Hot on the heels of the non-news that the Liberal Party’s national executive would rule soon that interim leader Bob Rae is “allowed” to run for the permanent leadership (he could anyway, but whatever), social media, the blogosphere, and the mainstream media are full of reports suggesting that Rae may already have a team in place.
Consider this widely noted paragraph in Joan Bryden’s Canadian Press piece:
There are very few Liberals who believe Rae won’t run. Indeed, there have been signs that his campaign is already in gear, with at least one organizer, Toronto MP Jim Karygiannis signing up supporters among ethnic communities across the country.
Karygiannis didn’t exactly ix-nay the suggestion, given that he tweeted a link three hours later and even highlighted the bit about himself:
Bob Rae To Decide On Liberal Leadership – The Huffington Post huff.to/Ma6Qt3with 1 organizer, MP Jim Karygiannis, signing up … — jimkarygiannis (@jimkarygiannis) June 6, 2012
Oh really? So that would be socially conservative, pro-life, anti-gay marriage Jim Karygiannis. I see. And ethnic mobilization? Apparently the LPC has mastered the art of time travel because it’s 1988 all over again.
Well, I did wonder what Karygiannis was up to at the recent LPC (Ontario) AGM when I kept seeing him talking in hushed tones to small groups. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, of course, but he blocked the Sheraton escalators a few times and boy, was it ever awkward.
[I also wondered what Justin Trudeau was doing there, besides guarding jars of pennies for Katimavik. My speculation is meaningless, however, because Justin isn’t running. Right?]
But this is all just rumour and conjecture.
What perturbs me about this news item is, first, that Rae would apparently allow someone on his leadership team with socially conservative views. Karygiannis ultimately supported Rae in 2006 but being an organizer for a leadership candidate is a bigger deal.
My second beef is the suggestion that – as most of us assumed – Rae spent his time as interim leader planning a run, contrary to his protestations. We haven’t even started the race yet and there are MPs organizing in some sort of obvious capacity?
My third concern is the association with anti-abortion politics, ethnic mobilization, or indeed, MPs elected during the Turner era. This does not suggest a party modernizing or one that can credibly stand as an agent of change. I mean, seriously, what’s next, resurrecting John Nunziata from the dead?
I’m not elderly but I am almost forty, and I scratch my head at the notion that the future of Liberal politics rests on the shoulders of people first elected before I hit puberty. The next LPC leader needs the Young Liberals onside, and can a candidate appeal to them if his team represents an era before any Young Liberal was even born?
As an aside, my own assessment as to why Rae so quickly backed away from a leadership race in 2008 was the knowledge that Michael Ignatieff hadn’t really stopped campaigning after losing the 2006 race to Stéphane Dion. It was already too late for Rae before Dion resigned.
Bob Rae is a smart man and, frankly, this would have been a good strategy to learn from and to emulate with one caveat: he shouldn’t have accepted the role of interim leader, because now many assume his plan was to become indispensable and knock out potential contenders by presenting his leadership as a faît accompli.
I can’t stress what a letdown the 2009 convention was because of Ignatieff’s coronation; we needed a race, not to have every once else knee-capped and be forced to make a choice between something and nothing. We still need that competition. It’s the only way to bring in new blood and new ideas before 2015.
Also, to those Liberals who get upset at all the open speculation (i.e. this post), those who feel we’re damaging the party (yes, my fault, sure, okay) by discussing what Canadians actually care about – leadership – instead of, I don’t know, signing meaningless petitions on a daily basis, and those who found my last blog post too confrontational and premature, I offer a few considerations:
- That’s what a leadership race is all about, openly discussing qualities that could make or break a leader. The press pummelled us after Chrétien became leader, and we still won. The Liberal Party hasn’t been floundering because I’ve decided not to support Bob Rae on the first ballot.
- Not wanting Bob Rae as leader does not equate to liking Harper or Mulcair more.
- Did you not see all the “if Mulcair becomes leader I will die” comments from New Democrats during their leadership race? Nobody cares. After a leadership race, you just work together like adults, if you’re smart. Nothing I write now will destroy the Liberal Party. I didn’t support Dion or Ignatieff on the first ballot either. So?
My best suggestion to Bob Rae, if he wants to earn back our trust as Liberal Party members, is to avoid appearing as if he offers politics as usual: a party stuck in the 90s or, even worse, the 80s; a candidate relying on old-school, backroom tactics; the appearance that the Liberal leadership can be won by any method other than fairly, earnestly, and forthrightly winning over the hearts and minds of Liberals.
At this point, we have to worry if the Liberal leopard can, in fact, change its spots.
