The Politics of Vengeance
Without revenge as a central platform, Poilievre is struggling. It might be too late for him to change course.
Today’s Op-ed is by Isaac Peltz. Isaac and Gab will both be writing pieces in their respective first languages. If you’ve not read the Poilievre bio, we recommend it!
The world's largest economic and military power sought revenge on Canada. Donald Trump, elected on a mandate of retribution, directed his vengeance towards Trudeau, whom he felt had wronged him for four years. In doing so, Trump inadvertently hindered the "homegrown revenge" of Poilievre and his team.
Revenge is the primary objective of the American Republican Party. Trump himself stated his desire to retaliate against those who had portrayed him negatively in the media and those who had mocked him. His anger, fueled by years of far-right rhetoric, intensified his resolve. His resentment towards "Justin from Canada," as well as other neoliberal European leaders, grew until he took power, where he would begin enacting his revenge against foreign leaders and domestic powers that had made him look like a fool.
Then, Chrystia Freeland betrayed her closest ally publicly. And then Trump began enacting his revenge on Trudeau. The combined efforts of Trump’s revenge and internal divisions ended Trudeau’s career. And changed this election.
This week, Trump’s tone shifted, and he appeared more willing to engage in discussions with Poilievre or Carney. With Trudeau out of the picture, Trump seemed ready to work with new leadership (although this may not remain the case.)
Trump's central focus was not populist protectionism or policies aimed at aiding the working class. His goal was singular: "Owning the Libs." This idea has become more important to many conservatives than policymaking or fiscal responsibility. It has become the primary objective for politicians like Trump, his associates, and for Poilievre.
In Canada, Poilievre adopted "owning the libs" as his central theme, despite Canada having a party literally named the Liberal Party. Currently, Poilievre is not open to adapting his language, his policies, his rhetoric to face the current crisis. His opponent is a fiscal conservative who is only nominally Liberal. Poilievre’s message often comes across as a cry for personal revenge, aiming to harm those perceived to have wronged him. In fact, that’s what propelled Poilievre to power.
Poilievre began as a far-right attack dog, tasked by Harper to deflect criticism. When Harper did not pivot far enough to the right, Poilievre and Andrew Scheer grew disillusioned. This discontent fueled Poilievre's actions for the next decade, pushing the party further right while embracing a form of faux populist rhetoric. He sought to avenge what he saw as weak leadership.
Witnessing Justin Trudeau's vacillation and tendency to align his views wherever the wind blew, Poilievre became obsessed with "owning the libs." His rhetoric reflected this obsession, leading him to call Trudeau a "wacko," resulting in his eviction from caucus. He consistently blamed Trudeau and "the libs" for Canada's problems, declaring the nation "broken."
While Canada has many issues, including its colonial past and treatment of Indigenous populations resulting in an apartheid state today, Poilievre's definition of "broken" referred to what he perceived as excessive empathy, or what they used to call “bleeding heart liberals” (I miss that name, it was a funny, pithy jeer.) He has aligned himself with Jordan Peterson, a far right podcaster. Peterson aligns himself closely with Elon Musk and Trump. Canadians can do the math.
Suddenly in the states, Elon Musk was doing seig heils. Suddenly, Trump is attacking democracy. Suddenly Canadians are the target of the revenge mandate given by the American people.
Poilievre’s slogans, "Axe the Tax. Stop the Crime. Build the Homes," lack substance and echo revenge narratives. Build a frenzy in a base that wants specific things, that feels vitriol towards a single person and concept. Instead of focusing on a positive vision, the type of vision that often wins Canadian majorities, the Conservatives seemed to react to perceived threats. Their campaign suggested the greatest enemy was the ruling party, which had, they believed, ruined lives. It was a campaign built on retaliation against liberals and liberal voters. However, many Canadians do not feel their lives are ruined, just less comfortable than before, and they grew cautious of a leader driven by revenge rather than ideology.
Note: "Axe the tax" is a good slogan. However, "Stop Crime. Build Homes" is awkward. Common phrasing would be "Stop crime, build homes." The inclusion of "the" feels forced and grammatically incorrect. This weakens the slogan. Bad writing. They really should have just tried to diversify their slogans, you don’t need to be perfectly symmetrical when it sounds stupid. Not that CANADA STRONG is a good slogan.
We find ourselves suddenly looking down the barrel of a gun with Donald Trump. Now, a knife fight with the status quo sounds more appealing.
Poilievre aimed to stoke anger towards Trudeau and the status quo. Canadians, who largely dislike Trump, see the revenge mandate in full force. Now, revenge has taken a backseat. Voters might strategically vote against Poilievre, similar to trends in France and the UK. Protection, not revenge, has become the priority. Poilievre isn’t rising to meet the challenge.
Two years ago, Poilievre criticized the liberal media while simultaneously relying on it for exposure. He granted endless interviews and dominated headlines. The mainstream media, fearing his potential actions, gave him significant attention, albeit often with a mildly negative slant. This drama and constant media coverage fueled his polling surge. Now the larger, more threatening revenge narrative is the center stage. Poilievre has lost all his momentum, because Trump is a vastly more interesting, and sensational figure than him. But Trump makes Poilievre look dangerous, even if he’s less so than Trump.
Reports suggest a civil war within the party. The Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) appears to be splintering. One faction, led by Poilievre, remains focused on revenge and refuses to adjust its strategy. The other faction believes the narrative has changed and the party needs to be more inclusive.
When Harper united Canada's right wing parties, he ended the Chrétien/Martin government's long tenure. He brought together the factions that are now splitting apart.
Harper tempered the desire for revenge, uniting neo-conservatives with more moderate conservatives. Now, the party is fracturing along the same lines. Policies based on revenge are only effective when the target of that revenge is still in power. It’s hard to make the electorate want revenge against a guy who was in power for nine days.
With Trudeau's departure, the desire for revenge has subsided. Some former Trudeau critics are now voting strategically, and older liberal voters are returning to the party. The focus of revenge is gone. Even internal Conservative polling indicates that the Conservatives are losing by 14 points in southern Ontario, which, if the Conservatives don’t win in southern Ontario, they can’t win. Canadians sought a scapegoat for the trauma of COVID-19, and with Trudeau's exit, that desire has been fulfilled.
Poilievre bet on vengeance, and now, he may have lost the whole game.
 |
|