Poilievre Is The End Of An Era, Not The Beginning Of  A New One

May 1st, 2022 | JH

There’s a lot of hype about Pierre Poilievre being the great savior of Canadian conservatism. Based on social media accounts it looks like Pierre is creating a movement that is energizing the base and bringing in new people left and right with issues like housing policy and bitcoin. The best thing about Pierre based on widely shared YouTube videos is that conservatives see a fighter. Finally, a fighter.

Andrew Scheer tried to “aww shucks” his way through leading the party and was scripted and coached beyond recognition. Erin O’Toole seemed to make the right moves, but revealed himself to be spineless, lost and desperate for progressive approval.

Pierre Poilievre seems genuine and sharp and willing to risk disapproval from the Progressive Cathedral in exchange for carving out a pathway to power. He’s got Jennie Byrne running his campaign and he’s dominating the right side of the leadership contest. I suspect he’s going to win easily, assuming the party executive allows it to happen.

There are a few big problems ahead, nevertheless, and we should be honest about future prospects regarding a Poilievre leadership win.

A Poilievre win will unleash the forces of the Progressive Cathedral the likes of which we have never seen. If you remember the raw full-bore attack of the “Stop Harper” era leading up to 2015, you might be prepared for some of what is to come. This time, however, we are living in a post-Trump, post-Woke era and the gloves will be off and replaced with brass knuckles and chainsaws. Leftists coast-to-coast are going to go nuclear.

Poilievre is already being discredited by his progressive “Conservative” rivals in the race as being unelectable due to his non-condemnation of the Freedom Trucker Rally. The legacy media loves it and broadcasts every critique. If he wins the leadership anyway, he will make a great bad guy for the Cathedral to express their hatred and the moral narrative will soon become, “We need to stop Pierre from destroying the country and “our” liberal democracy”.

But wait, didn’t they try this same thing with Stephen Harper in the early days? Didn’t Paul Martin warn about soldiers on our streets with guns etc., etc.? Isn’t this just the same tired playbook?

The answer is yes... and those warnings worked to scare voters off from voting for Harper in 2004. It also worked in 2006 when Harper won the smallest minority victory in the history of Canadian politics.

(article continues after ads)

Are we going to give Poilievre two election cycles to win the smallest minority victory in Canadian history? If the next election happens as scheduled in 2025, then that would mean we aren’t going to see a Conservative Party win until about 2027/28.

But perhaps that’s too concrete. History doesn’t repeat in exact terms and maybe Poilievre can win a minority first time at bat. So, what will be different this time? Well, this time the Liberal/NDP coalition isn’t going to allow the Conservatives to govern with a minority… ever.

One of the greatest lessons Liberals learned from Stephane Dion and his aborted attempt to seize power back in 2008 was that although he fumbled the execution of the play, the play was the right one to make, nevertheless. If Dion and his band of misfits had seized power in 2008, then they could’ve “STOPPED HARPER!” years ahead of schedule. Jean Chretien advocated this then, and in hindsight Liberal brass know he was correct.

This is the reason Harper campaigned so hard to get a “STRONG, STABLE, CONSERVATIVE, MAJORITY” government in 2011. He knew it was all or nothing then…and he was right. Anything less than a majority for Conservatives now will be a loss. They will forever be the biggest opposition party.

So, Pierre Poilievre just needs to win a majority in order to avoid these problems, correct?

Correct… and that’s the problem.

Stephen Harper won his majority (barely) in 2011 due to Jack Layton. The Orange crush split the left-wing vote and scared enough non-leftists into turning out for Harper as the Devil-you-know candidate. In other words, Harper’s 2011 majority was just a fluke. A Conservative majority hadn’t happened since 1988 (23 years) and it hasn’t happened since (11 years). Centre-right parties can’t win on the federal scene.

This is where the Brown and Charest campaigns are correct. Poilievre can’t win. The mistake they make is believing that either of them can win, or that it would matter to Canada in any significant way if they did win.

