BOOK EXCERPT: When he was courting his future wife, Poilievre brought the same mix of cockiness and charm that has marked his rise to the cusp of political power
It's interesting to think about how we don't actually know that much about who political leaders are as people. Justin Trudeau reeks of social media overexposure, but it's all really a contrivance constructed to project a certain image. We don't actually have a good idea of who he is. Over time, you get a few glimpses every now and then: Stephen Harper cracking jokes on a political rally stage after a rehearsal when he thinks its an empty room, for example. In general, though, people often cast votes based on who they'd rather have a beer with even though the actual experience of having a beer with these guys might totally change their opinion.
Would your day really crumble if you read a piece not designed to get people mad at each other ? We get bombarded with stuff every day tearing politicians to pieces . A 10 minute break from that isn’t so bad you know
This was interesting. I would love to meet Ana and chat with her. I've always been very impressed by her speeches and her support of Pierre. And I seriously love that Pierre had Ana speak first when he won the conservative leadership - I hadn't voted for Pierre at the top of my own ballot - though I had bought a membership to vote in the leadership race, but when he won, and his wife gave the first words rather than him - I realized there was something very unique. I don't always appreciate his certainty about I do appreciate their presence as a couple and how much he seems to be supportive of Ana and love his kids.
Thanks for a great read Andrew. I enjoyed the book immensely. It is nice to know about how/why a politician chooses politics as a career, and how they become leaders.
I believe that Pierre will make a thoughtful abd competent Prime Minister.
I find both Ana and Pierre to be extremely intelligent, capable, sincere, loving, and delightful! I can hardly wait until Pierre is our Prime Minister.
Poilievre is intelligent at spiting his opponents and being a witty debate champion. He's obviously not particularly intelligent on public policy, simply because he's never had a notable distinct policy to call his own, in turn due to the fact that his party has consistently coddled him despite or because of his lack of policy depth.
Stef, I have thought about your comment for a few minutes before replying.
You argue that PP (the initials are easier to type!) has no policy of his own. In truth, I can neither agree nor disagree with that assertion; what I can say with certainty is that I am unconcerned with "his" policy originality but rather with the validity of the policy that he endorses.
What I mean is that policy can come from anywhere but listeners to people proposing ideas must be able to discern the kernels of good or bad ideas. Such a listener must discard the bad kernels then take the good kernels and develop them into better ideas.
So, if you have a good idea, that is wonderful but neither you nor I are in a position of power so we need someone who is in that position (say, PP) to listen to good ideas and then work at developing those good ideas. The original author of the ideas is not relevant; the "goodness" of the ideas IS relevant.
"The original author of the ideas is not relevant; the "goodness" of the ideas IS relevant."
Except that one's capacity to discern "goodness" of ideas is definitely contingent on one's accessibility to diverse opinions. A politician who has no capacity to toss out any of the longstanding policies of his own party is not a serious critical thinker of any kind.
For example, whatever the merits of the carbon tax, Poilievre doesn't oppose it because of any independent assessment of his own. He opposes the carbon tax because he automatically and stubbornly stands by the same policy of practically every Conservative Leader who came before him, the same policy that his party has more or less stood by for almost two decades. We know this because there is *no* policy of the Harper government or policy that is otherwise popular in the Conservative base that he is capable of disowning. Poilievre is loved and admired by conservatives *precisely because* he has been a longstanding sycophant who never told any of his close buddies anything that they didn't want to hear. He will in government surround himself with his own sycophants accordingly.
Well, at least you don't deny that it is important to discern good ideas from others.
Yes, one does need a background of conversation, critical thinking, etc. to discern those good ideas. I respectfully disagree that someone who has had a background in a party and supporting the ideas of that party is incapable of critical thought. In truth, in our parliamentary system, one is frequently prevented from publicly raising "uncomfortable" comments that depart from established policy. When one becomes leader, however, one is able to shape that policy to a large extent; not totally, but to a large extent.
I would note that I do not personally know PP and I have not met him. I would normally assume that that circumstance similarly describes you but I further note that you are at the center of the Canadian political universe and have put forth your name for election to Parliament three times so I am perhaps incorrect. On the other hand, if my circumstance does adequately describe you (i.e. do not know PP and have not met him) then you are going from your "distance analysis" as are we all. You also have your own political biases, again, as do we all.
My point is that some of the things that PP says resonate with me; some don't but where things don't necessarily resonate with me, I - provisionally, to be sure - chalk it up to him having better advisers that I, has knowledge that I don't, and so forth. Having said that, I follow to see if those particular "non-resonance areas" start to alarm me or to soothe me on receipt of better information.
