Why Isn't Canada in Revolt?

RB Bennett

Someone asks recently online why, in the face of populist electoral rebellions in the US under Trump, in the UK under Farage and now Lowe, in Italy under Meloni, in the Netherlands under Wilders, in Germany, in France, in Scandinavia, Canada seems quiescent and content with the woke status quo.

I suspect this is mostly accidental. In 2021, Canada was leading the developed world in protest with the Freedom Convoy. The brutal and illegal crushing of that protest did much to cow opposition since; but that must mean it is simmering under the surface. Two years ago, it looked as though the Conservatives under Pierre Poilievre were about to sweep into power, humiliating the woke Liberals. Poilievre had impressive rhetorical skills, like Farage or Trump, and talked a relatively hard line. It looked as though Canada was, in Canadian fashion, going to manage a relatively orderly transition to the populist right.

But then the Liberals benefitted from being able to run against the USA and Trump instead of Poilievre—forcing the electorate to rally round the flag. Carney looked like an apolitical technocrat who might be able to manage the crisis. And the Liberal government perhaps benefitted even more from the collapse of the NDP, the party theoretically to their left. A double stroke of luck for them, unlikely to be repeated. And this made the election actually in large part a rejection of the left. It is just that the electorate blamed the NDP, and saw Carney as something new.

In the prior two elections, under Justin Trudeau, 2019 and 2021, the Conservatives actually outpolled the Liberals; the appearance of support for wokeness was an anomaly of the Canadian electoral map.

Now there is a push in Alberta for separation—that is hardly quiescence.

It is true, and disturbing, that current federal polling shows the Liberals well ahead of the Conservatives. I can only account for this as a continuation of the “rally around the flag” impulse in continuing crisis. But unless the Liberals can come through soon with some solid solutions, that support is likely to evaporate. Just as it has evaporated for Keir Starmer in the UK after a landslide election win; just as it evaporated for Boris Johnson and the Tories before him. And just as it evaporated for RB Bennet after he won the 1930 election in the first throes of the Great Depression. Elected as a steady business mind to deal with the crisis, and failing to make a dent, he was crushed in 1935. And has been blamed for the suffering ever since.

I expect Carney to ultimately be such a figure. The bad news is, we in Canada are likely to go through some suffering first. Possibly Canada’s impoverishment, possibly its collap

What Poilievre Should Say in the Next Election

Here’s my suggestion for how Poilievre should handle the Trump issue in the next election; a proposed speech.

“My friends and fellow Canadians; let us remember how lucky we are to be Canadians; to have this beautiful land as our inheritance. Just look around you. The Rocky Mountains; Niagara; the thundering Fraser; the vast prairies; the great white north; the bays and fishing grounds of the longest coastline in the world. Our ancestors handed down to us the second-largest piece of real estate in the world. A land rich in arable land, rich in minerals, rich in oil,  potash, natural gas, rich in fresh water and fish and hydro power. Our geography protects us on three sides from invasion by vast oceans. And on the fourth side--right next door to the largest and wealthiest market in the world. A pretty good place to set up shop.

 It would be hard to mess this up. But the Liberals are doing their best. We are beginning to feel the consequences. In rising costs of living, rising regional resentments, rising ethnic tensions, rising rates of violence, and economic stagnation. In the housing crisis and the health care crisis. In our weekly food bills and rent or mortgage payments, and in our rising taxes.

And their alibi is Donald Trump. It’s all Trump’s fault. A convenient scapegoat.

Trump’s an easy target. Canadians are painstakingly polite. Canadians always say sorry, and care about the feelings of others. Trump is rude. He has bad manners. He says hurtful things. This obviously rubs Canadians the wrong way.

Friends, this is simple to understand. Trump is from the boroughs of New York City, from Queens. Just as Canadians are polite, that is the way New Yorkers are. Let’s not be hoodwinked by prejudice. Trump is mostly bark, not bite. We should be sophisticated enough, with our multicultural heritage, to see this, and use it to our advantage.

We are lucky to have the United States as our neighbour. It is the key to our own prosperity. No other nation can replace the US as our chief market. And it is good to be on good terms with your customers.

And the US has been a good neighbour. Since 1815, despite the world’s longest border, they have not tried to annex us. They have not fired in anger. Compare the many wars of Europe. We have lived together in peace and prosperity, to great mutual benefit. Would you rather live in Africa or the Middle East?