Even if Brown or Charest were to be crowned leaders of the Conservative Party, they would set about making the Conservative Party as much like the Liberal Party as possible. This was Erin O’Toole’s playbook. The term for this used to be CINO (Conservative-In-Name-Only), but has recently been weaponized better with the term, Cuckservative.

You can’t cuck your way to success.

Even if they try to cuck to success, the Progressive Cathedral will just villainize the Conservative Party anyway. No matter who leads it and how liberal they are, the Conservative Party exists for the purpose of having a political baseline to move away from. As progressives progress, conservatives pick up and move the baseline when following them “to the centre”. Charest and Brown are just positioning themselves to be a more acceptable opposition. Leftist voters can rage less and relax more as they continue to not vote Conservative.

If another fluke of some sort happens and we do end up with a Conservative government, then a Charest or Brown would presumably be the beneficiaries of this fluke and get to have a turn in government. They would be so safely cucked that nothing of significance would be accomplished before the Liberal/NDP wing could reclaim the throne and carry on once more. This is why progressives want a Charest/Brown outcome.

So, if Poilievre wins the leadership, what will become of the Charest/Brown team and members?

"A Poilievre win will unleash the forces of the Progressive Cathedral the likes of which we have never seen."

The Charest/Brown teams will turn on the Conservative Party itself because it will be unacceptable in Progressive circles to support them. The moral framework will be propagandized to the masses that Poilievre is a Populist, Racist, Nazi that wallows with deplorables and doesn’t BELIEVE in the things good people believe in and doesn’t THINK in the ways that good people think in. The teams and funders of Charest and Brown will just set their sites on the horizon and wait for the next leadership race to do the same thing all over again. Meanwhile, the members they signed up for them will just zone out and let their memberships lapse.

So how does Poilievre succeed…despite this internecine warfare?

He doesn’t.

During a general election Poilievre will not win in Toronto because Conservatives (barring a 2011 fluke) do not win in Toronto. They didn’t win in 2004, or 2006 or 2008 or 2015 or 2019 or 2021. They aren’t going to win in the next one either.

Would Charest or Brown win in Toronto?


Can conservatism in any real sense sell in Toronto?

No. Toronto is too urban and too multicultural. Even the fluke of 2011 is impossible to replicate due to high volume immigration (the majority of immigrants make Toronto their first stop when they arrive in Canada) and the post-2015 cultural hegemony of progressivism is now impenetrable.

What about Quebec? Can Poilievre win in Quebec? Can Conservatives win in Quebec?


What about 1984!? Brian Mulroney swept the province!

It’s not 1984 anymore.

Montreal has all the same problems that Toronto has since it too is highly urbanized and multicultural. The rest of Quebec will just vote for the Bloc in order to assert regional interests. The Conservatives will be battling for those same 10 seats around Quebec City like they have been for the past 20 years. What’s Poilievre going to do or say that will change the game? Drink more milk?

Can Poilievre crack Vancouver?

Unlikely. Vancouver has been uncrackable since 1997. Since then, it has been flooded with immigrants, most of whom (other than Chinese) vote for progressive parties.

Can Poilievre crack the Maritimes?

Unlikely. In the Maritimes people tend to vote based on tradition, so the big goal is to mobilize the “get out the vote” for your party. Liberals being the party of largesse tend to do better in the Maritimes every time. Peter MacKay could’ve swept all 30 seats based on his “favourite son” status in the region, but Poilievre with his Western roots and Ontario home will not. Preaching freedom and fiscal responsibility is not going to win hearts and minds in the Maritimes.

Without being competitive in most of the Maritimes and Vancouver (and the island) and Montreal (with most of Quebec) and all of Toronto proper, Poilievre is resigned to, at best, 150 seats. A solid minority, but any minority will be a loss. Majorities are the only way forward.

