Michael Ignatieff's version of Liberalism

[Socrates the Greek]

Here is a bit of Michael Ignatieff's version of Liberalism; it has a warm beam of light in it. I think the Liberal Party of Canada could prosper under this type of Liberalism.


Michael Ignatieff also ignited the crowd by lauding the Prime Minister and the party for its commitment to the fundamentals of Liberalism.

“As I see it, the Liberal Party has three essential purposes: to protect and enhance our national unity, to preserve and defend our national sovereignty, to advance the cause of social justice,” said Ignatieff, author of The Lesser Evil: Political Ethics in an Age of Terror and Scar Tissue.

He added this same commitment to fairness permeates the Liberal Party’s approach to economic and intergovernmental policy.

“Our party has never regarded Quebec as the problem,” he declared, “because we know Quebeckers have always been part of the solution.”

In regard to fiscal equality among the provinces, he praised Liberals for saying “yes to strong provinces,” but no to a Canada “in which the rich get richer, the poor get poorer.”

Ignatieff also singled out Canada’s commitment to a strong, disciplined foreign policy. He urged Canada to continue to export our values of peace, order and good government to the rest of the world, and to promote democratic federalism for other multi-ethnic, multi-lingual states, key components of the Martin government’s international agenda.

Ignatieff concluded with the importance of remaining true to our cherished Liberal values – “generosity, unity, sovereignty, justice, and the courage to choose, the will to govern.”

-- TRANSCRIPT --

Check Against Delivery


Michael Ignatieff

Carr Professor of Human Rights, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University

“Liberal Values in the 21st century”
Address to the Biennial Policy Conference
Liberal Party of Canada
Ottawa
March 3, 2005

Michael Ignatieff's dad's History of escape to freedom from East to West.


George Ignatieff, CC, MA, DCL (December 16, 1913 - August 10, 1989) was a Canadian diplomat and was the recipient of the 1984 Pearson Medal of Peace for his work in international service.

He was born in St. Petersburg, Russia, the youngest of five sons, to a distinguished Russian family. His mother was Princess Natasha Mestchersky and his father was Count Paul Ignatieff, a close advisor to Czar Nicholas II serving as his last Minister of Education. In 1918, the year after the Russian Revolution, Ignatieff was arrested and slated for execution but fled to Canada with his family after he was released by sympathetic guards.

George Ignatieff was educated at Canadian universities before obtaining a Rhodes Scholarship to study at Oxford. In 1940 he joined the Department of External Affairs and served at various posts including as Ambassador to Yugoslavia from 1956 to 1958, permanent representative to NATO (1963-1966), Canadian Ambassador to the United Nations (1966-1969) and president of the United Nations Security Council (1968-1969). In 1984 he was appointed disarmament ambassador by Prime Minister John Turner. He also served as chancellor of the University of Toronto from 1980 to 1986.

He was made a Companion of the Order of Canada in 1973.

His son, Michael Ignatieff, is a well known author, broadcaster and scholar who was elected to the Canadian parliament in 2006. :wink:

 

[Lotuslander]

Re: Our party has never regarded Quebec as the problem!

“Our party has never regarded Quebec as the problem,” he declared, “because we know Quebeckers have always been part of the solution.”

That's right Quebeckers are part of the solution! Hopefully they'll solve the problem once and for all and elect the Tories to a majority government!

 

[Socrates the Greek]

Re: Our party has never regarded Quebec as the problem!

“Our party has never regarded Quebec as the problem,” he declared, “because we know Quebeckers have always been part of the solution.”

That's right Quebeckers are part of the solution! Hopefully they'll solve the problem once and for all and elect the Tories to a majority government!

Wishful thinking Lotus Lander, the Tories went to bed with the separatists in Quebec simply because the bottom feeding is on for survival for the Tories. If they had not been so lovely dovey with the separatists in Quebec it would have been a very difficult road to cross for Harper in Quebec in order to convince some of the Quebec voter’s that the Tories disserve a chance. The truth is more than 50% of Quebecers; do not want the Tories as a permanent Government and the same number don’t want to separate from Canada.

 

[Lotuslander]

Socrates wrote:

Wishful thinking Lotus Lander, the Tories went to bed with the separatists in Quebec simply because the bottom feeding is on for survival for the Tories. If they had not been so lovely dovey with the separatists in Quebec it would have been a very difficult road to cross for Harper in Quebec in order to convince some of the Quebec voter’s that the Tories disserve a chance. The truth is more than 50% of Quebecers; do not want the Tories as a permanent Government and the same number don’t want to separate from Canada.

