Who is Michael Ignatieff? The Shaping of a Political Identity and the Opportunity for Greens

Who is Michael Ignatieff?

That's a question on the minds of many Canadians. There isn't really anything definitive about Canadian perceptions of Ignatieff, certainly not like the associated feelings towards other leaders. People associate strength, confidence and leadership with Stephen Harper, while they associated the environment, lack of leadership and weakness in Stephane Dion. The same people spent their time and resources to make sure those two had those sets of associations.

Ignatieff is doing his part to help Canadians define their sentiments of him, not to mention dispel any lingering Dion-era feelings voters may have. He's everywhere – with a three-page article in this weekend's Globe and Mail, on the radio and in various magazines who are all searching to ask, what must boil down to: “Who is this man who may well be our next Prime Minister?”

American and Brits may actually be more familiar with him than Canadians as somewhat of a intellectual celebrity. He's worked as a professor at prestigious universities – Cambridge, Oxford and Harvard. He's been the director of the Carr Centre for Human Rights Policy at Harvard and a senior fellow at the Munk Centre for International Studies based at the University of Toronto. He's written over a dozen books, both fiction and non-fiction, on human rights, nation building, conflict and international relations. Obama has even read his work. A number of them have won awards. He's worked as a documentarian for the BBC and contributed to the New York Times and the Globe and Mail. In 2002 he was on Maclean's list of the '50 Most Influential Canadians Shaping Society'. His friends are among the most powerful in the Obama administration. His father worked with Lester B. Pearson and his grandfather was the education minister under Russia's last Tsar, Nicholas II. His uncle was George Grant, the Canadian political philosopher who wrote the tremendously influential 'Lament for a Nation'.

I have always admired Ignatieff and his work. Despite disagreeing with many of his conclusions, I have always respected his willingness to tackle the most difficult challenges and issues facing humanity, whether it was human rights abuses, the use of torture (which he does not endorse), or the war in Iraq. In a world where so many intellectuals and activists use blanket statements to ratchet blanket support, an intellect with the sense and confidence to tackle the most complex contradictions and most profound paradoxes head-on deserves respect.

And that just scratches the surface of a man whose life seems a string of accolades. Yet it says nothing – nothing – about the politician he has been and now is. That is both the result of what politics does to people as well as the basic nature of the individual within the realm politics. Confused? Replace the word “politics” with “power” in the last sentence and you'll know what I mean.

Despite everything that Michael Ignatieff is a product of, Canadians are unfamiliar with him. And they should be, because politically, it isn't entirely clear. The man who stood for principle and boldness in academics has realized he simply cannot do the same in politics and win.

Case in point: the carbon tax. While forever more the carbon tax will be carried by Stephane Dion as its long pall-bearer, it was Ignatieff who campaigned on the carbon tax.

He has made his leadership transition quickly. Main policy planks that Dion stood for have been dismantled faster than the collapse of the Liberal-NDP coalition. Ignatieff's “Liberal Party Renewal” has been the “Dion Liberal Demise”, and it has all been in the name of political expediency.

But it appears that no one is pointing this out. In fact, other than the Conservatives, it seems no one is trying to shape the nation's perception of Ignatieff, leaving him with a free ride to define them in his interviews with CBC or exposés in the Globe. This is something I don't understand, because it's an opportunity for the other parties, including the Greens.

To show its political depth and maturity, the GPC can expand its criticism. At a time when Ignatieff’s image is being crafted in Canadian minds, the GPC should take the chance to shape it through tough criticism and stressing how the Greens are different. That could act to attract a broad-based membership, not just tired with the Conservatives, but tired of all the other, mainstream, no-change parties.

Ignatieff has ripped into the Greens when he could. He quashed any idea of the Liberals having another deal with the Greens. Where did he do it? In Halifax. When did he do it? While the Green Party was holding its Convention in the same province, just short drive away. Ouch.

The most critical message is simple for the Greens because it was given to them on a silver platter: the environment is not a priority for Ignatieff, and it will be sold out for political gain whenever the opportunity arises.

When the opportunity arises to shape perception and contribute to the dialogue that Canadians are already having about who Ignatieff is, the Green Party has to take advantage and it could pay big dividends to do just that.

Originally posted at www.kerstenskolumn.wordpress.com