"During the election campaign, many wondered how the Liberal Party would have fared if it had been led by Michael Ignatieff. My guess — and everybody else's — is the party would have been a formidable rival to the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois."
Gagnon's column is brought to you by Steve Murphy's new set of English-language Bescherelles.
Speaking of Dion, here's a column from Rick Salutin that sorta snapped me out of my spell:
What impressed many was Stéphane Dion's idealism and "vision." Yet, the 20th century was littered with the damage done by idealistic visionaries who implemented their visions even if the people didn't get it, on the assumption they'd fall in line. Of course, that isn't Stéphane Dion; he accepts the voters' verdict. But his exclusive reliance on his noble vision is still troubling.
Politics basically divides between those for whom it's about ideas, about their notion of what's best for everyone, and those for whom it's about working with others to formulate a vision, or program, on the premise that people have the right and ability to determine their own fate. This distinction is muddied by the cult of leadership, or "strong" leadership, which exists among us in its way, as it did in those 20th-century political disasters. Does it ever occur to anyone that you can have leadership without a vision? Or that a leader could cheerily accept rejection of his vision and continue to lead - in a different direction chosen democratically?