The Equivocation of Ignatieff

It appears that Michael Ignatieff, the globetrotting ex-patriate and putative saviour of the Liberal Party of Greater Toronto, is set to launch his bid for the party leadership next week after his appearance yesterday at the University of Ottawa.

What I expected with Ignatieff's leadership bid was an elevation of political discourse within the Liberal Party, given his impressive CV and credentials. However, his support for the Iraq War, and his realist perspective on international relations, have put him at odds with the left of his party, which has been typified more for its anti-Americanism and opposition to Canadian military involvement in foreign theatres.

And how did Ignatieff manage the clash between Ivory Tower idealism and the proclivities of his base? Not by leading the party away of its past, but by capitulating to it.

In yesterday's speech, he waffled on his support for the Iraq War...

"In view of where Chrétien was in 2003, I think he did the right thing for Canada," Ignatieff told the Star in an interview.

He pointed out that he "wasn't in Mr. Chrétien's shoes" at the time and favoured the ouster by force of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, whom Ignatieff called "a Grade A, top-tier human rights monster."

But he tried to close the book on the issue by adding: "Going forward, I don't want to send Canadian troops into harm's way unless I'm pretty sure it's got Canadian public support. Period."

...and denigrated the country in which he lived for a half-decade, ostensibly to illustrate his 'Canadian' credentials:

"I respect American institutions but I don't want to live in a country where 40 million citizens don't have health care," he said to strong applause during a question-and-answer session with his audience. And he said he didn't like being part of an American society with capital punishment and where "a woman's right to choose is still a battleground" and same-sex marriage is not protected by law.

I appreciate the delicate balancing of interests required when aiming to lead the Grits, a party which occupies almost the whole of the political spectrum. But I can't help but think -- if Ignatieff's comments are any indication -- that the Liberal leadership race, instead of being a reinvigoration of a party which presently stands for nothing, has already decided what it wants to be in the future: more of the same.