As for sycophancy, I EXPECT every leader to have a group with a similar thought process simply as a necessity to implement policy. Sycophancy is not at all to be valued; it should be actively shunned. Best of all, development of a "Red Team" group would be a valued addition, particularly as one approaches actual power (i.e. once elected). You describe PP as a sycophant; I respectfully disagree; he certainly has been a loyal soldier and repeated the official positions of the Party but we have no basis for knowledge of what he says and said behind closed doors. Or perhaps I am incorrect you do have specific knowledge?
"I respectfully disagree that someone who has had a background in a party and supporting the ideas of that party is incapable of critical thought."
Yes, political parties have their equivalents to Michael Chong and Nate Erskine-Smith. Poilievre is not among the independent-minded partisans.
Yes, I do take cues from my own political experiences. I have not yet ever earned a cent of profit from my own political activities, yet somehow I still make the time to come up with policy ideas of my own that none of the other MP candidates are talking about. Poilievre has been earning a 6-figure salary for his political work for two decades and has yet to come up with a distinct policy record of his own. Sycophants like Poilievre are precisely the ones whom I work continuously to drive out of the public sphere.
"You describe PP as a sycophant; I respectfully disagree; he certainly has been a loyal soldier and repeated the official positions of the Party but we have no basis for knowledge of what he says and said behind closed doors. Or perhaps I am incorrect you do have specific knowledge?"
We don't know exactly what politicians say behind closed doors, but we can make reasonable inferences and judge politicians by how their own friends and associates describe them and by how they behave in public. Though there are exceptions, most people generally behave similarly in their public and private behaviour, and no one close to Poilievre has ever described him as being a different face in private. So it is obvious that Poilievre's public behaviour as a blinkered sycophant is obviously indicative of being a sycophant in private forums. (At any rate, if Poilievre's private behaviour were significantly different from his public behaviour, that would speak ill of him in a different way in exposing the depth of his cynicism.)
He's evidently a bit of an autodidact - quite clever, self-taught about a lot of issues, but lacking in the formal education that would inject better perspective and more critical thinking. His opponents underestimate him, but he's also not aware of his own blind spots.
For someone who has a degree in International Relations, I am perplexed by Poilievre's seeming disinterest in international affairs and his relative lack of depth on the subject compared to Michael Chong.
It's probably because you don't get elected based on international affairs - there's not a lot of political upside, but substantial political risk if you botch it. Justin Trudeau's learned that the hard way between failing to get the UN Security Council seat he campaigned for and his India trip misfires. Poilievre knows that domestic issues are the most salient, and he's sticking with it. That's not to say he wouldn't start dabbling more in the area as PM. Hunting for prestigious international accomplishments is a tradition for Canadian PMs anxious to accumulate a legacy.
Up to a point. It was obviously good judgment on Poilievre's part to appoint Chong as Shadow Critic for International Affairs. But Chong never publicly advocated for or defended the CPC's decision to vote against the Ukraine trade deal, which strongly implies that Chong did not advise the CPC's vote choice and so gives us a hint that Poilievre is capable of letting his worst instincts get in the way of following sound advice.
(?) What Poilievre's public policy legacy will be remains to be seen. What's certain is that the locutions following your "because" don't even have any relevance for the claim you evidently think they explain, never mind furnish support for it.
When most readers see a claim that's followed by a 'because,' they expect to be offered some relevant reason(s) for thinking the claim true; but you've disappointed that expectation here. Either you're using the word 'because' in a novel way, or you have a fuzzy grasp of what qualifies as a relevant reason. This exhausts the alternatives as far as I can tell, but it's your post: perhaps you can clarify its meaning for us.
By the way, like everyone else you're entitled to your own judgment about Poilievre's foreign policy competence. What you can't do, though, is claim he's weak in that area "because of his lack of policy depth." That's the logical fallacy of begging the question: Poilievre sucks because he sucks. Far from offering us a reason or an explanation for your opinion you've simply stated it twice, while using the word 'because' misleadingly for a second time.
I made a simple proposition that is persuasive because it would be easy to refute with counter-examples, *if* there were any. If Poilievre had any meaningful policy depth, his defenders would respond to my post by citing striking examples of novel policies that Poilievre personally pioneered, policies which his party did not already support for a long time.
You cannot personally think of any examples of policy that were originally introduced by Poilievre, can you?
You seem a tad confused as to where the responsibility for supporting a claim lies, which is always with the claimant. Those unpersuaded by the wisdom of your claims are never under any obligation to give reasons for not sharing your convictions about them.
