Monday, March 30, 2009

My Ratings of Recent Leaders of the Liberal Party of Canada

I will begin with Pierre Trudeau. In my opinion he was the best Liberal leader of the twentieth century. He gave international visibility to Canada and his reforms on immigration, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and human rights is an extraordinary legacy which will be cherished for decades to come.

Then there was John Turner. The hopes were high for him, he had an image and reputation as Minister of Finance. However, as leader he was lacklustre and he paid a heavy price at the polls.

After that was Jean Chrétien. He was a relatively underestimated leader, but he showed extraordinary political skills and instinct. He pretty well demolished the Progressive Conservatives in 1993. I had the opportunity to listen to Chrétien at a small forum. I found him to be very bright, humorous, and down to earth. He connected well with the needs of ordinary Canadians and overall was an extraordinary Prime Minister. Also, it is important to remember that before his time as Prime Minister, during his tenure as a Cabinet Minister in the Trudeau government, Chrétien played a key role in the negotiations that led to the Charter of Rights.

After Chrétien came Paul Martin. Again, there were high expectation - Martin did exceptionally well as Finance Minister. His intentions were good but as leader he faltered and caused serious divisions in the party. This was especially the case as he tried to get even with the Chrétien Liberals. This was a major force which, in the end, brought him down.

Then there was Stéphane Dion who unexpectedly won the 2006 Liberal leadership race. Dion's heart was in the right place, he is sincere, principled, and very intelligent. Unfortunately though, he was not a great communicator, especially with regards to the English language. As well, he did not have full support of his caucus and knives were constantly out for him.

Now comes Michael Ignatieff. Initially, I thought he had potential and that he would do well as leader given his background and international experience. But he turned out to be more an American conservative than a Canadian Liberal. Ignatieff's hawkish positions on Afghanistan and Iraq are distressing. When he was first running for the leadership, he did take the position that Israel's bombing of Lebanon was excessive. However, the pro-Israel lobby prevailed on him and since then his positions have been very distressful.

Despite Israel's murder and mayhem in Gaza from December 2008 to January 2009, Ignatieff gave even stronger support to them than did Harper and Bush. Ignatieff sounds like someone who wants to be Prime Minister at any cost. Also, he does not quite understand the grassroots in Canada.

One more thing, not entirely related, that I would like to add. I am not sure why the blogger Anxious Liberal was dropped from Liberals Online. I read his post on Ignatieff. It is a strong opinion, but primarily he calls the actions in question "unethical" and not "illegal." For this reason, I do not see it to be libellous. Unfortunately, this word libellous has been used too casually I find.

It would be greatly appreciated if James Curran will give some explanation because this particular aggregate is about tolerance of diverse opinions as long as they are not libellous. After all, tolerance of diversity was the primary reason for the foundation of this aggregate in the first place.

Recommend this post

5 comments:

  1. Hi LeDaro,

    I suggest you read the comments in Anxious Liberal's later post about being banned from Libs Online. James has commented there a lot as has Scott Tribe of Prog Blogs. Explaining what the problem was. The TITLE of the post accused Ignatieff of money laundering. Anyway, read the comments to be able to get a clearer understanding. Hope this helps. :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. I, too, think Trudeau was our best Lib PM as was Chretien!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Penlan, thank you.

    I read all those comments. Anxious Liberal made very clear that he used the word “money laundering” in a metaphorical way as someone saying “after next election Harper will be slaughtered”. It does not mean that he will be physically slaughtered – meaning that politically he will be done. I think that is good enough explanation. Moreover, Liberal Party is no position to sue any blogger as it has enough problems.

    After Anxious Liberal’s explanation I think LibsOnLine should reconsider their decision. I do not know Anxious Liberal at all and I am speaking on a matter of principle.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous11:26 am

    It's funny how James Curran give ONE definition of laundering when another one is:
    • alter (information) to make it appear more acceptable : we began to notice attempts to launder the data retrospectively.

    It sure does sound like the Liberals are laundering surplus money and encouraging over-donations...
    As for 1anxious he did place the words UNETHICAL...


    I'd place Martin higher, mostly because he was a better-than-average finance minister. I realize that it does not count as PM. I don't agree with all that he did but....

    ReplyDelete
  5. CWTF,
    I agree with you. Anxious Liberal made certain statements which could be misconstrued. He provided fair explanation and it should be let go. Removing him from LibsOnline is overkill.

    Paul Martin? I think he was a great Finance Minister and it is because of him that our financial system is much better today than rest of the western world and definitely US. However as a Liberal leader he floundered. That is why word “ditherer” stuck to him. I was sorry to see him go but that is the way dust settles when you lose.

    ReplyDelete