The Tories did not "shack up" with the Separatists during the election campaign, they merely demonstrated that the Tory vision of Canada is one where provinces have more autonomy and are not dictated to by an overbearing Ottawa. I think the Conservative success more than anything else demonstrates the desire of Quebeckers to belong to a federation where provinces are important players in policy development instead of being forced to implement unilateral decisions. A voice at UNESCO et cetera. There has long been a conservative streak within the Quebec population and so the Tory victories should come as no surprise (indeed, this same consetrvative streak is why we have provinces to begin with).

The problem with the Liberal party was that it was (is) trying to be everything to all people. Instead of proposing policies which are pragmatic it dangles carrots in front of every and any group willing to listen. Indeed it is still entrenched in a ideal of undilutable federalism, their way of federalism is the only way! I would point out to all those who wistfully imagine a centralised Canada where the provinces are but bit players, that the Liberals for all their prognostications have in some ways been the catalyst to the separatist danger we all face. Trudeau bearing perhaps primary responsibility for "repatriating" a constitution without the agreement of Quebec! C'est ridicule! Trudeau broke the convenant which had hithertofore bound English and French Canada together; the agreement that dramatic constitutional change could not occur without the agreement of Quebec or Ontario as had been the case ever since the Quebec Act which guaranteed Quebec her religion, laws and culture. Later Lord Durham's report put this constitutional arrangement into practice with dual majorities and co-premierships of the 1840s and 50's, the BNA act, the practice of English PMs always having strong Quebec lieutenants and many more examples.

Lord Durham's analysis that Canada comprises of two countires warring in the bosom of a single nation is still acurate to this day because we have developed the country around this model of two nations. Uniformity has never been in the intersts of Canada and asymetrical federalism has been around since our very beginning. Starting with the Royal Proclamation of 1763 which governed the relationship between the Crown and aboriginals. it should come then as no surprise that although a majority of Quebeckers do not want to separate they also want the feeling of being as Jean Lesage put it; "maitre chez nous", masters in their own house. In control of thier own destiny.

The Quebecois' overarching desire and belief is to maintian and protect their differences and culture, the so call French fact in North America. They will do whatever it takes to preserve themselves. If we as Anglophone Canadaians hemm thm in then it should come as no great shock that Quebeckers' reaction will transmit itself as a desire for separation.

 

[Socrates the Greek]

Socrates wrote:

Wishful thinking Lotus Lander, the Tories went to bed with the separatists in Quebec simply because the bottom feeding is on for survival for the Tories. If they had not been so lovely dovey with the separatists in Quebec it would have been a very difficult road to cross for Harper in Quebec in order to convince some of the Quebec voter’s that the Tories disserve a chance. The truth is more than 50% of Quebecers; do not want the Tories as a permanent Government and the same number don’t want to separate from Canada.

The Tories did not "shack up" with the Separatists during the election campaign, they merely demonstrated that the Tory vision of Canada is one where provinces have more autonomy and are not dictated to by an overbearing Ottawa. I think the Conservative success more than anything else demonstrates the desire of Quebeckers to belong to a federation where provinces are important players in policy development instead of being forced to implement unilateral decisions. A voice at UNESCO et cetera. There has long been a conservative streak within the Quebec population and so the Tory victories should come as no surprise (indeed, this same consetrvative streak is why we have provinces to begin with).

The problem with the Liberal party was that it was (is) trying to be everything to all people. Instead of proposing policies which are pragmatic it dangles carrots in front of every and any group willing to listen. Indeed it is still entrenched in a ideal of undilutable federalism, their way of federalism is the only way! I would point out to all those who wistfully imagine a centralised Canada where the provinces are but bit players, that the Liberals for all their prognostications have in some ways been the catalyst to the separatist danger we all face. Trudeau bearing perhaps primary responsibility for "repatriating" a constitution without the agreement of Quebec! C'est ridicule! Trudeau broke the convenant which had hithertofore bound English and French Canada together; the agreement that dramatic constitutional change could not occur without the agreement of Quebec or Ontario as had been the case ever since the Quebec Act which guaranteed Quebec her religion, laws and culture. Later Lord Durham's report put this constitutional arrangement into practice with dual majorities and co-premierships of the 1840s and 50's, the BNA act, the practice of English PMs always having strong Quebec lieutenants and many more examples.