In this case, as has already been twice pointed out, you have yet to cite any reasons that need to be countered, or arguments that need to be refuted. You've simply made a couple of assertions, followed by 'becauses' that are fraudulent since they don't fulfil their implied promise of supplying relevant reasons and/or arguments to support those assertions.
As for policies 'originally introduced by Poilievre,' what is the purpose of embarking on this irrelevant side-excursion? Citing examples of these, if any, would tell us nothing about what's at issue. You can't substitute the concept 'originally introduced by' for 'obviously not particularly intelligent on' in a claim without changing the claim's meaning. Is such a transparent example of the fallacy of logical equivocation really all you have to offer readers, in lieu of reasons?
I really don't know what to say, I guess this is how we get to the "Cult of personality". It's pretty well the last thing I care about before I mark my ballot.
...I am about 25% charmed and 75% just kind of amazed. Like...imagine telling a woman you barely know that you missed your flight because she wouldn't kiss you. And having that work. Imagine having the gall to say it in the first place? Am glad they're happy, and by reports from people who would know they do seem to be.
Also, his resemblance to Futurama Nixon when he doesn't wear glasses is uncanny and someone should tell him to put them back on.
I'm surprised Prime Ministers and aspiring Prime Ministers are allowed to marry at all these days. You know... the power imbalance in the relationship. Totally unacceptable!
Power imbalances in the workplace do not necessarily translate into power imbalances in the household. Though, it is surely a different matter if a politician forms a romantic relationship in the workplace itself, something that Patrick Brown and John Tory both appropriately got in trouble for.
It's interesting to think about how we don't actually know that much about who political leaders are as people. Justin Trudeau reeks of social media overexposure, but it's all really a contrivance constructed to project a certain image. We don't actually have a good idea of who he is. Over time, you get a few glimpses every now and then: Stephen Harper cracking jokes on a political rally stage after a rehearsal when he thinks its an empty room, for example. In general, though, people often cast votes based on who they'd rather have a beer with even though the actual experience of having a beer with these guys might totally change their opinion.
I agree with picking candidates by determining if they are beer worthy. I would enjoy a beer with the Poilievre's.
Pierre will pick the time and place. Don't be late! ;-)
Can we add saccharine puff pieces along with "bullshit" to the things that The Line won't do? This post left me pre-diabetic. Yuck.
Would your day really crumble if you read a piece not designed to get people mad at each other ? We get bombarded with stuff every day tearing politicians to pieces . A 10 minute break from that isn’t so bad you know
Friend, lighten up.
Oh please. You weren't forced to read every word.
Would you prefer a puff piece about Freeland?
This was interesting. I would love to meet Ana and chat with her. I've always been very impressed by her speeches and her support of Pierre. And I seriously love that Pierre had Ana speak first when he won the conservative leadership - I hadn't voted for Pierre at the top of my own ballot - though I had bought a membership to vote in the leadership race, but when he won, and his wife gave the first words rather than him - I realized there was something very unique. I don't always appreciate his certainty about I do appreciate their presence as a couple and how much he seems to be supportive of Ana and love his kids.
Thanks for a great read Andrew. I enjoyed the book immensely. It is nice to know about how/why a politician chooses politics as a career, and how they become leaders.
I believe that Pierre will make a thoughtful abd competent Prime Minister.
I find both Ana and Pierre to be extremely intelligent, capable, sincere, loving, and delightful! I can hardly wait until Pierre is our Prime Minister.
Poilievre is intelligent at spiting his opponents and being a witty debate champion. He's obviously not particularly intelligent on public policy, simply because he's never had a notable distinct policy to call his own, in turn due to the fact that his party has consistently coddled him despite or because of his lack of policy depth.
Stef, I have thought about your comment for a few minutes before replying.
You argue that PP (the initials are easier to type!) has no policy of his own. In truth, I can neither agree nor disagree with that assertion; what I can say with certainty is that I am unconcerned with "his" policy originality but rather with the validity of the policy that he endorses.
What I mean is that policy can come from anywhere but listeners to people proposing ideas must be able to discern the kernels of good or bad ideas. Such a listener must discard the bad kernels then take the good kernels and develop them into better ideas.
So, if you have a good idea, that is wonderful but neither you nor I are in a position of power so we need someone who is in that position (say, PP) to listen to good ideas and then work at developing those good ideas. The original author of the ideas is not relevant; the "goodness" of the ideas IS relevant.
"The original author of the ideas is not relevant; the "goodness" of the ideas IS relevant."