Not only have they never attacked us; America has been the great protector of our own freedoms—and the liberty of the rest of the world. Along with the British parliamentary tradition, the American federal structure, their representative government, and their Bill of Rights, were largely the model for confederation, responsible government, and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 

They led and won the Cold War against Communism on behalf of the democracies. They were the critical factor in taking down Hitler and the Holocaust. They came to the rescue of the other democracies at the critical moment in the First World War. They have led the fight against Islamist terrorism. We have fought side by side with our American brothers many times; and do not suppose this was some favour to the Americans. Our interests, as free peoples, are the same. 

How can we even think of, say, cozying up to Beijing to spite America? A CCP guilty of genocide as we speak? A CCP that has held Canadians hostage, that tries to bully Canadian citizens here in Canada?

And a CCP that declares the right to annex Taiwan, simply because they are ethnically similar. On these grounds, the US could claim a right to annex Canada. Do we really want to ally with the annexationists and annexationism, against our friends and loyal neighbours?

The idea seems treasonous. Yet this is Carney’s clever idea.

And the Americans are just people like us. We are brothers and cousins—often literally. Many of use have spent winters in Florida or Arizona. Many have worked or studied there, most of use have visited. We all listen to Drake, and Celine Dion, and Neil Young. We all laugh to Jim Carrey, Catherine O’Hara, and Norm MacDonald. It is unnatural to be at odds with our family members and neighbours. And it is impolite. With good will, we can work out this little argument over the strength of a figurative fence.

Carney and the Liberals do not understand Trump. Or they are cynically pretending not to, to stir up panic. Don’t be fooled. Trump is using negotiating tactics. Our panic is to his advantage. We do understand him. Jamil Jivani knows JD Vance personally.

I propose we lower our elbows. That is not the Canadian way, has never been the Canadian way. We are a polite people. We are a nation that plays for the Lady Byng Trophy. What other sport but hockey has such a trophy, for gentlemanly conduct? Elbows down, my friends, elbows down. Free trade between our two nations is in the best interests of both, and so it should be easy, with good will, to come to a new agreement. We want freer trade.

Let us play to our strengths. Let us approach the United States in friendship, and seek sunny ways. Let us not be like Trump, but like Canadians."

No Left Turn

 

Rupert Lowe’s new Restore Britain Party may be bad news for the right in British politics—splitting the vote just when Reform looked poised to replace Labour in the next election. That would be the conventional assumption. But the enthusiastic response to his announcement shows how rapidly the pendulum is swinging. Farage suddenly looks moderate and mainstream. A large part of the electorate is tired of more of the same old same old and is craving real change. They feel betrayed after Brexit. They have trust issues.

We are in a revolutionary period; and the revolution devours its children.

I suspect the same dynamic lost the last Canadian election for Pierre Poilievre. Once Trump was elected to the south, Poilievre no longer seemed so transgressive. He needed to up the ante. Instead, he followed the convention of moving to the centre. That does not work in a revolutionary period. He echoed the Liberals on the Trump file, the dominant issue of the campaign. If he’s going to be just another Liberal, why not vote for the real Liberals? Why switch horses? After all, the existing cabinet have more experience, and Carney’s resume is stronger than Poilievre’s.

Trump is now the pace-setter. The key to success now on the right is to sound at least as transgressive of the established mainstream narratives as Trump. Lowe has seen that.

Poilievre no doubt fears being branded as “Maple MAGA,” given Trump’s unpopularity north of the 49th. But he will be branded this way by the Liberals and the legacy media no matter what. The only possible strategy is to embrace it. You cannot win an election being defensive. He should take a leaf from Trump’s playbook when accused of being too close to Putin. Why is it a bad thing to be able to get along with the enemy? He should play up Jamil Jivani’s friendship with JD Vance, and promise “sunny ways” to get a better deal with the Americans. 

On the Canadian Election Results

It is typical that the media are playing the just-finished Canadian election as a striking defeat and rebuff for Poilievre and the Conservatives. Warren Kinsella has a column out urging the Tories to get a new leader. Poilievre has failed.

Never take advice from your enemies.

It is sad that the Conservatives did not achieve power. It is sadder that Poilievre lost his own seat. But actually, the Conservative vote was at a near-all-time high. They missed the brass ring only because of the collapse of the NDP.

Carney could have an awkward time of it. The NDP ought to take the lesson that they lose by propping up the Liberals: doing so last time cut them down to below party status. To have any chance at a future, they must now distinguish themselves sharpy from the Liberals. 

