The Divider

Well after some allegations flew my way this past weekend, Chantal Hebert took Stephane Dion to the cleaners on Les Coulisses du Pouvoir and in the Star and Le Devoir, and Vincent Marissal saying Dion was sunk, it was Michel C. Auger’s turn to lambaste Dion. Jason Cherniak says I am too scared that Dion can actually do well in Quebec. I wonder how long he will remain so blind to the obvious.

The Divider
by Michel C. Auger

Has the one we are used to come back to his usual gallop or has the pressure finally become too much at the end of the race? All I know is that Stephane Dion used this weekend’s general council of the Liberal Party of Canada (Quebec) to prove he does not have what it takes to be Prime Minister.

From the beginning of the campaign, Mr Dion had succeeded in re-inventing himself as a sympathetic champion of the environment. But on one Saturday afternoon, he showed that he is a politician who divides instead of a leader who unites.

First off, there was a debate on the recognition of Quebec as a nation within Canada. This is a change of pace from the party of Pierre Trudeau and Jean Chretien. The question turned into a battle between the supporters of Michael Ignatieff, who recognize this recognition, and those of Bob Rae and Stephane Dion, who oppose it. For them it is a strategic argument: do not raise expectations or deviate the debate towards symbolic questions.

That being the case, Mr. Rae and Mr. Dion proposed, once again, that the federal Liberals in Quebec separate themselves from the majority of federalist Quebecers, who are, by a very large majority, moving in the same direction as the Liberal Party of Quebec (provincial)

While federal Liberals are on the endangered species list off the West Island of Montreal, it should be time to reconciliate with the PLQ and the majority if Quebec federalists. Not the old paternalistic attitude that we must treat Quebecers like mischievous children up to a few shenanigans.

That which is encouraging, and we saw it Saturday, is that there is no longer a majority of support for the ideas of Mr. Dion within his own party. It should show his supporters from other parties how he is disconnected from what goes on in his own backyard and that he cannot rebuild this party in Quebec.

Mr. Dion’s strategy on Saturday was to repeat as much as possible that Liberals needed a leader who was not “linked to the errors of the past”. For him, the only mistake that applies to is the Sponsorship scandal. Not to the way the LPC treated federalist Quebecers under Mr. Trudeau or Mr. Chretien.

There is the substance, but there was also his style.

Mr. Dion had the opportunity to speak last after a largely passionless debate. This was the moment where he could show himself as a uniter. At home, in his city. All Mr Dion had to do was show a bit of class and score in an empty net. Instead he chose the tone of lecturer, with an added bonus, the courage of a guy who attacks at a moment where others cannot respond. (edit: I could not say it better myself)

Two minutes to remind Bob Rae he was a disaster as a Prime Minister of Ontario, then he tried to cite an article from Michael Ignatieff, written in the aftermath of the September 11th attacks, on a strong solution to impose on the Middle East. When Ignatieff supporters began to shout him down, as if he were the arrogant smart aleck in the class, he accused the boo-birds of not wanting to hear the truth (edit: I would have preferred to hear the truth Stephane, if only you were offering it.)

Except that, by doing what he did, Stephane Dion violated an unwritten rule of a leadership campaign: never do the work of other parties by undermining another candidate’s credibility when they might become leader.

In fact, he did much worse, he imported one of the most pernicious tactics of the United States. In the US, for a few years now, we choose candidates who have not written a lot. No Paper trail, we say in English.

We can hang whomever we want, especially an intellectual, by taking his words from a long time ago and using them in today’s context. In the US, this has given candidates who are vague an advantage where they do not propose anything because it may come back to haunt them. George W. Bush is the best example of this kind of politician.

Saturday night, the Dion camp sent an email to all journalists with a Michael Ignatieff quote from 2001. “Do not ask me what exact constitutional demands should be, I ignore that. That is up to lawyers to cut through it and frankly, the subject bores me.”

This was in 2001, when Mr. Ignatieff was not in politics and had all the right in the world to find the subject boring. Except today, we notice he did his homework and thought up a few solutions.

Stephane Dion always knew what the constitutional demands were from Quebec. He always rejected them with the back of his hand.