Angry in the Great White North

From the NDP website, a page called Books by Jack Layton:

Jack's contributions to Canadian public life include three idea-filled books.

Speaking Out Louder

His newest book, Speaking Out Louder: Ideas That Work For Canadians sets out a bold and visionary “blueprint for Canada” that will put Canada back on track. Fully revised and updated to include fascinating behind-the-scenes details of how Martin and his Liberals squandered their leadership opportunities and how dangerously off-course Harper is steering the nation – Speaking Out Louder is a passionate call to action that will inspire all Canadians to embrace a better future.

Praise for Speaking Out Louder:

“…required reading for anyone who yearns for the optimism of Trudeau-era Liberalism.” -- Ottawa Citizen

Quite the praise from the editorial board of the Ottawa Citizen.

Or maybe not.

I tracked down that glowing praise for Speaking Out Louder, and found out that it was not the opinion of the Ottawa Citizen, nor did it recommend reading the book.

Here is the full excerpt from the reviewer, columnist Adam Radwanski:

Somewhere, there are still Liberals who believe in government as a positive force. They're unconvinced that it's best kept out of sight and out of mind, uninterested in ceaseless talk about "living within our means," and unconvinced that higher taxes are a bad thing if higher quality of life comes with them. And right now, with their party further to the right than ever, they're very out of place.

If they're looking to feel a little less lonely this week, they should march into their neighbourhood bookstore and grab a copy of Mr. Layton's new book.

Most of Speaking Out: Ideas that Work for Canadians is filled with extremely detailed policy discussion that, while admirable, will appeal only to a small contingent of policy wonks. But the first chapter, Why Does Politics Matter?, should be required reading for anyone who yearns for the optimism of Trudeau-era Liberalism.

Mr. Layton's message - that Canadians have been wrongly and dangerously conditioned to expect less from their governments, and that it's "time to build again" - is not original. But because he backs it up with an unabashed faith in the ability of the public service to provide certain services (not just health care and education) better than the private sector, it stands in stark contrast to the tentative, almost apologetic approach to government embraced by Paul Martin.

First, this is not the opinion of the Ottawa Citizen as a whole, but of one columnist. Nevertheless, Jack Layton didn't bother to identify the person who reviewed the book, but just the name of the paper in which the review was published. As if the Ottawa Citizen was taking an editorial stand on the quality of this book, which it has not.

That's dishonest.

It's also dishonest not to make it clear that the praise was not for the entire book, but just for the first chapter. Indeed, Radwanski says that the bulk of the book would have only very limited appeal.

Let's make this clear. This is the quote on the NDP website:

…required reading for anyone who yearns for the optimism of Trudeau-era Liberalism.

This is the full quote:

Most of Speaking Out: Ideas that Work for Canadians is filled with extremely detailed policy discussion that, while admirable, will appeal only to a small contingent of policy wonks. But the first chapter, Why Does Politics Matter?, should be required reading for anyone who yearns for the optimism of Trudeau-era Liberalism.

Quite different, eh?

It probably doesn't matter all that much. But then Jack Layton is a politician who harps on how he's a cut above the regular political operator. From a speech Jack Layton delivered June 2005:

It’s not a proud time in Ottawa these days.

Debate’s so low it’s now about whether the Liberal on tape offering jobs for votes is more guilty than the Tory who taped it.

Given the Liberal sponsorship scandal, Canadians have seen enough of parties putting themselves first.

He's right about that. So how does misquoting an uncredited review in order to make a few extra sales of his book not make guilty of putting himself first?

I'm sure there's a subtle difference here. Perhaps the explanation is buried deep in Layton's otherwise unreadable book.