The best of Harvard and the Boston Globe have weighed in on the recent Canadian election results, wherein Michael Ignatieff led the Liberal Party of Canada to its worst-ever showing, leaving the most successful political party in the western world with 34 seats in a parliament of 308.
One professor of political science considered it a "puzzle" why Ignatieff would be presented as a carpetbagger -- well professor, welcome to realtime politics.
Another Harvard professor declared that if Ignatieff had spent time at the University of Toronto instead of Harvard, the outcome would have been different!
My advice -- don't think of yourself so greatly Harvard -- Harvard had very little, if anything, to do with the Liberal rout. The Boston Globe editorial brains submit that Ignatieff's position on Afghanistan pushed some voters to the socialist NDP -- yeah, maybe two.
Well, so much for Boston brains. Afghanistan was not mentioned in the entire campaign -- not once. U of T over Harvard? Baloney. Don't think of yourself as so influential.
As for the professor's puzzle -- it is not too difficult to conceive of a political rival painting an academic who has been out of the country for 30 years as being out of touch!
Sorry, professor. Add Mr.Ignatieff's natural aloofness to his political inexperience, mix in the fact that the Liberal Party Platform appeared to be firmly rooted in the 70s, and one has just a few of the reasons for the smashing defeat.
On the day after the election, Ignatieff stated that he forced the election because of what he called the "contempt" with which the Conservatives held parliament -- no one believed him. Liberals should be glad that the victorious Conservatives secured a majority in the House of Commons -- now they have at least four years to figure out why people should vote for them, without the distraction of trying to achieve power by means of a coalition with the socialists.