Ignatieff: he likes culture!

For anyone who lived in Britain in the 80’s and 90’s, the thought of "Michael Ignatieff":http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ignatieff being one step (albeit it one big one) away from being Prime Minister of Canada is simply fascinating. While at the time of the last Liberal leadership campaign many of my friends were deeply suspicious of the man – primarily for his previous "stance":http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070827/pollitt as pro-Iraq invasion and his equivocations about the use of torture – I was quietly rooting for the guy.

I don’t mean to minimize his stance on Iraq. It was a serious miscalculation but he wasn’t alone as there was any number of people whom I admire who were either pro the invasion or found reasons to justify it – "Christopher Hitchens":http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens and "Gwynn Dyer":http://www.gwynnedyer.com/ immediately spring to mind. The reason I wanted Ignatieff to win the leadership battle – and why I’m pleased with the recent turn of events – is that my memory of him is of a thoughtful man, deeply committed to culture. He used to be one of the hosts of "The Late Show":http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Late_Show_(BBC2), a late night review program on BBC 2 and it is from this gig that he is probably best remembered in the UK.

The idea of our country being lead by a man who is immersed in culture, who understands its value and role in defining a country fills me with optimism. Recently a BBC reporter, when asked to comment on what Barak Obama would be like as president, said something that really rang true to me. He said that, in a sense, what he does won’t matter as much as who he is as person. And he meant more than just the fact that Obama was African-American. After eight years of being lead by an open – and self confessed – lazy moron, America was going to be lead by a man who doesn’t hide his intellectual credentials and who espouses higher aspirations for his country. The reporter pointed out – rightly in my view – that Americans identify closely with their president; he represents the state and is a model that they use to judge themselves by. How much better for the world to have as their model Obama than Bush junior?

And, to a lesser extent, the same thing for Canada. We don’t have the same over-identification with our leader. The Prime Minister is really just a general manager, he doesn’t represent the state (sorry about that Harper, must come as a bit of a blow). However, after suffering through the small-minded and petty options of recent years, there is a chance that Ignatieff might be a real breath of fresh air. I doubt Ignatieff will inspire the same fervour as Obama did, that would be impossible – but I think Canadians might like the idea of a leader who is respected for his mind, who is an academic.

Anyone who has worked in the cultural sectors knows how the vast majority of politicians view arts and culture: it’s ranked far below amateur sports, soccer fields and community centres. To a frightening majority of politicians the arts are seen as a hobby, a distraction of no importance other than to those who participate in them. Whatever shortcomings Ignatieff may have – and his wooden speech at the Liberal leadership convention was a huge let down – there is one thing we can be sure of: to him the arts do not simply equate to Sunday watercolourists or tap dance lessons for the kids; culture means something central and vital to our lives both as individuals and as a nation.

Kind of cool, huh?