Lord Durham's analysis that Canada comprises of two countires warring in the bosom of a single nation is still acurate to this day because we have developed the country around this model of two nations. Uniformity has never been in the intersts of Canada and asymetrical federalism has been around since our very beginning. Starting with the Royal Proclamation of 1763 which governed the relationship between the Crown and aboriginals. it should come then as no surprise that although a majority of Quebeckers do not want to separate they also want the feeling of being as Jean Lesage put it; "maitre chez nous", masters in their own house. In control of thier own destiny.

The Quebecois' overarching desire and belief is to maintian and protect their differences and culture, the so call French fact in North America. They will do whatever it takes to preserve themselves. If we as Anglophone Canadaians hemm thm in then it should come as no great shock that Quebeckers' reaction will transmit itself as a desire for separation.

Lotuslander, I admire your understanding of Canada’s political structure and need for a pragmatic political plan. The two main political parties Liberals and Conservatives here in Canada are far apart in the idea of freedom, all Conservative governments around the glob are leaning more into dictating freedom vs. the Liberals who understand freedom. History has countless examples of Conservative thinking that has caused civil disobedience. Liberal history around the world has had a much more graceful past. Michael Ignatieff may be the PM Canada needs. Secret agenda of the extreme right usually cause heavy regulation which causes profits to decline for business, and further cause them to move out of the country in order to insure safety for their business.
Sorry Lotuslander, although I respect your deep understanding of Canadian politics, I fear Conservative thinking.

 

[Semperfi_dani]

RE: Michael Ignatieff's v

I think that the reason Micheal Ignatieff is gaining steam is because he is the Trudeau type of personna that the Liberal Party is crying for after Chretian/Martin. He is the kind of liberal that would take the party back to the moderate left (instead of the moderate right that Martin took it to).

I think Liberals are tired of the whole Martin/Chretien warfare, and want an outsider that can claim was not part of any camp.

They want a star candidate that will galvanize the party from its pathetic state quickly...cuz the Cons are gaining steam in Canada..so whoever takes over will have to be strong from the get go.

I can't see any other candidate, save for Stephan Dion, that will rescue the Liberal party quickly and effectively nation wide.

 

[Socrates the Greek]

Re: RE: Michael Ignatieff's v

I think that the reason Micheal Ignatieff is gaining steam is because he is the Trudeau type of personna that the Liberal Party is crying for after Chretian/Martin. He is the kind of liberal that would take the party back to the moderate left (instead of the moderate right that Martin took it to).

I think Liberals are tired of the whole Martin/Chretien warfare, and want an outsider that can claim was not part of any camp.

They want a star candidate that will galvanize the party from its pathetic state quickly...cuz the Cons are gaining steam in Canada..so whoever takes over will have to be strong from the get go.

I can't see any other candidate, save for Stephan Dion, that will rescue the Liberal party quickly and effectively nation wide.

dani, great and true observation, Stephan Deon doesn’t have the same charisma as Michael Ignatieff. You are correct in saying that the Liberal party and Canada need a strong moderate left thinker. Ignatieff so far in his speeches have shown that he could be what we envision a moderate left thinker to be.

 

[Numure]

Re: RE: Michael Ignatieff's v

I think that the reason Micheal Ignatieff is gaining steam is because he is the Trudeau type of personna that the Liberal Party is crying for after Chretian/Martin. He is the kind of liberal that would take the party back to the moderate left (instead of the moderate right that Martin took it to).

I think Liberals are tired of the whole Martin/Chretien warfare, and want an outsider that can claim was not part of any camp.

They want a star candidate that will galvanize the party from its pathetic state quickly...cuz the Cons are gaining steam in Canada..so whoever takes over will have to be strong from the get go.

I can't see any other candidate, save for Stephan Dion, that will rescue the Liberal party quickly and effectively nation wide.

Stephen Dion will not bring the Liberals a majority government. HE is hated by most Québécers (For the clarity act more notably). Ignatieff is too much of a centrist. He won't provide you with a majority either. Just look at the NDP, the only reason they never made any break threws in Québec is because they are even more centrist then the liberals.

Most Québecers believe in Québec autonomy. Where we have differences (Seperatist or Federalist), is on how extended that autonomy should be.

