While I appreciate the Liberal win with the leadership of Prime Minister Mark Carney, I’m not all that opposed to the Leader of the Opposition Pierre Poilievre, which makes this defeat perhaps a little bittersweet. Sure, I don’t agree with all of his policies, and don’t agree with his brand of politics either: often focused on division and rooted in hate and “gotcha” moments. But I think there is something to be said about his brand of ideas, and he represents a conservative ideal that I find far more appealing than the American MAGA crowd, which is hardly conservative.
To show you what this really means, and why I appreciate his brand of conservatism, I’ll jump straight into the social issues. He supports abortion, claiming specifically that “no laws or rules will be passed that restrict women's reproductive choices.” He also supports same-sex marriage. “Canadians are free to love and marry who they choose. Same sex marriage is legal and it will remain legal when I am prime minister, full stop.”
And it stems from a small government, conservative ideal that’s been lost to the pages of American history.
"I will lead a small government that minds its own business, letting people make their own decisions about their love lives, their families, their bodies, their speech, their beliefs and their money,” Poilievre said. “We will put people back in charge of their lives in the freest country in the world."
Poilievre represents sort of the progressive conservative (indeed, that’s the coalition he was affiliated with when he was in college at the University of Calgary), taking conservatism into the modern day. At the same time, he also believes in the traditional ideal of conservative government, that is, small and out of people’s lives. “Smaller government makes room for bigger people,” he once declared.
A friend once remarked that the Conservatives in Canada might be closer to the Democrats in America, and while I believe there’s much to disagree with economically and policy-wise, there is a certain amount of respectability that can be awarded to the Conservative Party of Canada for their economically-focused approach, and more importantly, their framing of tolerance and acceptance of social issues as one focused on freedom (something that American Republicans absolutely love).
As we may remember from the AP Government Media Impact Seminar, a Forbes article highlighted that American media is some of the most polarized in the world. The US media environment is more polarized than any other country. This is true even though the US has a lot of free media and wide diversity across coverage. But even beyond the media, people and parties in America are polarized to a degree I never would have thought possible.
I definitely did not expect there to be a popular vote win for President Donald Trump to wreak havoc on the United States, nor did I expect that the “Kamala Harris is for they/them, Donald Trump is for you” ad shifting the race 2.7 percentage points in favor of Trump after viewers watched it, according to a Democratic Super PAC cited in the New York Times. And Canadians did an excellent job of “covering the stakes, not the odds” as we discussed during the journalism unit through their journalism platforms (although I might venture out on a limb and say that their media is more left-leaning than ours), which took far more seriously the threat to sovereignty by Trump than Americans did the threat to democracy, despite Trump’s consistent track record on undermining the institutions that make America the country that we are.
In a more conservative country like America, Poilievre probably would have won. Without the Trump threats and Poilievre’s inability to pivot from his messaging about the broken economic state of the country to attacking Trump, Poilievre probably also would have won. (Call this speculation, but pre-Trump threats, he was 25 points ahead. Causation does not equal correlation but Canadian and American political analysts alike have credited this as one of the reasons why Poilievre blundered his lead.)
So Poilievre lost. Big deal. That’s a win for the Liberals and a loss for the Conservatives. But I’d argue that despite the blue vs red (although Liberals are red in Canada and Conservatives are blue), left vs right polarization that has become deeply rooted in American politics, Americans still remain more alike than different. Americans agree on values even if they don’t agree on specific policy implementation. This was true in the early American debates (I think it was in either a Reagan debate or an Al Gore debate where this was said), and John McCain said the same thing about Obama during a rally in 2008. Poilievre’s big win was maintaining traditional conservative ideals, while redefining values in the modern era to widen his tent, and American Democrats navigating an increasingly conservative country can learn from that.
(Especially since Democratic policies like expanding wind/solar and expanding universal healthcare remain popular even as Democrats face losses.)
Americans on both sides of the aisle believe in freedom. Why don’t Liberals redefine freedom as Poilievre did, to include the freedom to love, freedom to control their own body? What about the greatest inhibitor to freedom, poverty? Americans on both sides of the aisle believe in the pursuit of happiness. Americans on both sides of the aisle believe in the American Dream. Why not enshrine that as a true reality, reclaiming all of the above as Democratic Party language so that we can win office and enact policy that helps more people get ahead?
Americans on both sides of the aisle believe in freedom. Why don’t Liberals redefine freedom as Poilievre did, to include the freedom to love, freedom to control their own body? What about the greatest inhibitor to freedom, poverty? Americans on both sides of the aisle believe in the pursuit of happiness. Americans on both sides of the aisle believe in the American Dream. Why not enshrine that as a true reality, reclaiming all of the above as Democratic Party language so that we can win office and enact policy that helps more people get ahead?
