The Sins of Pierre Poilievre

 

Watching CBC’s “At Issue” panel and Eric Gernier’s “The Writ” podcast, I learn that the heckling at Pierre Poilievre’s first press conference was actually all Poilievre’s fault. He should somehow mysteriously not have reacted, or something. He somehow invisibly lost his composure and showed aggression and weakness. He is also at fault for MP Alain Rayes leaving caucus just days after Poilievre was elected leader. Although both of these look like attacks on Poilievre, they are actually attacks on Rayes and David Aiken, the journalist, by Poilievre, who is intolerant and violent.

This is what cognitive dissonance, or narcissistic rage, looks like.

The argument in either case is the same: “I know Rayes/Aiken personally. We all do. Everyone does. He is a decent guy. He should be given the benefit of the doubt. Any criticism of Rayes/Aiken is illegitimate.”

The talking heads are here simply confirming the perception that there is a “Laurentian elite,” a Family Compact, running the country. They all know one other, speak only to one another, never to the general public. They live by different rules, and will close ranks, like the Freemasons, against outsiders. They are a ruling class.

One of Grenier’s panelists actually said, of Poilievre calling Rayes a “Liberal heckler,” “It shows you’re losing when you criticize the referee.” This means she thinks the established media are the proper government, as referees are in a sports competition, and ought to be immune from criticism.

Not how democracy is supposed to work.

The Rayes case is a bit complicated. Rayes announced he was leaving the Conservative caucus to sit as an independent, because he could not accept Poilievre as leader. Conservative HQ then sent a text message to party members in his riding suggesting that they contact his office and urge him to resign his seat. Rayes went to the media and complained that his constituency office was being flooded by calls. He called this “intimidation.” The Conservative Party then quickly issued a terse apology: “The Conservative Party of Canada apologizes for an automated text message sent out earlier today to party members in the riding of Richmond-Arthabaska.”

It is generally considered an act of disloyalty for a party member to refuse to back the new leader of their party immediately after a leadership contest. It is also true that voters generally vote primarily for the party, not the local candidate, when they go to the polls in a general election. It is therefore more honourable, although not required, when a member voluntarily leaves their party, to resign the seat and run again to take it in their own name. All the more so in this case, since the majority of Conservative members in Rayes’s own constituency backed Poilievre in the recent leadership vote. So Rayes was acting dishonourably, and the Conservative HQ was acting honourably. Calling on him to resign, now that he had declared himself an opponent, should be no more controversial than calling on Trudeau and the Liberal government to resign.

Moreover, there is something obviously wrong with objecting to a call for a popular vote. There is something obviously wrong with calling the expressed opinions of his constituents “intimidation.” Rayes does not hold his seat by divine right. 

The only problem was that the party quickly apologized. That, too, was an honourable thing to do, if done to soothe any hurt feelings. It was a peace offering. But, predictably, the Laurentian elite simply exploited this as proof that the party was in the wrong. After all, they admitted it!

This is in turn a dishonourable response to an apology. 

Those in power are without honour and without ethics. The only possible justification for a ruling class is a higher code of ethics. With this ruling group, we have the opposite. They must fall.

The media are demanding right out of the gate that Poilievre show proper deference to them, show he is going to play by their rules, or they will go all out to destroy him. 

The problem is, however, that if he plays the game by their rules, those rules dictate that he must always lose. He must surrender his principles, betray his voters, and still lose the election. Witness O’Toole, Romney, McCain—or Boris Johnson in the end. 

One hopes Poilievre is smart enough to see this, to battle the establishment media and rely on the new media to get his message out. It will take nerves of steel. It will take a true leader.

Looking forward, one of Grenier’s panelists saw the future as being “simply bad.” Unnamed parties lacking maturity—they keep talking about maturity, the subtext being that most people other than themselves are and should be treated like children--working in tandem with the Conservative Party, would now be spreading irresponsible falsehoods (or did she say “misinformation”) that the public should not be allowed to hear.

In a democracy, of course, there is nothing the public should not be allowed to hear. It is up to them to decide what is false.

These talking heads so casually say outrageous things, and then all nod their heads in agreement. They are never challenged, in their small bubble.

That bubble must be popped. It will be, sooner or later.