At the same time, the Liberals will likely pay a price in the rest of Canada for making any deals with the BQ, an avowedly separatist party. And there is nothing in such cooperation for the Bloc either. The Liberals are their main opponents in Quebec. Strategically, they hardly want to make the Rouge look good by forcing them into new programs popular in Quebec. The credit in the popular mind is liable to go to Carney, not Blanchet and the Bloc.

So I see a good chance that Carney will soon be unable to command the support of the House. Meantime, the Liberals’ environment policies seem bound to alienate Aberta into at least talk of separation. And some economist has argued that whoever wins this time is unlucky, because the tariffs and trade war are going to lead to hard times soon. They will be blamed. Or they are going to have to cut a deal with Trump, and they will be tarred with inconsistency if not duplicity.

There will be good incentive soon enough among the other parties to bring down the government, and not be seen to prop them up. This may only be the first round.

Canadian Leaders and the Oncoming Election

 R

RB Bennett: the risks of winning the wrong election.

The talking heads at CBC’s At Issue think Pierre Poilievre, Yves-Francois Blanchet, and Jagmeet Singh all face likely loss of their party leadership after Monday’s election.

I believe only Singh is in trouble. Singh’s caucus will probably be cut in half; Singh will lose his own seat; and it will be his own fault—for backing the unpopular Liberals until they themselves pulled the plug. According to the polls, by stalling, he lost a chance for the NDP to form the Official Opposition. The latest polling has them down to eight seats, losing party status. He should have known, historically, that third parties are always punished for entering a coalition. And such a coalition, with an already unpopular prime minister! He really seems to have intentionally destroyed the NDP.

But Blanchet will surely not be blamed if the BQ loses seats. He is brilliant; the BQ cannot do better. It is circumstances--the tariff scare, and the fear of Canada breaking up--that have caused Quebec voters to rally, temporarily, around the Canadian flag and the obvious federalist alternative in Quebec, the Rouge. I expect BQ regulars to understand that, and see Blanchet as their best option going forward.

And about the same is true of Poilievre. He has run a flawless campaign; he is a brilliant rhetorician, a brilliant tactician. He was poised, six months ago, to crush the Liberals. That big win slipped away due to circumstances beyond his control: Trudeau’s resignation, Trump’s tariffs, Carney’s coronation and adoption of key elements of the Conservative platform. These show, if anything, just how effective a politician he has been. He forced his opponent to resign. He managed to kill the carbon tax, without even being in power. Nobody else in the Tory party is likely to do better. And, if in opposition, nobody else in the Tory party is likely to be a more effective opposition leader.

True, the Tories have dumped their last two leaders after only one election loss. But neither Scheer nor O’Toole had Poilievre’s legitimacy. 

Scheer’s leadership was tainted by scandal. First, he snuck past Bernier, the front runner in his leadership bid, by making a backroom deal with the dairy lobby. That left a lot of bad feeling in the party. Second, since he won in this way, he did not have a strong personal following; he was second choice for most who supported him. Third, he had falsified his job history and concealed his dual citizenship. Fourth, he lost his ideological cred by waffling on the abortion question. It is not that he was either pro or con: it was that he seemed to change his position for the sake of power. So he did not come across as a man of principle.

O’Toole ran for and won the leadership as a “True Blue” Tory; then campaigned in the election as “Liberal lite.” There is a saying in politics: if you abandon your principles for power, you’d better deliver power. Otherwise, you’ll have no nothing to fall back on. Ask Tom Mulcair. 

But Poilievre, like Harper, has ideological cred to sustain him through a season of want. He inspires loyalty; he won the Tory leadership by a wide margin on the first ballot. 

I have no special insights, and therefore no ability to predict the outcome of the election. I can only look at the polls. As of this morning, 338 Canada predicts a Liberal majority government at 186 seats. With the NDP at just 8 seats.

But there is a trend towards the Conservatives in recent days. So I’m hoping for a Liberal minority. Then perhaps, we may get a chance to remove them in a year or two.

I expect the Liberals’ policy of fighting a trade war with the US will prove disastrous. Their “green” agenda will provoke a national unity crisis. Even without this, one pundit says whoever wins this current election is likely to rue the day, since bad times are coming, and they will be blamed. 

The Lord works in mysterious ways.

Let’s hope he still likes Canada, despite our arrogance.

