“Oleanna” and Michael Ignatieff

07Dec10

Years ago, I saw a production of David Mamet’s “Oleanna” at the Palmerston Theatre in Toronto. The play is about a power struggle between a middle-aged male academic and a young female student who accuses him of sexual harassment.

My take on the play was that it worked better as a portrayal of the division between classes than the division between the sexes. The academic was secure and comfortable, which allowed him to live life in a bubble, protected from the harsh realities that the impoverished student faced every day.

As I see it, part of why Michael Ignatieff has not been successful as Liberal leader is because of the awareness that Ignatieff lives in a similar bubble of security. He has no financial worries; he has a wife that he loves and who loves him back; he has a well-deserved sense of accomplishment and a corresponding lack of resentment of the success of others.

When Conservatives attack Ignatieff for being “arrogant” and “out of touch”, what they’re really doing is pointing out that most Canadians are not as happy with their lot in life as Ignatieff appears to be. And many Canadians are resentful of those who are happy and comfortable.

This is why Stephen Harper’s message resonates with a lot of people. Although Harper isn’t any more of a “common man” than Ignatieff is – how many “common men” become president of the National Citizens’ Coalition, or earn a master’s degree in economics? – voters who resent the comparative security that others enjoy are aware that, for one reason or another,  Harper appears to share much of this anger and resentment. Anger and resentment are not a strong foundation for a country, but they are a way to build a strong base of core voters.

Filed under: Canada, politics   |  Leave a Comment