Liberal losers

Tim Anderson
October 30, 2017
When political leaders lose elections, most of them slink off to lick their wounds in private. Not Hillary Clinton and Michael Ignatieff. Both of them wrote books about how and why they lost. Tim Anderson reviews What Happened and Fire and Ashes and concludes that Clinton is the greater self-deluding narcissist.

Liberal losers

Tim Anderson
October 30, 2017
When political leaders lose elections, most of them slink off to lick their wounds in private. Not Hillary Clinton and Michael Ignatieff. Both of them wrote books about how and why they lost. Tim Anderson reviews What Happened and Fire and Ashes and concludes that Clinton is the greater self-deluding narcissist.
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

What Happened
Hillary Rodham Clinton
494 pp: Simon & Schuster, 2017

Fire and Ashes
Michael Ignatieff
224 pp: Random House Canada, 2013

Reviewed by Tim Anderson

Few people get to write one memoir in life. Last month, Hillary Clinton gifted the earth with her third. What Happened is a detailed explanation of how and why her campaign managed to lose a presidential election against the least qualified major candidate in American history.

Unfortunately, anyone hoping for an honest answer will be disappointed. Most of the 494-page book reads as a settling of scores with Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, and the American media. While written accessibly, the content is altogether contradictory and self-serving. On multiple occasions, Clinton takes responsibility for the loss: “I was the candidate, and the campaign’s decisions were mine.” But this is just window dressing. She says she was responsible for the losing campaign, but the election loss itself was everybody’s fault but hers.

Clinton is hardly the first person to lose an election and then stir the entrails in a book. Canadians may recall Michael Ignatieff’s Fire and Ashes­­ – his effort to come to terms with his epic failure in the 2011 federal election, when he led the Liberals to a third place finish and their lowest seat count in history and was defeated in his own riding. Although the scale of Ignatieff’s flame-out was bigger, there are a number of parallels between the losers. Both suffered difficult defeats the first time they ran for their party’s leadership. Both won it on their second go-around with an air of entitlement. Both were criticized from the left-wing of their parties for being insufficiently progressive. Both lost elections to opponents that their party faithful considered beyond the pale. Both wrote memoirs describing their failures.

Yet their books differ sharply. Ignatieff waited two years after his defeat to publish a slim epistle totalling just 209 pages. Clinton’s door-stopper went to press ten months after election day, and is 60 percent longer. The extra time Ignatieff took was put to good use. It enabled him to write with some dispassionate distance – and honesty. He admits that “hubris” animated his entry into politics, and that one of his failures as leader was that he took too long to figure out a clear purpose for running. That allowed the Conservative attack machine to roar into the vacuum, portraying Ignatieff as a self-centred and opportunistic ex-pat who “didn’t come back for you”.

In contrast, Clinton says she had a clear reason for running, which can be summarized thus: ‘I thought I could continue the progressive path of Barack Obama’s presidency and inspire women.’ Except that’s not a reason to be president. It’s a manufactured talking point that was focus-grouped to death. As it dawned on the Clinton campaign that her raison d’etre wasn’t resonating, they went through three slogans: I’m With Her, Love Trumps Hate, and Stronger Together. But slogans are like quarterbacks; if you have more than one, you don’t have any.

In Fire and Ashes Ignatieff admits that initially “I had almost no sense of political vocation and I certainly didn’t have a good answer to the question of why I wanted to hold high office.” In What Happened Clinton never comes closer to deep interior criticism than this: “I have come to terms with the fact that a lot of people … decided they just didn’t like me.” One can see why she had trouble connecting with people as a politician – or even as a fellow human being.

The last third of the two books are the most instructive. Ignatieff recalls the various failures that big political thinkers have had in politics. Cicero, Edmund Burke, and John Stuart Mill were geniuses but lousy politicians. Although comparing oneself to those men is terribly arrogant, Ignatieff has a point about the difficulties of turning theory into practice. It indicates he understands that he was never meant to have a successful political career, and that he has internalized Cassius’ comment to Brutus; the fault lies in ourselves, not in our stars.

In contrast, Clinton wags an accusatory finger at the stars. She contends that main criticisms of her campaign are misplaced. She did campaign enough in the “rust belt” states that Trump won, but the data her team relied on was flawed. She did have a strong economic message, but the media wouldn’t cover it. She wasn’t fated to lose, since she won the popular vote. Instead, she believes she lost because of Russian internet skullduggery, amorphous forces of sexism and racism, a hostile media, and her campaign’s inability to overcome a populist “headwind”. (She does admit to stoking that wind with her dismissal of Trumpkins as “deplorables”.)