Maple DOGE

 

Actual unretouched photograph courtesy of Craiyon

I think Trump’s DOGE is a powerful idea that would make a great campaign issue for Pierre Poilievre if he has the nerve to grab it. Of course, the Liberals would respond by pointing out that Poilievre is “taking a page from the Trump playbook.” And Trump is far from a popular figure in Canada.Poilievre would have to be ready to wear this.

I think he must. He is going to have to wear this anyway. No matter what he does or says, because he is ideologically aligned with Trump, the Liberals will say this. The smart thing to do is to walk right into it. Be a leader, not a follower; attack, don’t defend. Explain why this idea of Trump’s is a good idea, and should be done here.

The Liberals cannot co-opt this issue, as they have done with the carbon tax, because the bureaucracy is their base. It also works well against Carney, because Carney is the ultimate bureaucrat. Suddenly his supposed expertise, which looks good for confronting Trump, works against him. He is a swamp creature. And for the common taxpayer, it has to be a winner. Week by week, new revelations about ridiculous spending. And with them the hope of lower taxes, without a reduction in services.

Introducing an attention-grabbing proposal like this could take the focus off the Trump tariffs, which are a losing issue for the Conservatives. And it could remedy the problem of looking dull and squishy in light of Trump’s dramatic actions next door.

Kevin O’Leary seems to me the best outsider to enlist to manage the inquisition; he seems ready and eager for some such role. He has a talent for publicity, a public reputation for financial probity, and experience as an entrepreneur and venture capitalist. Below him, he should have the smarts to hire some guys who previously worked with Musk on DOGE. If this sounds too flashy for Canadian tastes, Stephen Harper might be up for the role. He is at least a trained economist, and the finances looked much more sound under his tenure.

Collateral Damage in the Trump Wars

 

Why are things suddenly going badly for the Poilievre Conservatives in Canada, and Farage’s Reform in the UK? The polls are dropping in Canada; in the UK, there is much dissent in the ranks.

It is the Trump effect. Trump is sucking up all the oxygen on the right. The local heroes, Farage and Poilievre, no longer seem exciting and radical by comparison. Inevitably, not being in power, Poilievre and Farage are all talk and no action. Unless they can propose policies significantly more radical-sounding than what Trump is actually doing, they begin to look like weak tea.

This is how and why revolutions devour their children. Once the movement begins, it is hard to stay in front of it. It is easy to start to look like yesterday’s man.

Keeping it Under America's Hat

 

Trump’s win is moving the Overton window rapidly in the US. Some people are going to be caught with their pyjamas down. The NYT and The View have caught the smell in the wind, and are trying to shift their tone. Trumpism, is now demonstrably the mainstream, and they risk either bankruptcy or irrelevance. The woke will soon be laughing stocks.

What does this mean in Canada? For Canda, just as for the rest of the developed West, the US sets the tone—more now than ever before, because we are so interconnected. Pierre Poilievre, in particular, has a tricky path. He needs to make rapid policy changes to more closely conform to Trump’s agenda, or start to look stale and conventional. He needs to make some striking new policy proposals to keep people’s excitement. He can’t just talk about the carbon tax.

This is a revolutionary period, and the revolution eats its children. You must race to stay in front of the parade, or be trampled by it.

Is Poilievre, and are the Conservatives, up to it? If not, Maxime Bernier might steal his thunder.

Trump’s drive to cut taxes and regulations and unleash oil and gas is also going to force whomever is in government in Canada to do the same. Otherwise investment will flood out of Canada into he US; the results will be too obvious. Voters will not stand for it.

Angry Pierre

 

Andrew Lawton has just published a bio of Pierre Poilievre. Discussing it, he and Brian Lilley puzzled over the common claim by Trudeau and the Liberals, and by some commentators, that Poilievre is angry and mean. Even that this makes him ultimately unelectable. They feel the opposite. They find him friendly and cheerful.

So do I. And not just his supposed private persona. His public persona.  It is striking to me that Poilievre never shows anger, never loses his cool when attacked, however outrageously. He always responds with a smile, and, as often as not, with a joke. The self-control is astounding. 

Trudeau, by contrast, always seems angry. He mocks up anger even when I suspect he does not feel it. He calls opponents Nazis, “unacceptable,” foreign agents, and on and on.

How to account for this odd inversion of what seem to be plain, visible facts?

I think Harry Tuman said it best. 

When he was giving a speech, some listener shouted at him, “Give ‘em hell, Harry.” 

