Us political junkies didn't see the NDP surge coming. Neither did the punditocracy or the pollsters. There was absolutely no sign of it in the letters sections of newspapers or comments sections of online mainstream news services either.
And, while I'll admit that I have considerably more devotion to political issues than your average Canadian, I don't think that I'm out of line to say that there is a prevailing sentiment of "anyone but harper" among non-harpercons in this electoral cycle, as clear as the "anyone but Bush" that existed among what passes for the left in the US population during his reign of error n' terror. Which makes it doubly surprising that the traditional alternative to the Conservatives, the Liberals, are doing so badly.
There's no doubt that the harpercons' relentless attack ads have had an impact there. But it's also true that Ignatieff is a stranger in a strange land. Some social studies that i'm too lazy to look for (this is a morning's post on a frikken' blog remember) have said that there are major differences in the ways that Canadians and USians look at many issues. In some respects, the denizens of Canada's most right-wing province, Alberta, would find themselves more at home among US Democrats than Repugnicans. Ignatieff's stance on economic issues is closer to the harpercons' than it is to Canadian centrists and progressives. And, of course, there's the big bugaboo, foreign policy. Canadians have been lukewarm towards our "mission" in Afghanistan, but tend not to criticize it out of deference to "the troops." But Ignatieff is an enthusiastic advocate of imperialism, and he was an early cheerleader for the bush II regime's invasion of Iraq, which was never popular in Canada. More, Ignatieff is a continentalist, and Canadians wouldn't need harpercon attack ads to be concerned about his unprecedented coronation as the Liberals' golden boy after so few years back in the country.
When he got here, Ignatieff was clearly a political novice. He didn't know the rules of the game all that well or how to play them. He was stiff, and unconvincing. It's taken him up to this election to finally explain why he came back to Canada (a feeling that he had to practice what he preached about civic participation at Harvard). It's taken up to now for him to actually appear comfortable and poised as a politician. Unfortunately for him and for the Liberal Party of Canada, it appears that "now" is too late.
Is that all that explains the NDP's rising fortunes? Ignatieff and Rae stupidly agreed with the harpercons to extend Canada's military mission in Afghanistan without a debate. Chantal Hebert says that that is what soured a lot of Quebec voters on the Liberals. (Hebert is always saying that the sovereigntists are failing, so I don't know much else about what's going on with the Bloc.)
Perhaps the NDP's strength in Quebec is galvanizing their supporters in the West and in certain Ontario regions and making other voters think about where the best place to park their votes and "back a winner" might be. I simply can't account for this.
Is it really the case that the Canadian electorate is polarizing? Have there been all sorts of conversations around kitchen tables and in living rooms about how the country has been going too far in killing decent jobs, in slashing health care, in rewarding the big banks and telecoms, in kow-towing to US imperialist ambitions?
Are English Canadians rejecting the Liberals, or an uninspiring Liberal leader? Are we polarizing between left and right or are Quebec voters picking a viable (and humbled) social-democratic alternative and English Canadian centrists and progressives following suit?
This much is true: For better or for worse, Canadian voters have foiled the idea of strategic voting. If, ... no, let me put that differently; IF this election keeps harper at minority status AND the Liberal Party is reduced to third-party status, this will have been a very, very, very good election. (And as far as discussing the issues that I care about, in the way I think they should be discussed, this has been a very bad election.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
"Are English Canadians rejecting the Liberals, or an uninspiring Liberal leader?" Can you really separate the two? The IgLibs (party + leader) seemed a departure from traditional Liberal politics. They became Conservative-Lite, closer to Democrats than Liberals.
Ignatieff's leadership inadequacy became manifest when Harper first prorogued Parliament just as Canada was being overtaken by a global economic meltdown greater than any seen in generations. Iggy could have taken the opportunity to brainstorm and craft a Liberal recovery/stimulus proposal that he could bludgeon Harper with when Parliament returned. Instead he took the time to finish a book on his maternal ancestors.
When Parliament returned, Iggy came back empty-handed. He had no choice but to endorse Harper's pathetic "pinata budget" and then made it all the more farcical by boasting that he was putting Harper "on probation." He squandered a priceless opportunity to restore his party's credibility and stature. It was then I knew beyond doubt that Ignatieff, for all his talents and qualities, was a dead loss in the political arena.
MoS,
That's a pretty concise summation of some of Ignatieff's mistakes. I have to hand it to you.
But he was selected and enabled by long-time party elites. I think Ignatieff's flaws and Paul Martin's flaws were differences of personality, not really so much policy.
Our economic system is fraying and the Liberal ability to paper over differences has been exhausted.
I'm just surprised at the finality of it today.
Post a Comment