Political Ambitions

The Lisa Raitt affair is now passing through the apology phase (there's a pretty standard progression for this sort of thing). Regardless of whether she should stay or go, and the countless opinions about that being offered from all sides, I want to look a little deeper at a side issue that has come up in all of this: ambition.

Minister Raitt is ambitious. This has come out of her own words and what is apparently being said about her by Conservative Party insiders. I see nothing wrong with that. I would be surprised if that were not the case. Anyone who aspires to a position or an accomplishment requires amibition. This is true of athletes, job seekers, entrepreneurs, and perhaps even bloggers. Ambition is what drives humans to achieve and create things; sometimes even great things.

But what is it that motivates a politician, including Ms. Raitt, to seek political office. That is, what is the underlying drive for that ambition? Ambition requires a source. When each of us was young and had to choose a career, there had to be some driving force to guide that choice. This in turn powered our ambition to pursue that objective.

Despite much cynicism about politics and politicians, there can be positive drivers for their ambition to pursue that avocation. The road is bumpy and littered with many disappointments along the way, with no surety of success. Without ambition, the budding politician would give it up before long.

I will simplify to a short list what I see as the selection of drivers for political ambitions:

1. Power - to be top dog, the one calling the shots.
   
2. Idealism - implement (or impose) policies and programs born of deep personal belief.
   
3. Public service - give back to the community, help others, or improve the people's lot.
   

Look closely at any politician, especially those in leadership positions or ambitions in that direction, and you can probably figure out which drivers apply. In Lisa Raitt's case, I would guess her driver is the first one - power. I would make the same choice for Larry O'Brien. I would pick idealism for Stephen Harper or Pierre Trudeau. For someone like Bob Rae, I would guess public service.

With some politicians I find the choice more difficult. How to categorize Michael Ignatieff or Dalton McGuinty? I see little idealism in either, though there may be some mixture of power and public service, possibly with public service in the inferior position.

Then there are those whose drivers change during their careers. A good example is Jean Chretien. His early career seems to have been driven by idealism and public service, yet by the end there was little to see outside of a desire for continued power.

It is even possible to categorize entire political parties. At the federal level, for the Liberals I see the major driver as power. For the Conservatives, it's a mix of idealism and power. The NDP and Bloc seem primarily driven by idealism. I am not surprised that public service does not jump out at me when I look at the parties since each political party is bound by shared ideals and, where relevant, a quest for the power to put those ideals to the test. As a driver, public service seem to only apply to individual ambitions.

In a perfect world I would like my elected representatives to do what I want done. They would mirror my own ideals and be ready to serve the public good. I also need them to have some ambition for power so that they can be effective in getting things done. In other words, I want to see a balance of all three drivers in their ambitions.

Lisa Raitt does not display this balance, and neither does our current PM. While I have little hope that Stephen Harper could ever dilute his idealistic bent, there is some hope, even if it's a small hope, that Lisa Raitt could achieve a better balance to her ambition in the future. Without that change, her ambitions ought to be denied.