 

[Jay]

“As I see it, the Liberal Party has three essential purposes: to protect and enhance our national unity, to preserve and defend our national sovereignty, to advance the cause of social justice,” said Ignatieff

So when do you think they will begin to act on these "essential purposes"?

 

[Socrates the Greek]

“As I see it, the Liberal Party has three essential purposes: to protect and enhance our national unity, to preserve and defend our national sovereignty, to advance the cause of social justice,” said Ignatieff

So when do you think they will begin to act on these "essential purposes"?

Good morning Jay, the Libs will start on these fundamental essentials that will give Canada a solid social footing as soon as the leader will be chosen. So far Ignatieff has shown structure and stability in his speeches. Canada needs charisma, Harper is a ham sandwich with out the ham, the man is boring his has no people skills, he hates the media, the media has just started suckling to Harper, and the Liberals will be the next Government of Canada.

 

[Vicious]

The two main political parties Liberals and Conservatives here in Canada are far apart in the idea of freedom, all Conservative governments around the glob are leaning more into dictating freedom vs. the Liberals who understand freedom. History has countless examples of Conservative thinking that has caused civil disobedience. Liberal history around the world has had a much more graceful past.

Keep shoveling Socrates I'm sure there's someone out there that won't notice the smell.

 

[FiveParadox]

Vicious, if you disagree with the post by Socrates the Greek, then discuss and parts of his or her post that you disagree with — don't just insult him. That doesn't accomplish anything, and only serves to discredit yourself and this thread.

I am not a supporter of Michael Ignatieff, M.P., the Member for Etobicoke Lakeshore and the Human Resources and Skills Associate Critic for Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. There are other candidates whom I would far prefer be chosen as the leader of the party; Mr. Ignatieff is a bit too far to the right for my taste.

 

[Socrates the Greek]

The two main political parties Liberals and Conservatives here in Canada are far apart in the idea of freedom, all Conservative governments around the glob are leaning more into dictating freedom vs. the Liberals who understand freedom. History has countless examples of Conservative thinking that has caused civil disobedience. Liberal history around the world has had a much more graceful past.

Keep shoveling Socrates I'm sure there's someone out there that won't notice the smell.

Hey Vicious, let me tell you the smell from the Tories is far greater than that of the Liberal smell.

 

[Jay]

“As I see it, the Liberal Party has three essential purposes: to protect and enhance our national unity, to preserve and defend our national sovereignty, to advance the cause of social justice,” said Ignatieff

So when do you think they will begin to act on these "essential purposes"?

Good morning Jay, the Libs will start on these fundamental essentials that will give Canada a solid social footing as soon as the leader will be chosen. So far Ignatieff has shown structure and stability in his speeches. Canada needs charisma, Harper is a ham sandwich with out the ham, the man is boring his has no people skills, he hates the media, the media has just started suckling to Harper, and the Liberals will be the next Government of Canada.

And good morning to you too.

As you suggest, they WILL start to do these things once they have a new leader cause they sure "aren't" doing it in the many years they were in office.....Interesting analogy about Harper being a "ham sandwich with out the ham" cause of this is the case then the Liberals are a ham sandwich with no ham, bread, butter...no knife to make it with, no board to make it on, no counter for the board...no fridge, no kitchen or house.....

You get the idea.

 

[Socrates the Greek]

Re: RE: Michael Ignatieff's version of Liberalism

Vicious, if you disagree with the post by Socrates the Greek, then discuss and parts of his or her post that you disagree with — don't just insult him. That doesn't accomplish anything, and only serves to discredit yourself and this thread.

I am not a supporter of Michael Ignatieff, M.P., the Member for Etobicoke Lakeshore and the Human Resources and Skills Associate Critic for Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. There are other candidates whom I would far prefer be chosen as the leader of the party; Mr. Ignatieff is a bit too far to the right for my taste.

Five Paradox, thanks you for the support, Ignatieff may have a better chance in uplifting the Liberals than other hopefuls running for the Liberal job, because he hasn’t been in the political arena that long and he has les enemies than Stephan Deon, or Bob Ray.

 

[Socrates the Greek]

“As I see it, the Liberal Party has three essential purposes: to protect and enhance our national unity, to preserve and defend our national sovereignty, to advance the cause of social justice,” said Ignatieff

So when do you think they will begin to act on these "essential purposes"?