When I speak (argue?) with hardcore Republicans, I often use this rhetorical tactic, framing my argument in the negative: “Neither of us want America to be worse off. Neither of us want America to have worse healthcare. Neither of us want America to be less safe. Neither of us want America to be less healthy. Neither of us want America to have less opportunity.”
At the risk of being reductive (and I know for sure that I am being reductive in writing this), it helps us realize we are on the same side — we are both on America’s side. Let’s get back to the bread and butter, the values that America was founded on, and in Pierre Poilievre’s words, let’s “bring it home”.
cbc.ca/news/politics/poilievre-same-sex-marriage-abortion-1.7222881
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brettedkins/2017/06/27/u-s-media-among-most-polarized-in-the-world-study-finds/#64d3cbd62546
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/07/us/politics/trump-win-election-harris.html
https://www.inquirer.com/columnists/attytood/media-elections-dnc-kamala-harris-military-20240827.html
9 comments:
Pierre Poilievre's defeat is a testament to Canada's political culture. As it is one that emphasizes compromise and strategic alliances, methods which are basically unthinkable in American politics. While I may not align with Poilievre on many issues, his approach to conservatism is interesting. His more progressive stance on abortion and same-sex marriage, is a surprising nuance in the midst of a very black-and-white view of issues in the U.S. His call for smaller government with emphasis on freedom and personal autonomy conveys ideals that have been overshadowed by American politics' toxic debates.
This is one of the most balanced takes I’ve seen on Pierre Poilievre’s loss. While I don’t personally support him, I appreciate the distinction you made between his brand of conservatism and the more extreme, populist strain seen in the US. He really does reflect a kind of ideological clary, supporting personal freedoms while advocating for small government, that’s mostly disappeared from American politics. The idea that ‘smaller government makes room for bigger people’ is a compelling message that democrats could reclaim through a different lens, especially when framing freedom around opportunity, healthcare, and poverty.
I think Pierre Poilievre's stance on government policies, the economy, and social issues highlights how having conservative views can be done in such a way that isn't hateful and doesn't work to put others down. When compared to America, a very clear difference between our conservatives and Canada's conservatives can be observed. The issue with this is not only the hate and division that stems from people having different political views, but it also creates harmful stereotypes and ropes a certain thing or thought into a singular idea that doesn't fully represent the topic. For example many people just assume that conservatives are small-minded, generally hateful people who don't believe in minority rights. However this isn't true for many places out of the US, and even within the US. As mentioned in the blog, some people just believe in more conservative economy and government polices, not purely policies that discriminate against people. Poilievre is great example of this, and I could only wish that American starts to move away from these harmful stereotypes and instead try to reflect the ideals of Canadian conservatism.
I agree, I believe that Poilievre's ideals and take on what it means to be conservative in general, and that the United State's ideas of it has become completely polarized into a "me versus them" situation where people have come to believe that anybody not sharing their perspective is their opposite. Canada is demonstrating that this is not the case. His take on being conservative is still progressive. Poilevre being supportive towards same-sex marriage and towards abortion demonstrates the openness that politics should have. Everybody deserves for their ideas to be acknowledged, and people creating constant polarization towards the "other" is what creates division. I completely agree with your point that people don't have different needs or wants. Everybody wants to strive for respect, good healthcare, and a good lifestyle and we should be striving to gain this together and not separately.
Poilievre losing his seat is a major political moment, because it shows frustration from voters and spreads doubt about his leadership skills. A Conservative MP giving up a safe Alberta seat so he can run again is unusual in Canada and shows how far the party is going to keep him in power. Also, his divisive style may have cost him support. This move keeps him in the game, but also shows cracks in his popularity and strategy.
I really like how you show Poilievre’s conservatism as more modern and tolerant, supporting abortion rights and same-sex marriage, which contrasts sharply with the extreme polarization in U.S. politics. Your point about Canadians being less polarized and how Americans could benefit from focusing on shared values hits home.
Reclaiming “freedom” language around personal choice and opportunity could definitely help bridge divides here. It’s a reminder that despite political differences, most people want the same core things: safety, healthcare, and the chance to get ahead. Thanks for this thoughtful perspective!
I like how you brought up that Americans are more united in their core values then they are separated. If we look past race, class, surface level ideological division, religion, etc the fundamental motivators of people are so much more alike than different. And while perfect unity is impossible, I do think it is within our control to recognize this connection and recognize that a conflicting opinion is just an idea brought about from a different experience.
I didn't know much about Canadian politics and media, but the fact that you mentioned the Canadians covering the stakes and not the odds of political campaigns is really quite interesting, as they seem to have a much better understanding of what political coverage should look like. The American media coverage is so incredibly polarized, as we learned, and we should honestly use the Canadians as an example for how campaigns should be covered. I also find it interesting that the Canadian conservative has such a different perspective from the American conservatives, who are often seen as very pushy with people's privacy rights.
Post a Comment