I don't think Poilievre is, say, Donald Trump. I think he is what many Republicans want Donald Trump to be: A guy who plays a character, who can win elections, and who can get the agenda done. Some would say "same difference." But I think it's an important distinction — I don't think, for example, that Poilievre is at risk of …
I don't think Poilievre is, say, Donald Trump. I think he is what many Republicans want Donald Trump to be: A guy who plays a character, who can win elections, and who can get the agenda done. Some would say "same difference." But I think it's an important distinction — I don't think, for example, that Poilievre is at risk of questioning the integrity of the next election if he loses. But, on the other hand, I think he's become beholden to an increasingly angry and paranoid class of people. How far is he willing to go to keep them happy? Or, perhaps more acutely: Who replaces him, if he fails to keep them happy? (see: John Boehner -> Paul Ryan -> Kevin McCarthy -> Mike Johnson.
And, two, I think we've tried browbeating people with hypothetical fears. It certainly didn't working in convincing people in the U.S. in 2016, or in the Brexit vote, etc. I think journalism works best when we engage consistently and constantly on issues that matter to people, while simultaneously noting the attacks on our institutions. It's a weird balancing act. Sometimes it requires giving credit when it's due, even when the messenger is engaging in bad faith. We've got to hope that either people make up their own minds and reject that kind of cynical politics, or that kind of coverage encourages politicians to drop the shtick and focus on stuff that matters. Journalists shouldn't be campaigning, because I think it risks alienating the very people we're trying to talk to. I'd be happy as a peach, e.g., if Poilievre dropped the media-bashing, the anti-trans bullshit, and the messianic messaging and actually focused on housing and cost-of-living stuff. I think there's a huge opening for constructive conservatism here. (I had a good chat with Erin O'Toole about exactly this a few months ago: https://thebigstorypodcast.ca/2023/07/17/why-erin-otoole-wants-politics-to-be-less-polarized/)
At this point, I can't imagine taking anyone seriously who "wants politics to be less polarized" but ran for the leadership of the party solely responsible for said polarization. Some of us still remember the transformation that took place when the evangelical Reformers took over with their "bozo eruptions" that were slightly amusing at first, as was the fact that Preston Manning talked just like the American actor Jimmy Stewart for some reason. But the novelty slowly shifted to quiet horror that has only increased, especially when one unfortunately resides in Alberduh.
And I also agree with Bev that it's false equivalence and/or "bothsidesism" for anyone to take Poilievre seriously AT ALL in the context of any kind of actual governance. He's got nothin.'
Remember how he came off when Joe Biden visited? Like the fucking brat of a kid that he is.
Like all the cons now, who didn't used to be called that btw, he's flat-out dangerous, period, along with the entire Convoy Party of Canada.
Two things:
I don't think Poilievre is, say, Donald Trump. I think he is what many Republicans want Donald Trump to be: A guy who plays a character, who can win elections, and who can get the agenda done. Some would say "same difference." But I think it's an important distinction — I don't think, for example, that Poilievre is at risk of questioning the integrity of the next election if he loses. But, on the other hand, I think he's become beholden to an increasingly angry and paranoid class of people. How far is he willing to go to keep them happy? Or, perhaps more acutely: Who replaces him, if he fails to keep them happy? (see: John Boehner -> Paul Ryan -> Kevin McCarthy -> Mike Johnson.
And, two, I think we've tried browbeating people with hypothetical fears. It certainly didn't working in convincing people in the U.S. in 2016, or in the Brexit vote, etc. I think journalism works best when we engage consistently and constantly on issues that matter to people, while simultaneously noting the attacks on our institutions. It's a weird balancing act. Sometimes it requires giving credit when it's due, even when the messenger is engaging in bad faith. We've got to hope that either people make up their own minds and reject that kind of cynical politics, or that kind of coverage encourages politicians to drop the shtick and focus on stuff that matters. Journalists shouldn't be campaigning, because I think it risks alienating the very people we're trying to talk to. I'd be happy as a peach, e.g., if Poilievre dropped the media-bashing, the anti-trans bullshit, and the messianic messaging and actually focused on housing and cost-of-living stuff. I think there's a huge opening for constructive conservatism here. (I had a good chat with Erin O'Toole about exactly this a few months ago: https://thebigstorypodcast.ca/2023/07/17/why-erin-otoole-wants-politics-to-be-less-polarized/)
At this point, I can't imagine taking anyone seriously who "wants politics to be less polarized" but ran for the leadership of the party solely responsible for said polarization. Some of us still remember the transformation that took place when the evangelical Reformers took over with their "bozo eruptions" that were slightly amusing at first, as was the fact that Preston Manning talked just like the American actor Jimmy Stewart for some reason. But the novelty slowly shifted to quiet horror that has only increased, especially when one unfortunately resides in Alberduh.
And I also agree with Bev that it's false equivalence and/or "bothsidesism" for anyone to take Poilievre seriously AT ALL in the context of any kind of actual governance. He's got nothin.'
Remember how he came off when Joe Biden visited? Like the fucking brat of a kid that he is.
Like all the cons now, who didn't used to be called that btw, he's flat-out dangerous, period, along with the entire Convoy Party of Canada.