And Truman responded, “I never give them hell. I just tell the truth, and to them it sounds like hell.”

Poilievre is an extremely good communicator. By simply clearly stating the matter, and asking precise questions, he makes the other side look bad. It feels like hell to them. A narcissist will never blame themselves for an error or misdeed: instead, they blame the person who points it out. You blame the police; you blame the judge; you blame the jury; you blame the church; you blame conventional morality; you blame society as a whole.

It’s a childish response, but common. Especially, these days, on the left.

For Poilievre, it is a Catch-22; he is obliged to pretend to be wrong.

Roughly the same narcissistic impulse perhaps accounts for much Trump Derangement Syndrome. 

Trump too is a great communicator. That sounds like hell to the other side.

Trump is not usually blamed, like Poilievre, for seeming angry. That is because he really does indulge in anger at times. Trump does, unlike Poilievre, trade in insults and make extreme charges against his opponents. He can be brutal to an opponent. Therefore, they do not accuse him of anger.

But he does speak truth; he is always saying out loud what everyone is thinking. This is what the left fears about him; and so they accuse him of lying.

Poilievre’s words are more calculated than Trump’s, more like those of a conventional politician. He hedges and dodges: will not take a stand on the proposed new capital gains tax, because there is no political gain in it, and so forth. He speaks the truth, but more selectively. But unlike Trump, he does not show anger; is always gentlemanly about it. And so they accuse him not of lying or prevaricating, but of always being angry.

This is how gaslighting works. 

Whatever the narcissist says will be the opposite of the truth. 

One reason they do this is because they fear truth, and want to get as far away from it as possible. Another reason is that they recognize good traits in others, and immediately envy them. They must appropriate them to themselves instead, and insist they are not found in the other. 

The takeaway is that we are currently governed by petulant children with weapons.

Diagolon Responds

 

Support Grows for an Invasion of Canada

 

Not Mincing Words

 

Pierre Poilievre makes his position on Gaza clear.

A Thing of Beauty

 

I think we are lucky to have Pierre Poilievre. He is a master of rhetoric. And, in politics, rhetoric is the whole game. In a good sense.

Liar, Liar

 

The latest Liberal meme has Poilievre’s photo and the tagline “How to Spot a Liar.”

This, interestingly, is the same tag used down south where the paw paws grow against Donald Trump. As previously noted here, the striking thing about Trump is that he speaks the truth. This complaint against Trump is a perfect example of confession through projection. Perhaps in Poilievre’s case as well.

Let’s examine their claims, about how to spot a liar, about Poilievre, and applied to Trump and to Trudeau as well.

 1. Deliberately vague on details.

With respect to lying, this does not fit. Being vague on details is as likely to be an honourable attempt to avoid lying—to avoid promises one may not be able to keep. If one is lying, one is surely just as happy to lie about details.

It is true that Poilievre has not given a lot of details about what the Conservatives would do in power. This is typical of an opposition party this far out from an election. To do so would be to give the government unnecessarily ample time to prepare their counter-arguments. Poilievre is merely playing the game as it is always played. He has made specific and striking promises: to defund the CBC, to tie federal money to housing starts.

Trump is generally vague or even wrong on details when he speaks. This has to do with speaking extempore, not from a teleprompter like most politicians. He is also not a policy wonk by interest and temperament, but a manager. On the other hand, he was more specific than other candidates when running for the Republican nomination: for example, he would build a wall on the southern border. And he did everything to fulfill that promise.

Trudeau is also not detail-oriented. “The budget will balance itself.” “Housing is not primarily a federal responsibility.” He is always vague, even though he is in power, and responsible for getting things done.

2. Uses embellished language.

This does ring true: a liar will try to buffalo the public or the opposition with word salads and impressive-sounding, official-sounding words.

This is the opposite of the case with Trump, who deliberately uses street language. They might have a case if they said he exaggerates, but that is not the claim. “Huge” or “incredible” or “nobody ever imagined” are not embellished language. Nor are they tailored to mislead.

Poilievre, too, always uses simple and straightforward language: “my home, your home, our home, let’s bring it home. “The common sense of the common people.” “Just answer: Yes or no.” This is his most obvious talent.

Trudeau is the clear offender here. Only a few days ago he seems to have invented a word, “biphobia,” in order to buffalo listeners. This, along with his other favoured terms “Islamophobia,” “transphobia,” and “homophobia,” are fake medical terms intended to sound scientific. How about the ever-evolving “2SLGBTQ+”? How about “peoplekind”? Trudeau likes big, important-sounding words and word salads.