Good morning Jay, the Libs will start on these fundamental essentials that will give Canada a solid social footing as soon as the leader will be chosen. So far Ignatieff has shown structure and stability in his speeches. Canada needs charisma, Harper is a ham sandwich with out the ham, the man is boring his has no people skills, he hates the media, the media has just started suckling to Harper, and the Liberals will be the next Government of Canada.

And good morning to you too.

As you suggest, they WILL start to do these things once they have a new leader cause they sure "aren't" doing it in the many years they were in office.....Interesting analogy about Harper being a "ham sandwich with out the ham" cause of this is the case then the Liberals are a ham sandwich with no ham, bread, butter...no knife to make it with, no board to make it on, no counter for the board...no fridge, no kitchen or house.....

You get the idea.

Hey Jay the analogy I used doesn’t include the liberals because they are not in power. Come on Jay Harper is a short term PM who thinks he is in for ever I know Harper is not here for ever or a full term. Just wait until the Afghani war turns for the worst and trust it will, and then you tell me how popular Harper will be then. Now we are all speculating on wishful thinking.

 

[Vicious]

Re: RE: Michael Ignatieff's version of Liberalism

Vicious, if you disagree with the post by Socrates the Greek, then discuss and parts of his or her post that you disagree with — don't just insult him. That doesn't accomplish anything, and only serves to discredit yourself and this thread.

I am not a supporter of Michael Ignatieff, M.P., the Member for Etobicoke Lakeshore and the Human Resources and Skills Associate Critic for Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. There are other candidates whom I would far prefer be chosen as the leader of the party; Mr. Ignatieff is a bit too far to the right for my taste.

You're far too sensitive. It wasn't an insult. It was a colourful way of taking issue with Socrates claim that the Liberals understand freedom and the conservatives do not. I let the 'secret agenda' comment be because we have already seen that the conservatives do what they say. Boring and bland they (Consevatives) may be but you certainly get what you signed up for.

 

[Semperfi_dani]

Boring and bland they (Consevatives) may be but you certainly get what you signed up for.

Are you sure about that. They have not exactly been forthcoming with the media. More news reports than not lately have ended with "the Such and such cabinet minister did not reply to our calls for comment".

So what do we know about them other than what the propaganda machine churns out???

 

[Socrates the Greek]

Re: RE: Michael Ignatieff's version of Liberalism

Vicious, if you disagree with the post by Socrates the Greek, then discuss and parts of his or her post that you disagree with — don't just insult him. That doesn't accomplish anything, and only serves to discredit yourself and this thread.

I am not a supporter of Michael Ignatieff, M.P., the Member for Etobicoke Lakeshore and the Human Resources and Skills Associate Critic for Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. There are other candidates whom I would far prefer be chosen as the leader of the party; Mr. Ignatieff is a bit too far to the right for my taste.

You're far too sensitive. It wasn't an insult. It was a colourful way of taking issue with Socrates claim that the Liberals understand freedom and the conservatives do not. I let the 'secret agenda' comment be because we have already seen that the conservatives do what they say. Boring and bland they (Consevatives) may be but you certainly get what you signed up for.

Vicious, the Conservatives have a record that proves that they do not give you what you signed up for. Have you forgotten the rope around the Conservative doll PM's neck Lien Brain Mulroney. Have you conveniently forgot the horrible exit the Tories got back then when the Tories almost got wiped out of the Canadian political map? Come on Jay what smell are you talking about. The Tory smell is about to come back in Canada, and the fear is, should the Tories get a majority, the Canadian voter will be running like a pig on the way to the slaughter house. Jay freedom is good, dictatorship shucks.

 

[Vicious]

Re: RE: Michael Ignatieff's version of Liberalism

Boring and bland they (Consevatives) may be but you certainly get what you signed up for.

Are you sure about that. They have not exactly been forthcoming with the media. More news reports than not lately have ended with "the Such and such cabinet minister did not reply to our calls for comment".

So what do we know about them other than what the propaganda machine churns out???

The media has a job to do. It's not the governments job to do it for them. The liberals used the media to get out their message to put their spin on things. After years of the media parroting what the liberals told them about two-tiered health care and secret agendas as if it were the truth you expect the Conservatives to make like that never happened? There used to be a time when journalists reported the facts, now they consider themselves opinion-makers.

So far the conservatives campaigned on a small number of issues, made their position known on those issues and have spent the last few months working towards delivering on their promises. Am I impressed? Not really. Only to the extent that no one in the last 15 years has bothered to deliver on their promises.