Stéphane Dion’s resignation today closes the book on an interesting chapter in the history of the Liberal Party. Reviewing his time as leader is instructive for our party as we enter into another leadership race just two years since the last and with less seats and less popular support across the country.
Dion’s defenders are rightfully upset that a good, honest, passionate man of integrity was unjustly besmirched by the Conservative Party. Many are also upset at the push the media and many Liberals are giving Dion towards the door; and to this I can sympathize with their frustration at the world of politics but cannot agree with the argument that he should continue on as leader. It’s not Dion’s fault we lost the election but he’s a big reason why we dropped in seats and popular vote. I’m happy to have him continue on in the interim, but new leadership is needed.
In defending the right for Dion to remain as leader his supporters point out the other flaws in the party, arguing that blaming Dion and making him the scapegoat will not help the party and will only weaken it further with another prolonged and expensive leadership campaign. These are valid points but they overlook the importance of leadership. Fixing those other problems, which are unquestionably necessary, won’t happen with Dion at the helm. A new leader can help get people to give money, inspire the grassroots to volunteer more and encourage the party to abandon elite-driven and complacent strategies in place of a more vigorous electoral and policy strategy.
Dion can justly claim the deck was stacked against him from the beginning, I’ll give him that much. His selection as leader was due to his being everyone’s second choice, including mine; therefore despite the excitement of the convention and the romance of his underdog status, he took over the reigns of a party with a lukewarm level of support from his caucus and a majority of the party membership. The Liberal Party’s system of leader selection can be blamed for that more than Dion.
It was not Dion’s fault he took over a party with deep divisions old and new, with poor finances and no credible means to improve them. His ability to hit back with advertising either attacking Harper or marketing himself was limited by the lack of funds – certainly a hurdle but not the game-changer Dion makes it out to be.
I won’t even hold Dion accountable for the lousy performance of the party in opposition this past year. I blame Harper for his corruption of parliament with constant confidence votes for the dysfunction Harper himself complained about.
Finally it was Dion’s misfortune to have an economic collapse unfold at the same time he attempted a bold and admirable new economic strategy which cast a pall of doubt over the timing of such an initiative. History will tell whether Dion was ahead of his time or not, but he certainly gets points for the Green Shift’s unabashed attempt to fuse environmental action with market forces.
So yes, he had a lot working against him in which he can be forgiven. But it’s the things that were under his control that he failed to get traction on that ultimately were his undoing.
Dion never got the party fully behind him. I think the party likes him but he never overcame the “second choice” status of the convention. This was perhaps most fatal once the attacks started because it allowed the “not a leader” moniker to stick. MPs talked a good game but there were too many underground rumblings that showed there was not enough cohesion and solidarity in the party ranks. Dion gave his leadership opponents places of prominence in the party but there’s not enough evidence that he listened to them once they were in place, leaving the postings to look more like hollow gestures.
Today in his press conference and also in an e-mail sent to party members Dion decried the party’s ability to help him defend himself. While he took responsibility for the fortunes of the party he also heaped the majority of the blame on Stephen Harper. Blaming your opponent is not leadership. I agree that Harper’s brand of politics is despicable and is lowering the tenor of our politics, but he was playing the game and he beat us. I’ve read in several places that Dion never bought into negative advertising and refused to play that game, first as a non-believer that such advertising works and then in pursuit of a more noble brand of politics. It wasn’t until the election that he started to take the gloves off but by then it was too late. I don’t fully buy into the “not enough money” excuse for why Dion stayed silent for so long in the face of the Conservative attacks. I think he wasn’t politically astute enough to fight back with whatever means he had.
On the policy front, the platform took too long to be developed and then the Green Shift was poorly launched. Most telling of the failed launch was the fact that Dion had clearly not won over his own party. By election time the party’s central plank in their platform was missing in most candidates’ election literature, leaving the leader on his own to sell it.
Most tellingly, after almost two years Dion steps down with the party facing the identical problems it faced when he assumed power – a sure sign he is not the leader for the future. If he’d made progress on one thing it would have given us hope, but alas all he’s done is leave us with sorrow that a good and honourable man couldn’t realize the hopes and dreams launched in a sea of green back in Montreal.
