Sunday, November 26, 2006

I Will Not Follow

I don't agree, but grudgingly respect the resolve to stand alone:


Liberal leadership hopeful Gerard Kennedy has decided to buck the tide of political opinion, coming out against a parliamentary motion recognizing Quebecers as a nation within a united Canada.

The Canadian Press has learned that Kennedy will issue a statement Monday opposing the motion, just as the House of Commons prepares to debate the surprise resolution introduced by Prime Minister Stephen Harper last week.

Kennedy will become the only Liberal leadership contender to reject the motion, which has been embraced with varying degrees of unease by his seven rival candidates, Harper's Conservatives, most Liberal MPs and the New Democrats. Even the separatist Bloc Quebecois has come on side.

A senior Kennedy source said the third-place contender believes the motion is irresponsible and wrong for Canada.

Kennedy believes the motion raises expectations of eventual constitutional entrenchment of Quebec nationhood without defining what is meant by the word nation. Moreover, he is worried that the motion will deepen divisions in the country, the source said.

The cynic says Kennedy has nothing to lose, due to his non-existent support in Quebec. However, Kennedy isn't a political opportunist, as evidenced by the several occasions this campaign where he has resisted the easy political score, so I think this simply his reading of the consequences. The fact that all the candidates are on board puts Kennedy at odds with everyone, and in effect he now sticks out like a sore thumb. On the other hand, those nervous about the motion now have safe habour.

This decision is gutsy, shows that Kennedy thinks independently and above all is a leader, not a follower. I don't share Kennedy's opinion, but I also don't expect my choice to mirror my views, all I ask is that they operate with integrity and thoughtfulness. Kennedy scores well on both points.

UPDATE

An endorsement from a surprising source.

14 comments:

Monkey Loves to Fight said...

This is not the first time he has bucked the party line. On bank mergers and Afghanistan he has gone against the party line. In fact I think Canadians like someone who is an independent thinker. Although not my first choice or what I would have done, I admire his ability to make his own decisions.

Steve V said...

"I admire his ability to make his own decisions."

Beyond agreement, you have to give Kennedy his due for taking bold stands. The bank merger one was particularly striking, given the "lefty" tag because it showed that Kennedy wasn't handcuffed by rigid dogma, or took views based on safe support. Afghanistan was very risky, but he looks ahead of the curve with each passing day. It will be interesting to see how this latest stance plays out.

BTW, Kennedy is due on Mercer's show, which should be fun.

Anonymous said...

Should have seen this coming with the Trudeau endorsement.

James Curran said...

He has nothing to lose and everything to gain. Especially since 83% of Canandians outside of PQ reject the motion!

What did you think he'd say?

The What Do IKnow Grit

Steve V said...

James

My response to your superficial analysis on your blog.

"What this is though is excellent politicking."

Wrong guy and I can prove it. Remember when Ignatieff was getting tarred and feathered from all the candidates after the Lebanon fiasco. Kennedy was offered the bait in interviews to score some points. Now, most politicans would jump at the chance to up an opponent, you know what Kennedy said? Kennedy defended Ignatieff, saying we all will make mistakes in a long campaign and it is not a reflection of character. Ditto with Volpe, and notice his positive stands in the debates, while others tried to score points. If Kennedy came to this decision, it was his moral compass deciding, not some slick calculation to curry favor. The guy simply doesn't operate like that, and if you were really paying attention you would see it.

Steve V said...

jack

Those are valid points, especially his MP's. But, don't you think those issues make the decision all the more a question of personal conviction, as opposed to political opportunism? You can't navigate this issue without stepping on some toes, unless you say nothing which is really in vogue now.

Monkey Loves to Fight said...

Steve V - I certainly like his stance on Afghanistan and Bank Mergers. Besides I never saw him as a lefty, but as a pragmatic centrist as most Liberals are.

James Curran - I think it will certainly help him in the West where the idea of recognizing Quebec as a nation is mostly likely to stir up anger. It is not popular in Ontario and Atlantic Canada either, but considering those areas seemed to not protest against the Charlottetown and Meech Lake Accords as much as the West, it won't likely be as big an issue, although won't help Harper.

Steve V said...

"That's pragmatism speaking, not principle."

In my view, pragmatism is one of the best principles a politican can have.

Lept said...

In the last referendum we all, in this household, voted 'Yes'
- at least some of us due to the virulence of the reaction to Meech (etc.): the palpable aggression towards Québec that was on display.
Bob Rae was very committed to the proposed constitutional changes. I believe he was genuinely shocked (as were we) by not so much the rejection of the accord but especially the hostility which it provoked - I think it's a bit disingenuous to be surprised at his present stance!
Having read some of Kennedy's reasoning today, I suspect that it does make sense to think carefully before jumping into proposing a motion such as the one that Harper has placed before the house (if reports are correct, on the spur of the moment) simply for the sake of crass political expediency.
Of course we are a nation...
and typically, even my more rampantly separatist cohorts do have a certain ambivalence and affection for Canada but not the emaciated version envisaged by Harper.

Steve V said...

lept

So there is no damnation for Kennedy's position? Is he simply acknowledging the Harper cynicism?

Lept said...

To quote:
"I cannot support the Harper-Duceppe motion currently before the House. I deplore that anyone would use this as a wedge issue for political gains," the former Ontario education minister's statement reads.

"The Prime Minister's responsibility is to protect the Constitution and the unity of the country. This motion does neither. It is wrong for Canada.

"I respect the sense of identity shared by many Quebecers, reflecting a common culture, language, history and accomplishment and I will continue to promote that identity, rather than playing divisive political games with it."

Steve V said...

lept

It says alot to me that you take Kennedy this way, because the easy knee-jerk is typical anglo, lack of Quebec sensibilities.

Lept said...

Checked outside and the earth doesn't appear to have shifted here (with the vote) but thought this'd lighten things up?

Steve V said...

"Checked outside and the earth doesn't appear to have shifted here"

It is sort of funny, that a motion about Quebec seems to be more of an issue in English Canada. I would describe the other solitude as "in a tizzy".