liberal woes September 30, 2006Posted by Brad Richert in politics.
If I was a Liberal supporter right now I would be deeply saddened and maybe even a little pissed off. Members of the Liberal Party of Canada have began their delegate selections for the December leadership convention to replace Paul Martin. Although there are eight contenders, there are only four real possibilities for the leadership of Canada’s historically most successful political party: Michael Ignatieff, Stephane Dion, Bob Rae, and Gerard Kennedy. To be fair, I am not a Liberal supporter, but I would much prefer seeing a true leader challenging the Conservatives than the options it seems Liberals are faced with. The thing that bugs me the most is that the voting so far is showing me that Liberal members would rather see a leader more like Conservative Prime Minister Harper than one of their own. The front runner himself begs to question what it means to be a Canadian.
Should a man who has not been in Canada for thirty years be allowed to be the leader of our country? I could not imagine that Americans would elect an American-born German resident to become President. I could not imagine that the British would elect a British-born American resident to become Prime Minister. Why would a Canadian vote for a Canadian-born, American-educated, British resident? I mean, you do not exactly chose where you were born. You do chose where you prefer to live your life. Michael Ignatieff did not chose Canada. He chose the United States and he chose the United Kingdom. Yet this “Canadian” is leading the delegate-selection as an obvious frontrunner. And this is without even getting into his politics. We all know that in the Liberal attempt to be moderate they accept pretty much anyone into their ranks. Michael Ignatieff, however, looks more like a leader for the Conservative party than the Liberal party. Mr. Ignatieff, as it is well known, supported the American invasion of Iraq with an argument frightening similar to Rudyard Kipling’s “White Man’s Burden” – somewhat amusing since he recalls the poem to say what America’s empire is not. Instead of “exporting civilization and Christianity”, Americans are “exporting freedom and democracy”. That would not be so bad if it were true. So far democracy in both Iraq and the United States could be considered a questionable failure. So could their freedoms. Mr. Ignatieff shrugs off America’s invasions as actions of “lesser evils” as only a philosopher holding no responsibility in political affairs could do – or a Bush scriptwriter. And this is who is leading our Liberal delegate-selection.
Liberal members seem to be falling into a reactionary response to their embarrasing lost in the last elections due to their own corruption. Canada voted conservative. Does that mean the Liberals should swing to the right? I think the Liberal’s are forgetting that the Conservatives only won because Canadians had no one else to vote for. Mr. Layton and the New Democratic Party were again shrugged off by Canadians as irresponsible left-wing nutjobs and the Green Party was not even on the radar. Canadians were forced to either vote for party that had been in power for a dozen years, full of arrogant cronyism and corruption or a scary homophobic, pro-war Conservative Party. In the end Canadians chose to punish the Liberals. This does not mean Canadians wanted a change in the political spectrum of Canada. They do not want to be limited to a Bush vs. Kerry type choice. And thats what this next election would turn into. The only question is, who can stand up for true Canadian values? The British American wannabe… or the Canadian Amerian wannabe?
So please, if you are a cardholding Liberal, please do some research into who you are voting for. I know that Ignatieff’s face has been all over the National Post, The Globe and Mail, and Macleans, but that does not mean you have to vote for him. Vote for a Canadian. Vote for a Liberal.
Mr. Dion, if I was a Liberal member, you would have my vote.
Sources and more info: