Andrew Potter on Harper and Ignatieff's tenuous loyalty to Canada - Macleans.ca
 

Andrew Potter on Harper and Ignatieff’s tenuous loyalty to Canada

Did either leader go to Ottawa for Canadians?


 

Shot and edited by Tom Henheffer
Produced by Claire Ward


 
Filed under:

Andrew Potter on Harper and Ignatieff’s tenuous loyalty to Canada

  1. Here Andrew tells the truth about the views he used to write the piece about this 'issue'. He is upset that these leaders didn't go to Ottawa for 'him'. While it is obvious that Ignatieff is there for only self serving reasons, Potters attempt to paint Harper with the same brush is weak at best.
    I think we can all agree that Peter C. Newman has some good connections in the Liberal party. In the Jan 31, 2011 issue of Maclean's he wrote a piece about Keith Davey, who Newman claims invented the modern Liberal party. He basically writes of how Keith heard Ignatieff as a guest speaker, and told Rocco Rossi that 'that guy should be prime minister'. Rocci later told it to Ian Davey (Keith's son, who later became Iggy's chief of staff). Ian told it to Alf App, a liberal party bigwig. Ian to Alf "So I go, 'Michael Ignatieff'!?" "He goes, 'I like it.' "That's great. What do we do? He's at Harvard and doesn't know who we are.' "As only Alfred would do, he picks up the phone and calls him, gets through, we arrange to meet, and the rest is history." This is more than 'rootless cosmopolitanism' – it is totally self serving.
    To try and say that Harper commenting on what he thought was wrong with Canada, and spending his whole life trying to correct that, is 'running down Canada' is obviously not true. He did it because Canada was very important to him.
    All this train of thought proves is that in Potters mind, if you don't think like Potter does, and have the same values, you don't care about Canada. I understand that people don't agree with Harper, but to try to paint him as not caring about Canada is weak at best, malicious at worst.

  2. Here Andrew tells the truth about the views he used to write the piece about this 'issue'. He is upset that these leaders didn't go to Ottawa for 'him'. While it is obvious that Ignatieff is there for only self serving reasons, Potters attempt to paint Harper with the same brush is weak at best.
    I think we can all agree that Peter C. Newman has some good connections in the Liberal party. In the Jan 31, 2011 issue of Maclean's he wrote a piece about Keith Davey, who Newman claims invented the modern Liberal party. He basically writes of how Keith heard Ignatieff as a guest speaker, and told Rocco Rossi that 'that guy should be prime minister'. Rocci later told it to Ian Davey (Keith's son, who later became Iggy's chief of staff). Ian told it to Alf App, a liberal party bigwig. Ian to Alf "So I go, 'Michael Ignatieff'!?" "He goes, 'I like it.' "That's great. What do we do? He's at Harvard and doesn't know who we are.' "As only Alfred would do, he picks up the phone and calls him, gets through, we arrange to meet, and the rest is history." This is more than 'rootless cosmopolitanism' – it is totally self serving.
    To try and say that Harper commenting on what he thought was wrong with Canada, and spending his whole life trying to correct that, is 'running down Canada' is obviously not true. He did it because Canada was very important to him.
    All this train of thought proves is that in Potters mind, if you don't think like Potter does, and have the same values, you don't care about Canada. I understand that people don't agree with Harper, but to try to paint him as not caring about Canada is weak at best, malicious at worst.

    • I am wondering out loud, "those years Michael Ignatieff was away from Canada did he ever pay income tax to Canada"
      Is his wife Canadian? Will they be collecting Canada pension and old age security from Canada? Seems like a sweet deal to me….one day a historian/instructor/diplomat/author, next day leader of a Canadian political party, who we are paying for.

  3. Gee Andrew, by now you should know that Harper is so loyal to Canada he is willing to spend years slowly pushing us to the right. If we go any further left, we will end up as a welfare state.

    ———
    Former colleagues of Harper say his long-term goals are to kill the widely entrenched notion that the Liberals — the party of MacKenzie King, Lester Pearson and Pierre Trudeau — are the natural party of government in Canada, and to redefine what it means to be Canadian.

    "He's trying to dampen the idea that the Liberal Party is the party of Canada, that they invented the flag. You can be a patriotic Canadian and not be a Liberal; you can actually be a Conservative. That's a lasting contribution, and that is a change," says Ian Brodie, Harper's chief of staff from 2006 to 2008.

    Gerry Nicholls, who worked under Harper at a conservative think tank, says "His main goal, his obsession, is to destroy the Liberal Party."
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/10/ap/cana

  4. So you are saying that Harper is motivated only by hatred. That I believe.

  5. So you are saying that Harper is motivated only by hatred. That I believe.

  6. This is more than 'rootless cosmopolitanism' – it is totally self serving.

    That's just silly. In that sense everyone is self serving. How on earth do you separate out self serving ambition from a desire to make a difference? You make the mistake of thinking that motive can be defined in only the most simplistic terms. Mulroney was in it for himself when he challenged Clark for leadership of his party. It was opportunism, but it was no doubt also because he felt he could do a better job and presumably had some idea how to go about it – or if he didn't he very quickly thought of something. You're positing the concept of pure motive – it's simply not human.

  7. This is more than 'rootless cosmopolitanism' – it is totally self serving.

    That's just silly. In that sense everyone is self serving. How on earth do you separate out self serving ambition from a desire to make a difference? You make the mistake of thinking that motive can be defined in only the most simplistic terms. Mulroney was in it for himself when he challenged Clark for leadership of his party. It was opportunism, but it was no doubt also because he felt he could do a better job and presumably had some idea how to go about it – or if he didn't he very quickly thought of something. You're positing the concept of pure motive – it's simply not human.

  8. "To try and say that Harper commenting on what he thought was wrong with Canada, and spending his whole life trying to correct that, is 'running down Canada' is obviously not true. He did it because Canada was very important to him."

    But it's the way he commented about Canada. And he did run the country down in front of foreign audiences.

    I agree that this part of AP's arguement is weaker. Harper for instance has spent most of his adult life thinking about how the country should be run – Ignatieff hasn't – advantage Harper. Potter's best point for me is that Harper seems not to have engaged at all in what Canadians have already shown they want the country to be like. He hasn't moved an inch that way. He has a vision and he's bound and determined to get Canadians to like that vision whether they will or not. I think it's remarkable to what degree SH resembles a man he professes to despise[ hell even his tactics are similar] – obviously not in his essential philosophy, but arguably in his determination to see his vision rammed through.

  9. "To try and say that Harper commenting on what he thought was wrong with Canada, and spending his whole life trying to correct that, is 'running down Canada' is obviously not true. He did it because Canada was very important to him."

    But it's the way he commented about Canada. And he did run the country down in front of foreign audiences.

    I agree that this part of AP's arguement is weaker. Harper for instance has spent most of his adult life thinking about how the country should be run – Ignatieff hasn't – advantage Harper. Potter's best point for me is that Harper seems not to have engaged at all in what Canadians have already shown they want the country to be like. He hasn't moved an inch that way. He has a vision and he's bound and determined to get Canadians to like that vision whether they will or not. I think it's remarkable to what degree SH resembles a man he professes to despise[ hell even his tactics are similar] – obviously not in his essential philosophy, but arguably in his determination to see his vision rammed through.

    • I haven't read every speech that Harper gave in front of foreign audiences, but from all the quotes that I have read, he wasn't 'running us down'. Again, commenting on what we are doing wrong it okay. Trying to fix it is even better.
      If we aren't allowed to say what is wrong with Canada, how can we fix it?

      Which man are you referring to?

      • I've read that speech and the contempt Harper felt towards Canada and Canadians was obvious. He's just a wannabe American.

        • "I'm an American" – Michael Ignatieff.

          • "America is my country" – Michael Ignatieff

    • Harper is a Reliance man, turned to the Concervative, he is not a true conservitative.He is only interested in kissing Quebec to get votes. Not concerned with telling the people of Canada who pays his Salary what the truth is. Namely he wanted a elected Senate, what does he do put some of his friends in there. A complete turnaround. I just do not trust him at all .God help Canada if he gets a majority he will sell us dowen the drrain.

  10. There's a name for the logical fallacy that Potter is employing here: false equivalence.

  11. There's a name for the logical fallacy that Potter is employing here: false equivalence.

    • I'd go one further and call in obnoxious equivalency. "Look at me! I'm such an awesome wordsmith I can take two completely different entities and argue that they are the same! Aren't I the cat's ass?" It's the default kneejerk reaction of leftists on any given issue.

      Closely related to this is wholly misunderstood concept of "hipocrysy", i.e. pointing to two completely different entities, noting differences, and, ideally with ubersmug "irony", noting that they are in fact different.

      We're basically doomed. Der dundersprachen is mainstreamed.

  12. Harper respects Canada and it's history so much he wants to change into a model of another country. Is that truly loving Canada? As for Iggie, I am not a huge fan of his but I expect he loves Canada more for what it is then how it should be like another country.

  13. Harper respects Canada and it's history so much he wants to change into a model of another country. Is that truly loving Canada? As for Iggie, I am not a huge fan of his but I expect he loves Canada more for what it is then how it should be like another country.

    • A look at his platform reveals that he loves Canada circa 1978, basically when he left. So no, he doesn't love it for what it is.

  14. "…the idea that the Liberal Party is the party of Canada, that they invented the flag."

    Its comical that one of the few Ignatieff quotes the Tories use in their attack ads, that aren't out of context, are the disparaging remarks Ignatieff made regarding the flag.

  15. "…the idea that the Liberal Party is the party of Canada, that they invented the flag."

    Its comical that one of the few Ignatieff quotes the Tories use in their attack ads, that aren't out of context, are the disparaging remarks Ignatieff made regarding the flag.

  16. I haven't read every speech that Harper gave in front of foreign audiences, but from all the quotes that I have read, he wasn't 'running us down'. Again, commenting on what we are doing wrong it okay. Trying to fix it is even better.
    If we aren't allowed to say what is wrong with Canada, how can we fix it?

    Which man are you referring to?

  17. I've read that speech and the contempt Harper felt towards Canada and Canadians was obvious. He's just a wannabe American.

  18. A perfect example of "obnoxious equivilency": Harper equals Iggy, living abroad for 30 years equals one (1) speech referring to Canada as second tier socialist state, everything equals everything, lets all spoon and take our soma zzzzzzz.

    Rootless cosmpopolitanism was an unfortunate choice of words with extreme historical connotations that didn't belong in this vid.

    Blech. The default reaction of leftists these days when any matter or point is raised is "yabbut, whaddabout this kinda sorta similar thing over here?"

  19. A perfect example of "obnoxious equivilency": Harper equals Iggy, living abroad for 30 years equals one (1) speech referring to Canada as second tier socialist state, everything equals everything, lets all spoon and take our soma zzzzzzz.

    Rootless cosmpopolitanism was an unfortunate choice of words with extreme historical connotations that didn't belong in this vid.

    Blech. The default reaction of leftists these days when any matter or point is raised is "yabbut, whaddabout this kinda sorta similar thing over here?"

  20. I'd go one further and call in obnoxious equivalency. "Look at me! I'm such an awesome wordsmith I can take two completely different entities and argue that they are the same! Aren't I the cat's ass?" It's the default kneejerk reaction of leftists on any given issue.

    Closely related to this is wholly misunderstood concept of "hipocrysy", i.e. pointing to two completely different entities, noting differences, and, ideally with ubersmug "irony", noting that they are in fact different.

    We're basically doomed. Der dundersprachen is mainstreamed.

  21. "I'm an American" – Michael Ignatieff.

  22. I am wondering out loud, "those years Michael Ignatieff was away from Canada did he ever pay income tax to Canada"
    Is his wife Canadian? Will they be collecting Canada pension and old age security from Canada? Seems like a sweet deal to me….one day a historian/instructor/diplomat/author, next day leader of a Canadian political party, who we are paying for.

  23. Harper is a Reliance man, turned to the Concervative, he is not a true conservitative.He is only interested in kissing Quebec to get votes. Not concerned with telling the people of Canada who pays his Salary what the truth is. Namely he wanted a elected Senate, what does he do put some of his friends in there. A complete turnaround. I just do not trust him at all .God help Canada if he gets a majority he will sell us dowen the drrain.

  24. Andrew Potter is dead wrong when he describes Michael Ignatieff as not having shown much interest in or loyalty to Canada (April 16, 2011). In his book “BLOOD & BELONGING – Journey into the New Nationalism” published in 1993 by Penquin Books, Ignatieff wrote of his exploration through Croatia-Serbia, Germany, Ukraine, Kurdistan, Northern Island and Quebec in search of an understanding of nationalist strife.

    An international bestseller, the book won the Montador Award for best Canadian book on Social Issues. It was described as an “illuminating empathetic journey” in the Ottawa Citizen, “a valuable, thought-provoking book” by Calgary Herald, “timely….absorbing” in the Edmonton Journal and “None of us should ignore this book, its message is too important, too disturbing” by Times Educational Supplement (London).

    As a native Quebecer who moved to Ontario in the early 1980s I was particularly interested in whether he got it right about the nationalist turmoil which precipitated an exodus of “anglophones” and “allophones.” He did — with notable understanding and compassion for every side including the northern Crees — and often referred to himself as a Quebecer and a Canadian. (His grandparents had a farm in the Eastern Townships where he spent summers.)

    Since my ancestors were from Ukraine I was also interested in his pilgrimage to that country where he visited what was once his great grandfather's estate. His ability to combine a journalistic eye with a cosmopolitan and humanistic sensibility made vivid a country suffering its own kind of turmoil. I was moved by his description of life in Ukraine and its political struggle toward a democracy.

    Ignatieff's writing is evocative and philosophical and a far cry from the derogatory and condescending manner one expects after being bombarded by the disgusting attack ads questioning his connection to Canada. What is particularly galling is that while he was elucidating the pros and cons of the various types of nationalism, here and abroad, Harper was calculating how to change Canada so drastically we would not recognize it beginning with his infamous proposition of setting up a firewall around Alberta.

  25. Andrew Potter is dead wrong when he describes Michael Ignatieff as not having shown much interest in or loyalty to Canada (April 16, 2011). In his book “BLOOD & BELONGING – Journey into the New Nationalism” published in 1993 by Penquin Books, Ignatieff wrote of his exploration through Croatia-Serbia, Germany, Ukraine, Kurdistan, Northern Island and Quebec in search of an understanding of nationalist strife.

    An international bestseller, the book won the Montador Award for best Canadian book on Social Issues. It was described as an “illuminating empathetic journey” in the Ottawa Citizen, “a valuable, thought-provoking book” by Calgary Herald, “timely….absorbing” in the Edmonton Journal and “None of us should ignore this book, its message is too important, too disturbing” by Times Educational Supplement (London).

    As a native Quebecer who moved to Ontario in the early 1980s I was particularly interested in whether he got it right about the nationalist turmoil which precipitated an exodus of “anglophones” and “allophones.” He did — with notable understanding and compassion for every side including the northern Crees — and often referred to himself as a Quebecer and a Canadian. (His grandparents had a farm in the Eastern Townships where he spent summers.)

    Since my ancestors were from Ukraine I was also interested in his pilgrimage to that country where he visited what was once his great grandfather%E2%80%99s estate. His ability to combine a journalistic eye with a cosmopolitan and humanistic sensibility made vivid a country suffering its own kind of turmoil. I was moved by his description of life in Ukraine and its political struggle toward a democracy.

    Ignatieff%E2%80%99s writing is evocative and philosophical and a far cry from the derogatory and condescending manner one expects after being bombarded by the disgusting attack ads questioning his connection to Canada. What is particularly galling is that while he was elucidating the pros and cons of the various types of nationalism, here and abroad, Harper was calculating how to change Canada so drastically we would not recognize it beginning with his infamous proposition of setting up a firewall around Alberta.

  26. Andrew Potter is dead wrong when he describes Michael Ignatieff as not having shown much interest in or loyalty to Canada (April 16, 2011). In his book “BLOOD & BELONGING – Journey into the New Nationalism” published in 1993 by Penquin Books, Ignatieff wrote of his exploration through Croatia-Serbia, Germany, Ukraine, Kurdistan, Northern Island and Quebec in search of an understanding of nationalist strife.

    An international bestseller, the book won the Montador Award for best Canadian book on Social Issues. It was described as an “illuminating empathetic journey” in the Ottawa Citizen, “a valuable, thought-provoking book” by Calgary Herald, “timely….absorbing” in the Edmonton Journal and “None of us should ignore this book, its message is too important, too disturbing” by Times Educational Supplement (London).

    As a native Quebecer who moved to Ontario in the early 1980s I was particularly interested in whether he got it right about the nationalist turmoil which precipitated an exodus of “anglophones” and “allophones.” He did — with notable understanding and compassion for every side including the northern Crees — and often referred to himself as a Quebecer and a Canadian. (His grandparents had a farm in the Eastern Townships where he spent summers.)

    Since my ancestors were from Ukraine I was also interested in his pilgrimage to that country where he visited what was once his great grandfather's estate. His ability to combine a journalistic eye with a cosmopolitan and humanistic sensibility made vivid a country suffering its own kind of turmoil. I was moved by his description of life in Ukraine and its political struggle toward a democracy.

    Ignatieff's writing is evocative and philosophical and a far cry from the derogatory and condescending manner one expects after being bombarded by the disgusting attack ads questioning his connection to Canada. What is particularly galling is that while he was elucidating the pros and cons of the various types of nationalism, here and abroad, Harper was calculating how to change Canada so drastically we would not recognize it beginning with his infamous proposition of setting up a firewall around Alberta.

    • I think that Canadians are most concerned about the fact that Ignatieff had little to nothing to say on:
      -the implementation of the Charter
      -NAFTA
      -Creation of the GST
      -Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords
      -Both referendums, especially the one that almost succeeded.

      These aren't insignificant things, they're massive pieces of what drives the Canadian economy, identity and vision for the future. And Michael Ignatieff was off somewhere else.

  27. Good points but there is a difference between not liking something and not caring. Harper expressed dislike for Canada, Ignatieff just doesn't care. At least Harper cares enough to try and change things

  28. Good points but there is a difference between not liking something and not caring. Harper expressed dislike for Canada, Ignatieff just doesn't care. At least Harper cares enough to try and change things

  29. "America is my country" – Michael Ignatieff

  30. A look at his platform reveals that he loves Canada circa 1978, basically when he left. So no, he doesn't love it for what it is.

  31. I think that Canadians are most concerned about the fact that Ignatieff had little to nothing to say on:
    -the implementation of the Charter
    -NAFTA
    -Creation of the GST
    -Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords
    -Both referendums, especially the one that almost succeeded.

    These aren't insignificant things, they're massive pieces of what drives the Canadian economy, identity and vision for the future. And Michael Ignatieff was off somewhere else.