Kenney & Co. Are Iggy's Best Political Allies

I read this and I was struck that while Kenney quotes things that I have or could have said myself in the past, my reaction was to feel a rare bout of sympathy for Iggy and revulsion for Kenney & Co., not necessarily in that order. Somewhere the a(im)moral but occasionally insightful Paul Wells wrote something along the lines that both Iggy & Harper would want to spend the next campaign talking about the other guy and not themselves, since the more Canadians know and think about them, the less they like them. Anyone who reads my occasional posts knows my views on Iggy, yet when I read or hear the Kenneys, Poilievres (no accent grave? hmm), Bairds etc. attack him, even I can't help feel myself more sympathetic to him than to them, and were their attacks not partisan, I agree with their basic criticism of Iggy's character.

Now my view that Cons' mesquinerie are Liberals' best friend is not novel (Diefenbaker himself recognised the problem conservative anger at society's failings posed for their popularity) and it may well be wrong. Going door to door last campaign, reading the polls and reflecting on the results makes one understand just how effective some negative campaigning can be for the Cons in bringing over that crucial sliver of the Canadian electorate they need to win (and screw the heightened distaste of the other 55-65%, in their view). I think that while it can be a fruitful short-term strategy, it carries within it the seeds of its own long-term annihilation, as eventually people become just so sickened it's 1993 all over again. But from their point of view, knocking off Martin and 11 years of Liberal rule and the exigencies of minority parliaments and the difficulties of growing their support given their base, views and attitudes, perhaps mean that they felt the short-term rewards were worth the long-term risks and that it's the only option they feel is open to them. If there is an election, and I think Iggy will be making Pearson's mistake of 1958 if there is, it will allow, as I predicted (though wrong on timing), the Cons to run on the one issue that might apparently mobilise sufficient numbers of my fellow under-educated Canadians to bring about a majority government, namely the whole anti-democratic separatist-socialist coalition falsehood (given validation by Iggy himself, of course, in yet another of his seemingly endless history of misjudgements).

I felt that Stéphane Dion should have remained as leader for many reasons. One was that like Rob Silver and others, I didn't see how the basic matrix of the party could be magically rewoven through a simple change of leadership. But I also felt and continue to believe, that Dion had the opposite problem to the Cons, Harper & Iggy, that he can be hard to like at first, but the more you know him, the better you like him. That was one crucial difference between the 2006 leadership race and the general election. Liberals know and like Dion, knew and liked him enough to make leader ahead of 7-10 other notables (10 if you include dropouts). Canadians didn't and could easily be turned against him. But it's intriguing that the most attentive political commentators, left, right and centre, also tended to like Dion, since they knew him well, having covered him for years, whether or not they agreed with him (ex: Ivison's scotch admiration for a fellow hardhead). Few of them, even (especially?) those who agree with him, like Harper, or have grown to like him more. More the reverse. Same seems to be happening with Iggy.

Dion could easily have become a Doer-McGuinty-Dexter type, a figure of fun at first whose character and public service idealism leads him to gain the respect and affection of the general public, so after losing an election or two, leads his party to multiple victories. Given the nature of the post-Chrétien/Martin LPC, 'twas not to be, sadly.

But it is worth noting that today, upon reading Kenney's slithering, one of the Liberal bloggers most consistent and vocal in his criticism of Iggy, actually found himself wondering whether there wasn't something to be said for the man after all, in the context of the despicable Cons. If I can be made to feel this way, how many other Canadians might? The problem of course is that Iggy is no Dion and will only become increasingly unpopular the better people get to know him. So whereas if Dion had remained leader he might have profited from such revulsion as other "good chaps" have, the Doers, Dexters, McGuintys, etc., Iggy won't, I don't think. But you never know. The media elite in QC love Iggy as they see him as a vehicle for their agenda, and will give him a push, the same way they were determined to destroy Dion. Iggy & Liberal HQ may outcampaign the Cons. But judging from what we've seen of Iggy's campaign skills (2006 leadership with elites solidly behind him) and HQ's current abilities (scheduling, going dark for a month, polyanna, etc.), it seems unlikely.

There, something relatively nice about Iggy. Happy? That's my quota for the month/year/decade/century/millenium, or until the next slithering Con opens his big fat shitty gob.