Selley: Poilievre’s opponents still struggle with his populist style

Article content

“I am also glad that the suspected shooter is dead.”

With these 10 words in response to the apparent assassination attempt on Donald Trump on Friday In Pennsylvania, Conservative federal leader Pierre Poilievre caused typical excitement among the Canadian state police.

It’s been a rough few weeks at ProPo headquarters: They’re still not done with their investigation into Poilievre’s claim that Trudeau and his policies are “crazy.” I’m not sure these people – all staunch opponents of Poilievre – really understand what they’re doing and what’s being done to them.

Article content

“That’s not leadership. That’s not how a prime minister talks,” blathered Joel Harden, a New Democrat MP from Ontario who once boasted of questioning his Jewish neighbours “about how much longer we should put up with (Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians).” (He later apologized.)

“Leaders do not celebrate death” Harden said of Poilievre’s remark“We work for the safety of the community.”

A “crazy statement”, was the reaction of left-wing commentator David Moscrop.

Former Alberta MP Thomas Lukazkuk called it “irrational” – “Revenge instead of due process.”

“If the criminal had been caught alive, we could have learned so much more that could serve the future safety of everyone,” he argued.

“While others call for calm, Poilievre is happy about retribution,” Globe and Mail columnist Andrew Coyne noted on X“It is human enough to think such things in such moments. But to say them – not in an unobserved private moment, but as a public reaction from a would-be prime minister while the potential for further violence is in the air … That is not normal.”

Article content

Article content

I am not a fan of this statement either. Political leadership does involve not saying certain things you’re thinking (though calculated prudence is probably not a trait aspiring politicians should tout). While “revenge” and “retaliation” aren’t the right words here—law enforcement was trying to neutralize an active threat that had already killed someone—it would surely be better to take the man into custody and find out what motivates him.

I don’t really care about politicians’ style, but if I did, Poilievre’s would be a serious obstacle to my voting for the Conservatives. Because his style is very often that of a (very effective) online troll. He says things in the hope that his opponents’ overreactions will make him seem reasonable by comparison, and it works with alarming regularity. It’s as if he and his team understand their opponents better than they understand themselves – and the more those opponents are embroiled in the day-to-day political fray, the worse it seems to be.

The line “glad he’s dead” wasn’t a faux pas, so there’s no point lecturing Poilievre as if it were. It was deliberately included here, knowing full well that it would provoke the reaction it is currently provoking.

Article content

The hope is that most people who take notice will share Poilievre’s opinion of the shooter, or at least see no evil in the opinion expressed. And so Poilievre would come across as relatively normal, and his pearl-clutching opponents would come across as… well, a little crazy. Just as they did when they objected to the word “crazy,” which may be unparliamentary (at least in certain circumstances) but is hardly profane.

The Wacko Siege was itself a textbook example of trolling, flawlessly executed. On April 30, Speaker Greg Fergus expelled Poilievre from the House of Commons for using the W-word to describe Trudeau and his drug policies. (“This crazy policy of this crazy prime minister,” were his exact words.)

Conservatives noted that NDP Leader Peter Julian had used the term a few times in the past without being reprimanded, and so he repeated it twice and three times. On May 3, Alberta MP Blaine Calkins used the W-word eight times in a 154-word statement in the House of Commons. And by that point, even Julian was in on the very unfunny joke, complaining about the Conservatives’ “crazy amendment” to a bill and how it amounted to “crazy obstructionism.” by an official opposition that is not a serious party.”

Article content

Please, sir, where can we find one of these “serious parties”?

Poilievre may be walking a fine line here. His poll numbers are higher than many observers thought possible. He seems to have won over a number of people who were previously hesitant about him; he was far better known to Canadians when he took office than his predecessors Erin O’Toole or Andrew Scheer were before they became party leaders, and many of those opinions about him were negative. Politicians with a very particular style can lose their popularity very quickly.

But Poilievre still has many months to kill before an election. No one presents a full programme this early. He could do a lot worse than gently nudge his opponents and watch them spill their apple juice in response, over and over again. If you ask me, everyone looks silly doing it, but in the end someone will win the election and it will all be worth it for them.

The problem is that we are in an election that will determine whether Justin Trudeau or Pierre Poilievre will destroy Canada and turn it into a charred ruin full of irradiated zombie mutants.

And that’s really not the choice we need.

National Post
[email protected]

Get more comprehensive political coverage and analysis from the National Post in your inbox with the Political Hack newsletter, featuring Ottawa bureau chief Stuart Thomson and political analyst Tasha Kheiriddin Find out what really happens behind the scenes Scenes on Parliament Hill every Wednesday and Friday, exclusively for subscribers. Login here.

Article content