3. Exaggerated emotional displays.

True for liars in general. Partly because they are actors; partly because the act of lying tends to get you agitated, as lie detectors know. I think of O.J. Simpson saying he “absolutely” did not kill his wife.

Trump seems oddly serene when attacked. He never seems to lose his temper or make an emotional appeal to his audience. “But that’s okay.” His appeals are humorous, which is broadly the opposite, an intellectual, rational appeal.

It is striking that Poilievre, too, always keeps an even tone, and never seems agitated. His voice is oddly monotonous, in the literal sense. He conspicuously avoids sounding emotional.

Justin Trudeau, on the other hand, often expresses anger, outrage, if faux outrage, in speech.

4. Relies on derogatory labels.

This is perhaps not lying per se, but it is not legitimate. It is ad hominem. Amusingly, this is exactly what this current Liberal meme is doing, in calling Poilievre a liar rather than addressing his arguments.

Trump indeed does it a lot. “Crooked Hillary,” “Lyin’ Ted,” and so forth. It is, to my mind, his worst characteristic.

Poilievre doesn’t seem to do it.

Trudeau does it as his standard first line of attack in debate. Opponents are always homophobic, misogynistic, Nazi sympathizers, racist, Islamophobic, far right, extremists, white supremacists, a radical fringe element, anti-vaxxers, and on and on.

5. Overuse of sarcasm/humour.

This is the opposite of the truth, and exposes the Liberals. Liars and miscreants have no sense of humour. Jokes are too likely to expose them. 

"Those who do not laugh have bad consciences." - Brothers Grimm, "The Twelve Brothers."

This is why courts used to deliberately employ court jesters—to keep the king and court honest.

Conversely, it is hard to imagine convincing an honest person that there is “too much” humour in the world.

Trump is a great stand-up comedian. It is characteristic of his opposition that they cannot see this, and actually “fact-check” his jokes and call them lies.

Poilievre is extremely witty, and generally responds to attacks with good humour.

It is, conversely, hard to imagine Justin Trudeau pulling off a joke; even scripted. I have seen no evidence he even has a sense of humour.

What, indeed, does this tell you?

6. References undefined “they.”

This is a fault—although blaming an undefined “they” is still better than falsely blaming, say, “the Jews,” or “men,” or “whites.”

Trump might be accused of this. He identifies “they” only as “the swamp in Washington” or “the Deep State” or “Antifa.” The problem here is that “they” refuse to identify themselves. They are, in the standard phrase, “faceless bureaucrats,” who avoid personal attribution and work behind the scenes. And then there is Antifa, who always wears masks. Trump cannot be blamed for their anonymity.

Poilievre blames “the Trudeau government.” That is realistically as specific as he can be. And his job as opposition leader.

Trudeau generally endorses conspiracy theories blaming men, whites, and Christians. He also blames everything said critical of his government on unspecified “foreign agents,” or “white supremacists,” or “American billionaires,” or the like; most often all of them working together. Always some amorphous conspiracy supposedly behind the people we see.

7. Assigns thoughts and motives.

This, if not lying as such, is also illegitimate in debate. It is close kin to lying.

Does either Trump or Poilievre do it? Not conspicuously, surely. Trump will do it, then draw back and point out that he doesn’t really know.

This is most obviously characteristic of Trudeau, who invariably attributes misogyny, homophobia, racism, white supremacy, Nazi sympathies, and so on, to any opposition.

8. Talks/changes topics quickly.

Two different things are conflated here: changing topic, and talking quickly. They are unrelated.

Changing topic is an illegitimate debate tactic: a red herring.

I don’t see either Trump or Poilievre doing this beyond what any politician will do when asked a loaded question. One cannot directly answer “have you stopped beating your wife?”

Trudeau and his ministers invariably use red herrings in question period. They will respond to difficult question by raising an entirely different issue. It is so ridiculous the Tories have resorted to counting the number of times in succession that Ministers of the Crown have failed to answer the same direct question.

On the other hand, talking fast is a sign of high intelligence; it is a sign of how quickly the brain is working. In fact, a liar will be more likely to speak slowly, because he must guard and measure his words.

Poilievre is extremely quick in speech, and quick-witted. So is Trump; although his actual speech is fairly slow, he is fast enough on his feet to come up with devastating quips in debate, or to speak for two hours extempore.

