defeat the nation resolution regardless of your candidate

Time to state the obvious: It is imperative that we take the leadership race out of the "Nation" resolution. It is far too important for us to be led down the garden path by our leadership loyalties.

Is it coincidence that - despite his career's record - all of Bob Rae's supporters have turned up on the non-recognition side? Is it coincidence that all the Ignatieff supporters that flocked to him out of Trudeauvian nostalgia have landed at the Nation end of things? No - what it is is absurd.

It's absurd particularly because the issue doesn't break down along leadership lines in the way that the media has purported. There is no Chretien-Martin here, no Trudeau-Turner. What you have on the surface is a bunch of Martins arguing with eachother. But it becomes even more complicated the deeper you dig.

First is Ignatieff, the resloution's champion. But is his position as pure as it has been construed? Here is a selection of relevant quotes over the course of his recent career:

"I don't want a community of communities. I don't want tribalism. I want a kind of moral individualism."
- UK interview

"Ignatieff, who keeps a photo of former Liberal prime minister Pierre Trudeau (1968-1979) in his campaign office, warned that Conservative promises of more money and power for the provinces and a seat for Quebec in international circles could weaken the federation.

‘Canadians want a country. They don't want a community of communities,' Ignatieff said. 'I'm committed to the national unity of the country.’"
- AP

Some argue that Ignatieff has favoured the nation notion since Blood and Belonging. This is revisionist history. He has Quebeckers explain what Nationalism is to them, to which he writes "What can you say to such a deep myth?"

He warns of the impact of Bill 101, and how the Charter must not be compromised: "Individuals would lose this right of appeal, and the way would be open to majoritarian ethnic nationalism."

And then there's Mr Rae. Trudeau re-embodied, right? He could be, if we dismiss everything he said and did prior to mid-August. Bob on Quebec:

"The country would be in better shape if the Meech Lake Accord had passed.”

He wrote that Pierre Trudeau et al “[were] arguing in defiance of Canadian history.” Whilst many Liberals celebrate Trudeau’s achievements, Rae isolates Trudeau as the source of this federation’s ills: “…we have seen the danger of governing in the name of a theory.”

According to Bob, PM Mulroney “showed great courage and great energy in his defence of the country and I fully supported his attempts to further reform the Constitution…”

And the now famous:
"I always supported the notion that Quebec . . . is a nation, it is a distinct society, which we need to recognize in our Constitution and I have fought for that. The genius behind federalism is that we can be both a Quebecker and a Canadian."

The difference then becomes Rae's "We shouldn't open the constitution right now because it is dangerous" vs. Ignatieff's "We should open the constitution, but not until it isn't dangerous to do so."

This is an artificial dispute, manipulated by all sides. My suggestion is this: we attend the convention, we tear the resolution to shreds, and we send a message to whomever is our leader - that we don't need to pander, because we can think.