Dion’s defenders are rightfully upset that a good, honest, passionate man of integrity was unjustly besmirched by the Conservative Party. Many are also upset at the push the media and many Liberals are giving Dion towards the door; and to this I can sympathize with their frustration at the world of politics but cannot agree with the argument that he should continue on as leader. It’s not Dion’s fault we lost the election but he’s a big reason why we dropped in seats and popular vote. I’m happy to have him continue on in the interim, but new leadership is needed.
In defending the right for Dion to remain as leader his supporters point out the other flaws in the party, arguing that blaming Dion and making him the scapegoat will not help the party and will only weaken it further with another prolonged and expensive leadership campaign. These are valid points but they overlook the importance of leadership. Fixing those other problems, which are unquestionably necessary, won’t happen with Dion at the helm. A new leader can help get people to give money, inspire the grassroots to volunteer more and encourage the party to abandon elite-driven and complacent strategies in place of a more vigorous electoral and policy strategy.
Dion can justly claim the deck was stacked against him from the beginning, I’ll give him that much. His selection as leader was due to his being everyone’s second choice, including mine; therefore despite the excitement of the convention and the romance of his underdog status, he took over the reigns of a party with a lukewarm level of support from his caucus and a majority of the party membership. The Liberal Party’s system of leader selection can be blamed for that more than Dion.
It was not Dion’s fault he took over a party with deep divisions old and new, with poor finances and no credible means to improve them. His ability to hit back with advertising either attacking Harper or marketing himself was limited by the lack of funds – certainly a hurdle but not the game-changer Dion makes it out to be.
I won’t even hold Dion accountable for the lousy performance of the party in opposition this past year. I blame Harper for his corruption of parliament with constant confidence votes for the dysfunction Harper himself complained about.
Finally it was Dion’s misfortune to have an economic collapse unfold at the same time he attempted a bold and admirable new economic strategy which cast a pall of doubt over the timing of such an initiative. History will tell whether Dion was ahead of his time or not, but he certainly gets points for the Green Shift’s unabashed attempt to fuse environmental action with market forces.
So yes, he had a lot working against him in which he can be forgiven. But it’s the things that were under his control that he failed to get traction on that ultimately were his undoing.
Dion never got the party fully behind him. I think the party likes him but he never overcame the “second choice” status of the convention. This was perhaps most fatal once the attacks started because it allowed the “not a leader” moniker to stick. MPs talked a good game but there were too many underground rumblings that showed there was not enough cohesion and solidarity in the party ranks. Dion gave his leadership opponents places of prominence in the party but there’s not enough evidence that he listened to them once they were in place, leaving the postings to look more like hollow gestures.
Today in his press conference and also in an e-mail sent to party members Dion decried the party’s ability to help him defend himself. While he took responsibility for the fortunes of the party he also heaped the majority of the blame on Stephen Harper. Blaming your opponent is not leadership. I agree that Harper’s brand of politics is despicable and is lowering the tenor of our politics, but he was playing the game and he beat us. I’ve read in several places that Dion never bought into negative advertising and refused to play that game, first as a non-believer that such advertising works and then in pursuit of a more noble brand of politics. It wasn’t until the election that he started to take the gloves off but by then it was too late. I don’t fully buy into the “not enough money” excuse for why Dion stayed silent for so long in the face of the Conservative attacks. I think he wasn’t politically astute enough to fight back with whatever means he had.
On the policy front, the platform took too long to be developed and then the Green Shift was poorly launched. Most telling of the failed launch was the fact that Dion had clearly not won over his own party. By election time the party’s central plank in their platform was missing in most candidates’ election literature, leaving the leader on his own to sell it.
Most tellingly, after almost two years Dion steps down with the party facing the identical problems it faced when he assumed power – a sure sign he is not the leader for the future. If he’d made progress on one thing it would have given us hope, but alas all he’s done is leave us with sorrow that a good and honourable man couldn’t realize the hopes and dreams launched in a sea of green back in Montreal.
1 comments:
It does look like the Liberals will need some political "show business" to defeat Harper in the next election. Dion is a very intelligent, honest man...but perhaps working in the background would better suit him and the party.
Post a Comment