the dumbing down of politics

--------------------

is there room in politics for nuanced thought instead of drive-by smears and mere buzzwords and rhetoric? some days i seriously question whether it's worth volunteering for this election campaign, knowing that i'm doing nothing to change the dumbed-down nature of our political process... despite demands for a "more intelligent debate" -- not only from the electorate, but from Paul Martin himself (at the last leaders' debate in one of his more infamous "pot calling the kettle black" moments) -- there doesn't seem to be as much appetite for it as one would think...

policy-making on the fly has been accepted as sine qua non to electioneering, yet what we really need is long-term vision and big-picture planning -- except that no one seems to have the patience for anything that can't be captured in a 30-second soundbite... there's no real debate... if you are a member of a political party, you vote along party lines, and there's little (if any) communication across party lines... moreover, the name of the game is attrition, not co-operation... somehow, after weeks of slagging each other and dragging each other's names through the mud, we expect our politicians to work together in Parliament after this election is over...

at an all-candidates' meeting in the Toronto-Centre riding, Chris Tindal of the Green Party cheekily remarked in his closing speech that "30-second responses and 2-minute speeches make it seem that solutions are just that simple"... to that i would add: it's not just solutions that are made simple -- it's also the electorate... once again, vive la démocratie insoutenable!

Whatever they do to Liberals across the country, voters in Etobicoke - Lakeshore should rally to Michael Ignatieff. The journalist, author and professor is needed in the national capital for more textured, if not less important reasons. First, there is urgency in attracting back to politics thoughtful people who don't need the job, pension or spotlight. Then, there is the silence in the argument over the future of federalism that only a voice that is passionate and reasoned can break.

Ignatieff is not a fully formed saviour surfacing on the political scene. His nomination became news for all the wrong reasons. Years of nuanced writing on ethnicity got bent out of shape while his support for the Iraq war remains awkward to explain. And even for an academic who spends so much time in the streets below the ivory tower, the rough introduction to retail politics orchestrated by the Prime Minister's operatives left campaign damage and personal bruises.

Nearly lost in all that noise is a nagging question. Has democracy become so brutish that it's now more welcoming to those who in doing little have done nothing to offend rather than those who rub raw emotions by deconstructing complex public policies? Ignatieff's ability to hold one of the party's safest seats is put at modest risk by a long, easily revisited record of musing openly about things that matter.

It's not certain Ignatieff has the miracle solution or the political skills for its application. What he does offer is an articulate alternative to the helter-skelter federalism Martin is rapidly advancing but not revealing. Depending on this election's outcome, Liberals will confront those options sooner or later. Either in a leadership or referendum, a party so fixated on power that it's neglecting nation-building responsibilities must make choices.

Charged moments are not the best time for considered decisions. But the rebirth of Quebec separatism and the fundamentalist Conservative reading of a [dated] Constitution means Canada's best hope may rest with Liberals who must decide who they are and what they represent in a time frame compressed from years to months. Ignatieff brings more to the ruling party than a missing unity perspective. His candour on the failing promise of immigration and the challenges of constructing a common future from heterogeneous histories rise far above the current low babble.

Those are still just bonuses. Apart from raising Parliament's collective IQ, Ignatieff would add an essential voice to the conversation Canada must have with itself. Experience reminds that there is more to winning elections and leadership contests than good ideas. In politics, reach and grasp are separated by the gritty logistics of self-interest, organization and timing.

Of the three, Ignatieff is only rich in the third. A Liberal party now synonymous with pragmatism is overdue for a careful recalibration of its purpose. If what must follow this election is lost on Etobicoke-Lakeshore voters, Ignatieff won't be a central part of that necessary renewal. His loss would be our loss and that would be a shame.

-- James Travers, Toronto Star (2006/01/03)

--------------------