedly dated point of view) that Canada would eventually be swallowed up by the United States as part of a natural, technological progression of history. Perhaps this lingering fear amongst Canadians living in the shadow of the U.S. is partly responsible for the lack of response amongst the electorate to Ignatieff. Perhaps it is also his relatively late arrival to the political scene.

Whatever the reason, the Liberal Express this summer hopes to erase the lingering doubt in Canadians’ minds.