Stopping Michael Ignatieff ... And Here's Why

Interventions in political leadership campaigns are never easy. There is a dynamic inside political parties that are not always subject to influence from outside the party. But...no party can ignore the fact that it has to win elections. If polls show Liberals that their favourite candidate in terms of the party dynamics cannot win, the party dynamics can change. That is what progressives need to do in the Liberal leadership campaign. As of this last weekend -“Super weekend” - Ignatieff is well ahead of the pack with 30% of delegates. Add in the party hierarchy, staff and MPs who get to go automatically and he is closer to 35%. There will be a anyone-but-Ignatieff effort at the convention and he could still lose. Pundits are saying that Stephan Dion has the best chance at this point and he is certainly well to the left of Ignatieff. WRITE A SHORT LETTER WITH THE SIMPLE MESSAGE THAT IF THE LIBERALS WANT YOUR VOTE, PICKING IGNATIEFF AS LEADER VIRTUALLY GUARANTEES THEY WON’T GET IT. You might start off your letter with a strong statement of shock/disbelief/disgust at the prospect of having Ignatieff as prime minister or leader of the opposition. Such as: “I can’t believe that members of the Liberal Party are so out of touch with Canadians....” “Paul Martin and his crew almost destroyed the Liberal Party and now it seems determined to finish the job. Don’t party members know how much Canadians detest George Bush and his policies...” “Well, that’s it then - Canada will become just like the US with the almost indistinguishable Republicans and the Democrats. The Liberals under Michael Ignatieff will look so much like Stephen Harper they might as well form a coalition govt...” "So, Liberals want a Bush cheerleader as their next leader..." If you have been following this man’s short political career, just write from your heart. But if you need a few points to make or choose from, here are some: * The elite of the Liberal party almost totally behind Ignatieff and is pitching him as the “new Trudeau.” But he is no Trudeau. Trudeau was ambivalent about the US and wanted to maintain an independent foreign policy where possible - particularly, for example, where it came to Cuba. The Americans called him the Castro of the North.” Contrast that with Iggy’s blanket support for the US empire. He’s the Bush of the North. * Canadians overwhelmingly oppose US foreign policy - war as a solution to everything, contempt for international law, the hideous war in Iraq, Canada being dragged into the Afghanistan conflict. Ignatieff is absolutely unapologetic in his support of Bush - in spite of all the lies told to justify the war: WMDs, Saddam’s alleged connection to 9/11, etc. * It isn’t just foreign policy. Right now the Harper government is negotiating an agreement with the US for ever-deeper integration with the US in a vast sweep of policy areas: energy, water, drug testing, immigration, defence, environmental standards. Ignatieff’s pro-US stance and his many years living in the US (and at the training ground for the US elite - Harvard Univ) leaves little doubt that he would carry on this initiative if given the chance. The party’s elite - closest to the corporate sector they listen to - supports Ignatieff. They would not do that if he was opposed to deep integration. * Last May 14 Ignatieff wrote in the New York Times regarding Iraq: “Now that we are there” And “We promise” - referring to the group of people who are making US policy. Which would be fine if were an American - but he is supposed to be a Canadian. We can’t afford to have this man as prime minister if he forgets who he is so easily. * In May, 2004, Ignatieff wrote regrading US torture: “Permissable duress might include forms of sleep deprivation that do not result in lasting harm to mental health and physical health, together with disinformation and disorientation (like keeping prisoners in hoods) that would produce stress.” * He wrote in his book “Empire Lite” - an apology for US imperialism: . “Imperialism doesn’t stop being necessary just because it becomes politically incorrect.” (Empire Lite, p. 106) * US imperialism in the world today, he writes, “is an attempted solution to the crisis of state order that has followed two botched decolonizations: the soviet exit from Europe, and the European exit from Africa” (p. 123) * Ignatieff depicts the Vietnam War as having had “moral appeal” to the young. The US, in addition, had “liberal good intentions there” (p.117) * Finally, he attempts to present a global political condition that requires US imperialism, stating as an indisputable fact the falsehood “that imperialism has become a precondition for democracy”. (p. 24)