Trudeau speaks relatively slowly, with many conspicuous “ah’s” as he thinks about what he is about to say.

A sure sign of a liar.

9. Presents his own opinions as facts.

This would be lying indeed.

The issue is clouded, perhaps, by the realty that the postmodern left does not believe there are any facts. In the immortal words of The Dude, “Well, that’s just your opinion, man.” So whenever Trump or Poilievre actually state a hard fact, a statistic or the wording of the constitution, say, they are, in the minds of the modleft, presenting their opinion as a fact. Can’t win on that one.

I can, however, on the other hand, by either the traditional or the postmodernist definition, see examples of opinion presented as fact in the case of Trudeau. Claiming that men can be women, or women men. Claiming that the science is settled on climate change. Claiming that gays or trans are born this way. Claiming that Canada has no mainstream culture. Claiming that India assassinated a Canadian citizen. Claiming that the truckers of February were trying to overthrow the government. Claiming there were mass graves near or under the residential schools. Examples could be multiplied.

10. Projects extreme confidence.

This again is the opposite of the truth. Lie detectors operate on the principle that one is never fully confident in a lie. The convention of the duel, or the joust, as well, are based on the psychological wisdom that the hand of the unjust will falter in the crisis.

Jesus Christ projected extreme confidence in the crisis. As did Churchill, as did Martin Luther King.

Trump is indeed supremely confident—conspicuously more than most politicians. He has been tested more. So is Poilievre—certainly more than other recent Conservative leaders. 

Trudeau? He seems confident enough; but since he has been in power for almost all of his political career, he has not really been tested. To my mind, there is usually fear in his eyes.

What do we learn from this?

The Liberals have nothing on Poilievre. They have no arguments.

A Rap Against Poiliev

 

I don’t see nearly as many leftist posts on Facebook as I used to. Maybe because the cultural tide is turning; maybe because all my old leftist friends have by now unfriended and blocked me. Probably both.

But I saw this one today:

I don’t see nearly as many leftist posts on Facebook as I used to. Maybe because the cultural tide is turning; maybe because all my old leftist friends have by now unfriended and blocked me. Probably both. 

But I saw this one today:

 

The point being attempted, of course, that the Liberal government is much more distinguished and qualified to be in power than the opposition.

But note the obvious anomaly: they are comparing the opposition leader to the deputy PM, not the PM. Justin Trudeau is significantly less formally qualified for a role in government than Poilievre. B.A., B. Ed., short career as a drama teacher. His primary qualifications are simply that he is handsome and is named Trudeau. Poilievre, by contrast, was in the business, learning the political and government ropes, as assistant to Stockwell Day and Stephen Harper as opposition leaders, as a longtime MP, and as a cabinet minister. 

As for Freeland? It takes good marks, but it also costs a lot of money to go to Harvard. It costs a lot of money to go to Oxford as a foreign student, and you have to be rich to be able to stay out of the workforce for that long. Or long enough to write books, or learn five languages. Mostly what we learn from this is that Freeland was the child of two lawyers, while Poilievre was an orphan adopted by high school teachers. Chrystia Freeland, like Trudeau, was a child of privilege.

The Liberals are the party of the ruling elite, and those who doff the cap to them. The Family Compact, the Chateau Clique, the Laurentian Elite. They respect the credentials that show you are a member of that elite, that you have a pedigree. An Ignatieff, a Turner, a Martin, a Trudeau. Tories, by contrast, respect the common man and the self-made man who rose from obscurity by their own effort.

Populism

 

What is the big deal about populism? We commonly hear the expression these days, and usually not as a compliment.

Populism means “a believer in the rights, wisdom, or virtues of the common people” (Merriam-Webster); “A political philosophy supporting the rights and power of the people in their struggle against the privileged elite” (American Heritage); “political program or movement that champions, or claims to champion, the common person, usually by favourable contrast with a real or perceived elite or establishment.” (Encyclopedia Britannica). Definitions seem pretty consistent: the interests of the people over those of the elite.

Donald Trump is a populist, in promising to “drain the swamp.” So is Pierre Poilievre, with his appeal to “the common sense of the common people.” So was Mike Pence, at the recent Republican candidates’ debate, in repeating the slogan “What we need is a government as good as the American people.” John Diefenbaker was a populist: “Everyone is against me except the people.” RFK Jr. is a populist. Jefferson was a populist. The NDP too used to at least claim to be populist, fighting for the “working man” against the “special interests.”

So what is wrong with that? This is simply democracy: the idea that there must be some check on the power of the elite. The opposite of populism would be autocracy, or aristocracy. I think we all rejected that in the American and French revolutions.

To be fair, however, Adolf Hitler was also a populist, appealing to the “volk” against the cosmopolitan elite, which he then identified with the Jews. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Chavez, Robespierre were all nominally populists.

My conclusion: like any obvious good, populism will inevitably be hijacked to conceal evil. Just as the smartest way to hide if you are a thoroughly bad sort is under a cassock.

Buyer beware: consider such movements case by case. And be alert too that slanders will be spread about them by any elite.

Poilievre the Rhetorician

 

Do others realize that Pierre Poilievre is a brilliant rhetorician? He’s better than Reagan, “the Great Communicator.” 

This is an essential talent for rea leadership and getting things done. Without it, all you are is a careerist who will follow the polls. With it, you can take popular opinion along with you.

People credit Justin Trudeau with being a great campaigner, because he has won three elections in a row. His training in acting no doubt helps; a background in acting helped Reagan, Zelensky, Pope John Paul II, Queen Elizabeth II. However, he is not a very good actor, more of a wannabe, and it tends to show. He is an actor in about the same sense Hitler was a painter.

I say Trudeau did not win those three elections so much as Tom Mulcair, Andrew Scheer, and Erin O’Toole lost them. As Peter MacKay put it, Scheer missed a shot on an empty net. And they all lost for the same reason: they abandoned principle and “moved to the centre.” They were poll-watchers.

This never works in opposition, because it is a simple matter for a government too to watch the polls. But they, unlike the opposition, can take immediate action on them, getting on the right side of every issue as it arises. All the opposition can argue, then, is that they would be more efficient or honest in doing the same thing.

Those who like the government will naturally vote for the government again, not some unknown promising to do the same thing.

Those who do not like the government will not vote for someone else promising to do the same thing.

To defeat a sitting government, you need to do what Poilievre is doing: stick to your principles, and sell them to the public. You can’t win the debate if you don’t debate. You can’t begin by conceding all the premises of the other side.

Pierre Poilievre Defines "Woke"

 

It is a joy to have Poilievre around, if like me you enjoy fine rhetoric. He rarely fails.

Poilievre on Nowruz

 

Say what you will--Pierre Poilievre knows how to give a speech.

I bet this gets him the Iranian vote.

Spotting the Good Guys

 

MEP Christine Anderson has been on a Canadian tour. She has been welcomed by Rebel News, Maxime Bernier and the PPC, Leslyn Lewis, and the leaders of the Freedom Convoy. On the other hand, Brian Lilley, previously considered a conservative columnist for the Toronto Sun, Justin Trudeau, and Pierre Poilievre have denounced her in quite intemperate terms.

Trudeau:

She is “responsible for a particularly vile level of rhetoric and hatred … hateful, vile, intolerant rhetoric.”

Poilievre’s office:

“Christine Anderson's views are vile and have no place in our politics. … Frankly, it would be better if Anderson never visited Canada in the first place. She and her racist, hateful views are not welcome here."

Yet neither Lilley, Trudeau, nor Poilievre quote anything Anderson has said. We must take their word for it.

My web search also turns up nothing. The most controversial thing I find is that Anderson posed for a photograph with Jeremy MacKenzie and the flag of Diagolon. Many people, it is true, claim Diagolon is a dangerous terrorist group; but again, we have to take their word for it. MacKenzie claims it is only a meme, a gag.

I cannot imagine Osama Bin Laden insisting that Al Qaeda was a gag, or Hitler that his antisemitism was.

It is conceivable that either Diagolon or Anderson do hold racist views. We cannot tell, because those who accuse them not only present no evidence, but will not allow us to see the evidence. They are the same people who are censoring anything on the Internet they disagree with. Anderson’s or Diagolon’s views are silenced.

This being so, we must assume innocence of Anderson and Diagolon. They have never been given a hearing here.

We’re in a deeper hole in Canada than I had imagined. Brian Lilley appears to be a member of a Fifth column. Perhaps he once was a conservative, but he has joined the Family Compact and started attending the cocktail and Kool-ade parties. Poilievre, so previously promising, looks like another O’Toole. He’s just a politician playing the game, will run cover for the established interests, and will change nothing.

This was a litmus test, and we need to remember who passed and who did not.