The word retreat, of course, can have plenty of meanings depending on the context in which you use it. It can refer to the action taken by surviving forces after a disastrous attempt at something. It can also mean a place of temporary refuge, away from the main action.

Michael Ignatieff’s planned campus tour in January 2010 can be seen as a retreat, in both senses of the word. Jeff Jedras would like you to believe that it’s the latter:

The campus environment is one where he’s at home. A former professor used to having learned debates on important issues with the students, he’ll be more at home here than in the sound-bite attack fest of parliament. Going to some campuses, rolling-up his sleeves and talking politics and policy with students will help him connect the comfort of his old job to the challenges of his new one and perhaps, by making that connection, he can use it to grow into a better opposition leader.

There are plenty of reason, however, to believe that it’s the former.

It’s pretty much acknowledged that the Waffle did not have a particularly good 2009. A vaguely hopeful spring followed by a practically non-existent summer, with a declaration on Labour Day leading to a humiliating performance in the autumn as reflected in the polls. A return to an academic setting, even if it’s only a speaking tour, is still going to be seen by his critics as a retreat, and not in a good way.

There are other dangers in this tour as well, things that the Waffle may not be aware of but that pundits would be all too happy to point out.

The first are his chosen venues. Of the 11 stops, only 2 are at institutions that are considered community colleges. The rest are universities, and while there’s no reason to believe that you can’t get a cross section of the social classes in a higher-U environment (I have degrees from two of the places mentioned, myself), it’s not likely that the Waffle will be confronted by members of the social classes that he really hopes to reach: the people who would be the end-users of whatever federal government services the Liberals are planning to offer.

The second is the attempt to sell this tour as a national “conversation.” Conversation is a two-way process, and from what I remember of academia, public speakers don’t exactly go out of their way to encourage responses and feedback apart from a limited-time Q&A session at the end of the address. This is especially troublesome for the Waffle, a man whose experience with communication seems to be mainly with the written word as opposed to the dialogue. So while the Waffle may have a point to get across, there’s nothing really to indicate that he’s willing to listen.

The third is a bit difficult to explain, if you’re not conversant with media theory, but here goes: This tour is going to suffer from its stage management. All public tours by public speakers will have this problem; given that Iffy is a public political figure requiring some measure of protection, it’s inevitable that his tour will need some management in time, security and venue. At the same time, the Libranos are going to be sorely tempted to attempt to turn this into a media event — completed with “planted” Liberals among the audience and priority for questions from university-age Liberals whose memberships make their attendance a sine qua non.

If attendees are aware that an event has elements of stage management, then they’re unconsciously going to pay more attention to the elements of management that go wrong, than to whatever message the Waffle is trying to deliver. This is especially true of those who work in national media, and if they’re not impressed by the management, they won’t be afraid to dismiss their part of the tour as a cynically motivated pep rally.

The fourth is something that Mr. Jedras acknowledges, but seems to have misinterpreted (see his comments):

People have no sense of who this guy is other than the Con caricatures. Flipping that narrative and embracing his background can be a way of defining him with Canadians, but on our terms.

I’ve said this before, about Stéphane Dion, and I’ll say it again: a caricature is only effective if it exaggerates something that’s already there. Canadian voters have had a year to take a measure of the Waffle. They’ve seen him bluster, use the English language to greater effect than Dion, but they’ve also seen him overreach himself rhetorically, they’ve read his newest book and detected the shallowness of his heritagic explorations, and they’ve seen how he’s handled dissension within his caucus ranks. Their impression, to say the least, is not particularly favourable, in the main because the Waffle has provided the Conservatives with plenty of ammunition that can be used against him.

And this upcoming tour will be no different. The Waffle may very well behave in a more attractive manner in a university, behind-the-lectern setting. But that won’t necessarily mean that he can extend that comfort zone into his seat at Centre Block, because there are too many variables that can hamper it — not just from the Waffle himself, but from those around him who, while meaning well, may make decisions or do things that will trip him (and by extension, the Liberal brand) up onto an unforgiving floor.

Retreat into his comfort zone? Sure. Will he be able to come out again? I wouldn’t care to bet real money on it . . .

This entry was posted on Wednesday, December 23rd, 2009 at 18:02 and is filed under Iggy Bops, Libranos. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.