Harvard's Pain

Harvard is disgruntled. And rather disbelieving. What absolute hayseeds Canadians are. How could they do this to an alumni of Harvard University where the intellectual crème de la crème of academics hang their capes and make their mark on the international community in the halls of academia.

Michael Ignatieff, after all, is one of their own. Oh yes, a Canadian, certainly so, but American in spirit and orientation; why else might they care? His speciality honed in their great halls of learning, and the beneficence of his considered wit and advice dispensed for the edification of adoring students.

He was, during his tenure, and more specifically because of his tenure at Harvard as the reigning human rights impressario with tons of right-there experience, anointed with the elixir of greatness.

How could those dull-minded clods passing for intelligent voters pass him by? What’s worse, ignominiously refusing to renew his seat, still warm from the 40th Parliament, so recently vacated. That Canadians stubbornly could not recognize the greatness with which he was imbued, thanks in good part to his sojourn in Boston, bespeaks unspeakable narrow-minded stupidity.

And what does it all reveal? Obviously, a lack of respect for the halls of higher learning, but more, far more, misplaced, ignorant resentment of America. But that’s Canada for you; a mewling, confused and uncertain nation of complainers and temporizers. Canada, as anyone can tell you, has always felt self-conscious as a neighbour of the United States. Their brash and confident neighbour to the south, imbued with a sense of itself, no stranger to recognition of merit and accomplishment.

Whereas Canada and Canadians are meek, cautious, moody and complacent. They are, above all, definitely not Americans. Describe them in any kind of pejorative terms, and that’s fine, but do not under any circumstances consider them to be too much alike Americans. They simply won’t have it. It is the most profound insult of all.

Canadians are different from Americans. They are unequivocally … Canadian.

Mr. Ignatieff’s former colleagues and fast friends cannot conceive of a collective temperament that had the opportunity to elect a Harvard man of great repute as their prime minister, and chose not to. What might they have been thinking? And those Conservative attack ads … atrocious. How could they portray the Liberal leader in such a demeaning, insulting light? Just visiting. Elitist. Ivy League academic. Not one of ‘us’.

Why Michael had a marvellous reputation at Harvard, he could pack those classrooms like no one else could, the consummate professorial communicator, enlivening the atmosphere, impressing students, a credit to the profession and his chosen field. Charismatic. Didn’t Canadian voters recognize his charisma? His character? His experience? His wisdom? The grace of his locution and verbal expression? His stature as a expert at one of the most prestigious universities in the world?

Critics in Boston and at Harvard appear to have overlooked the success in the U.S. of the election ads, where the genre originated, that they so decried being used in Canada. And while they may believe that being taken for an American in outlook and orientation reflects a high order of compliment, it is not quite taken as such by Canadians who believe their national leader should reflect a Canadian orientation, experience and outlook.

And, in the final analysis, this is what a significant proportion of the electorate chose. And the patrician intellectual will now have the opportunity of dispensing the wisdom of his experience and expertise in his chosen field at University of Toronto. Another institute of higher learning that is respected - in Canada