Pierre Poilievre entered the federal Conservative leadership race before it even started, and while the press are salivating over the horse race, the other nags are smelling the glue factory. But since there’s more to politics than just winning, let’s take a quick look at whether he should win, and why and how.
If Poilievre is not familiar to you, you don’t follow Canadian politics. An upset victory brought him into Parliament at age 24 and he’s been there ever since, which is bad. But he’s been articulate and fearless, which is good. Also abrasive, partisan, and snide, which is good and bad. And he has matured, which is good.
Notice I haven’t yet mentioned ideas. And since “Ideas have consequences,” in Richard Weaver’s classic understated formulation, let’s see what Poilievre’s are.
OK, first let’s sweep into the dustbin of history all the commentators not friendly to conservatism who are predictably offering bad advice on ideas. Specifically, the pundits and consultants telling the Tories, yet again, to dump all that toxic right-wing nonsense then offer a real conservative alternative.
Some mean choose Erin O’Two as your leader. Others, slightly more substantively, want an essentially libertarian party, left on social issues, hollow on defence, but pro free markets. But most, when pushed, turn out to be 1980s-vintage neoconservatives committed to pursuing liberal goals through conservative means, for instance a carbon tax.
Been there, done that, got nothing. Such “Third Way” talk of markets and limited government has shown itself to be vapid at best, because proposing to get rid of any public program has them reaching for the smelling salts almost as fast as a truck horn does. And I notice most had little use for Maxime Bernier even before his staunch libertarianism went populist purple.
It’s odd, especially given endless talk of diversity and tolerance, that with four major federal social democratic parties reputable folks are terrified lest we get one that isn’t. You might suppose there are differences between, say, the Bloc and Liberals. But ask either even to express pride in Canada’s heritage, warts and all, and you get remarkably similar refusals. And while it is not obvious why the Green Party would favour higher minimum wages or abortion on demand, they do. Yet the world will end if the Tories don’t?
Since my topic is Poilievre, I should probably say something about whether he actually would differ from the consensus in any major area. But I don’t know. I was slightly disheartened, if not surprised, that he kicked off by making it personal, tweeting: “I’m running for Prime Minister to give you back control of your life. Sign up now to help me replace Trudeau & restore freedom.” I yield to no one in wishing the current prime minister a long and happy retirement starting ASAP. But Trudeau, like most politicians, is far more symptom than cause. So let’s talk about giving back control of our lives. What does Poilievre mean?
Does he envision a significantly smaller role for the feds in our lives? I presume he means no more COVID mandates, to the limited extent that they are federal. An obvious crowd-pleaser, for his crowd. But ephemeral. Is he consistent on the limits of peaceful protest regardless of cause? We need someone who can lower the temperature, and a devotion to truth over tribe would be very helpful there.
On the substance of “freedom,” what else that “Ottawa” is currently doing would he simply eliminate? Not revamp. Ditch. If the answer is “nothing,” his conservatism is just more liberalism behind a fierce blue mask.
So would he repeal the Canada Health Act? Torque equalization down to a minor annoyance? Restrain the bureaucratic spider currently weaving tens of thousands of pages of petty, vexing regulations every year? Get rid of ministries of social engineering, and the cause they rode in on? Balance the budget by cutting spending?
What about climate change? He can growl about carbon taxes with the best of them. But so could Erin O’Futile. Will he challenge the science behind climate panic? Or once again attempt to rally opposition round the white flag?
As for those disgusting social issues, would he at least allow caucus free votes on abortion? Freedom for MPs as a stepping-stone to freedom for citizens?
If Poilievre believes in challenging orthodoxy in public debate, he’d be an excellent choice because he won’t be intimidated or trip over his tongue when unscripted. And despite his rough edges, he could be a force for calm if he’s firm on substance as well as in presentation, because few things are more infuriating than the smooth, smug hypocrisy we’ve been enduring lately. But we need to know what he stands for, as well as how.
Time to get it from, well, the horse’s mouth.