But Clinton has one more excuse. She contends that if the election had been held on October 27th instead of November 8, she would have won. She is referring, of course, to erstwhile-FBI director James Comey’s October 28 letter to Congress indicating that new evidence had come to light pertaining to the Clinton email scandal. By that logic, the election should have been held in July, right after Comey decided not to charge Clinton for her improper use of a private email server as Secretary of State.

Clinton argues that the re-opening of the email scandal so close to voting day stalled her electoral momentum, and drove many undecided voters towards Trump or not voting. Maybe so. But she omits that none of this would have happened if she hadn’t installed an illegal server so that she could avoid public scrutiny of whatever dubious matters she wished to conceal. That, and 25 years experience with Clintonian “truthiness”, gave voters every reason not to grant her the benefit of the doubt.

While Fire and Ashes is imperfect, for this reader Ignatieff’s book evoked a sense of pathos that Clinton’s didn’t. His evidently genuine intent wasn’t to settle personal scores but to give guidance to future students and politicians. What Happened is a transparent effort to claim titular responsibility while laying the actual blame elsewhere. At the end of Clinton’s book, she tries to inspire younger people to not give up on progressive politics. We can only hope that people inclined to that persuasion will not draw strength from her self-pity and defensiveness.

Love C2C Journal? Here's how you can help us grow.

More for you

One Flew Over the Kangaroo Court, Part II: The System Invents its Own Jurisprudence

An encounter with a nearly incomprehensible, seemingly absurd and coldly indifferent judicial body offering no apparent hope of resolution would surely cause most citizens to give up in disgust. Gleb Lisikh is made of different stuff; being patronized and rebuffed only makes him dig harder. In this continuation of his now three-year-long legal Odyssey (Part I can be read here), Lisikh provides a firsthand account of the worsening dysfunction of Canada’s court system – and makes the startling discovery that activist human rights adjudicators are attempting to exclude millions of Ontarians from the protection of the human rights code.

Conservatism’s Greatest Canadian Teacher: What we can Learn from George Grant

Most everyone would agree the political movement led by Pierre Poilievre is not your parents’ Conservative Party. Then again, neither arguably was the government of Stephen Harper. Did the 50s-era populist John Diefenbaker embody “real” conservatism? For that matter, did Sir John A. Macdonald? One man who spent his life struggling to define Canadian conservatism and determine who measured up – and who fell short – was political philosopher George Grant. For Grant, conservatism was rooted in the pushback against the interconnected forces of liberalism, technology and the American superstate. Now, a group of (mostly young) conservatives have taken up the challenge of evaluating whether Grant himself knew what he was talking about, and how his ideas might be applied today. Barry Cooper examines their work.

Malign Neglect: What Calgary’s Water-Main Break Reveals about the Failure of City Government

The rupture of Calgary’s biggest water main revealed more than the problems of aging infrastructure. It showed a civic bureaucracy unable to provide basic services or fix things when they break, and a mayor eager to blame others and scold citizens for their selfishness in wanting city services in return for their tax dollars. Above all, it laid bare the increasing tendency of governments to neglect their core responsibilities in favour of social policy fetishes, and to sidestep accountability when things go wrong. Clear, competent, mission-focused public servants are a vanishing breed, writes George Koch, and governing a city is now mainly about keeping city workers, senior officials and elected politicians happy.

More from this author

Another Clinton, for Better or Worse

Now that the FBI has decided Hillary Clinton should not face criminal charges for mishandling classified documents on her private email server, nothing stands in her way winning the U.S. presidency except Donald Trump, and he seems to be doing his best to blow it. So we better get used to the idea of President Clinton II. Tim Anderson and Paul Bunner suffered whiplash charting all the policy and philosophy zigs and zags she’s taken on her path to the White House. They suggest Canadians buckle up; her presidency is going to be a rough ride for us.

Founded not floundered

Ridiculing the Senate has become all too easy in recent time, but as Tim Anderson explains, critics would do well to understand why the Fathers of Confederation made heavy weather of installing it.

So-cons to Harper: You owe us

Canada’s social conservatives contributed a lot to the recent Conservative party majority. It’s payback time argues Tim Anderson…

Share This Story


Subscribe to the C2C Weekly
It's Free!

* indicates required
By providing your email you consent to receive news and updates from C2C Journal. You may unsubscribe at any time.