When Poilievre runs in a general election and loses, conservative pundits will be out of ideas as to how to grow the party. They’ll revert back to the old notion of rounding off the corners of conservatism in order to be more palatable to centrist voters in a vain attempt to get progressives to give them a chance. As they add more water to the wine, the conservative base loses interest or renews their membership with Max Bernier and the cycle of Progressive dominance (one way or another) continues.

The last problem Poilievre has is that he doesn’t have a big name with star power. The reason a lot of people vote Liberal is because Trudeau is attractive and has Trudeau for a last name. The baseline, mouth-breathing, low-info voter doesn’t care about ideology or policy or government. You might get some single-issue voter that knows too much about one thing, but most people don’t know anything about anything. They vote for haircuts and first impressions. I ran for mayor of my small town, and I had one voter tell me they’d vote for me because I had the same name as someone they once knew. That’s the level of discourse people are placing on political contests. We live in a severely retarded system and because of this, over time… it’s evolved to be mostly just for show.

Does Poilievre have showmanship?

Poilievre is confident, but not charismatic. Rex Murphy described him as anti-charismatic and tried to spin it as a plus. I guess you work with what you’ve got, but if most low-info voters get the same initial impression I got from him…(Poindexter… hall monitor… skinnier Ben Shapiro with nerd frame glasses… the type of kid in school who would throw a snowball in your face and then run away laughing like Woody Woodpecker and then upon getting in trouble would use a thousand words to explain to the teacher why it wasn’t really his fault)… it’s going to be difficult to reel in new voters, especially when you’ve got all the bullhorns of power telling everyone he’s a fascist, racist, homophobe who doesn’t believe in science and wants to take away your healthcare.

Something Conservative supporters have to start understanding is that Canada isn’t going to be what we want it to be politically, ever.

Ten years of futile Stephen Harper leadership should have made us realize that we’re not going to vote our way out of this. The back-and-forth historical dynamic of Liberal/Tory same old story is both fulfilled and obsolete. Progressive forces fighting for dominance in our democracy have achieved hegemony. The continued existence of the Conservative Party and the people within it and supporting it are simply a thorn in the side of Canadian power. Poilievre is another manifestation of that thorn. The powers that be want Jean Charest to be their alternative Liberal and if Poilievre wins the CPC leadership, it is going to require the system to produce an enormous amount of discrediting and disparaging and that takes unnecessary time, money and energy. Should CPC members elect Pierre, then the knives will come out and we’ll be in for years of struggle before losing nobly.

What are we to do?

There’s a debate to be had as to whether or not conservatives should even participate in the system. Listen to this podcast with the Zman for more context.

If you do participate it’s best to vote for the most right-wing option on the menu. For what your vote is worth it’ll make a bigger statement to the participants then just always voting for the least worst realistic option. If you’re in the West, consider The Maverick Party. If you’re a religious social conservative, consider the Christian Heritage Party. If you’re a libertarian minded person, consider Max Bernier’s People’s Party of Canada, or just vote for the Libertarian Party itself.

Don’t expect anything from any of these parties though. Voting is nothing more than a symbolic gesture. The power structure of Canada is now hegemonic. The time for grassroots individuals to compete or participate in the textbook notion of democracy has long passed. Immigration, prosperity, demographics, late-stage democracy, urbanization, and progressive hegemony have all organically conspired to bake Canada’s cake. There was hope for reform in 1984, but 2011 was the last chance to effect real fundamental change.

Learning how to navigate inside a hostile culture and work the system to your advantage is going to be the most important way forward for conservatives in the coming years. Trying to naively play the original game of so-called democracy in hopes of effecting change is a thing of the past.

People at the rallies don’t realize that they are watching an encore of conservative politics. An encore just before the performer says, “Good night!” and the curtain closes, and everyone returns home having just finished watching the show.

Poilievre represents the end of an era, not the beginning of a new one.

Have you seen this video?

© 2022 Poletical