Except that one's capacity to discern "goodness" of ideas is definitely contingent on one's accessibility to diverse opinions. A politician who has no capacity to toss out any of the longstanding policies of his own party is not a serious critical thinker of any kind.
For example, whatever the merits of the carbon tax, Poilievre doesn't oppose it because of any independent assessment of his own. He opposes the carbon tax because he automatically and stubbornly stands by the same policy of practically every Conservative Leader who came before him, the same policy that his party has more or less stood by for almost two decades. We know this because there is *no* policy of the Harper government or policy that is otherwise popular in the Conservative base that he is capable of disowning. Poilievre is loved and admired by conservatives *precisely because* he has been a longstanding sycophant who never told any of his close buddies anything that they didn't want to hear. He will in government surround himself with his own sycophants accordingly.
Well, at least you don't deny that it is important to discern good ideas from others.
Yes, one does need a background of conversation, critical thinking, etc. to discern those good ideas. I respectfully disagree that someone who has had a background in a party and supporting the ideas of that party is incapable of critical thought. In truth, in our parliamentary system, one is frequently prevented from publicly raising "uncomfortable" comments that depart from established policy. When one becomes leader, however, one is able to shape that policy to a large extent; not totally, but to a large extent.
I would note that I do not personally know PP and I have not met him. I would normally assume that that circumstance similarly describes you but I further note that you are at the center of the Canadian political universe and have put forth your name for election to Parliament three times so I am perhaps incorrect. On the other hand, if my circumstance does adequately describe you (i.e. do not know PP and have not met him) then you are going from your "distance analysis" as are we all. You also have your own political biases, again, as do we all.
My point is that some of the things that PP says resonate with me; some don't but where things don't necessarily resonate with me, I - provisionally, to be sure - chalk it up to him having better advisers that I, has knowledge that I don't, and so forth. Having said that, I follow to see if those particular "non-resonance areas" start to alarm me or to soothe me on receipt of better information.
As for sycophancy, I EXPECT every leader to have a group with a similar thought process simply as a necessity to implement policy. Sycophancy is not at all to be valued; it should be actively shunned. Best of all, development of a "Red Team" group would be a valued addition, particularly as one approaches actual power (i.e. once elected). You describe PP as a sycophant; I respectfully disagree; he certainly has been a loyal soldier and repeated the official positions of the Party but we have no basis for knowledge of what he says and said behind closed doors. Or perhaps I am incorrect you do have specific knowledge?
"I respectfully disagree that someone who has had a background in a party and supporting the ideas of that party is incapable of critical thought."
Yes, political parties have their equivalents to Michael Chong and Nate Erskine-Smith. Poilievre is not among the independent-minded partisans.
Yes, I do take cues from my own political experiences. I have not yet ever earned a cent of profit from my own political activities, yet somehow I still make the time to come up with policy ideas of my own that none of the other MP candidates are talking about. Poilievre has been earning a 6-figure salary for his political work for two decades and has yet to come up with a distinct policy record of his own. Sycophants like Poilievre are precisely the ones whom I work continuously to drive out of the public sphere.
"You describe PP as a sycophant; I respectfully disagree; he certainly has been a loyal soldier and repeated the official positions of the Party but we have no basis for knowledge of what he says and said behind closed doors. Or perhaps I am incorrect you do have specific knowledge?"
We don't know exactly what politicians say behind closed doors, but we can make reasonable inferences and judge politicians by how their own friends and associates describe them and by how they behave in public. Though there are exceptions, most people generally behave similarly in their public and private behaviour, and no one close to Poilievre has ever described him as being a different face in private. So it is obvious that Poilievre's public behaviour as a blinkered sycophant is obviously indicative of being a sycophant in private forums. (At any rate, if Poilievre's private behaviour were significantly different from his public behaviour, that would speak ill of him in a different way in exposing the depth of his cynicism.)
I disagree, of course. Pierre’s policies would allow both of us to have an opinion.
He's evidently a bit of an autodidact - quite clever, self-taught about a lot of issues, but lacking in the formal education that would inject better perspective and more critical thinking. His opponents underestimate him, but he's also not aware of his own blind spots.
For someone who has a degree in International Relations, I am perplexed by Poilievre's seeming disinterest in international affairs and his relative lack of depth on the subject compared to Michael Chong.
It's probably because you don't get elected based on international affairs - there's not a lot of political upside, but substantial political risk if you botch it. Justin Trudeau's learned that the hard way between failing to get the UN Security Council seat he campaigned for and his India trip misfires. Poilievre knows that domestic issues are the most salient, and he's sticking with it. That's not to say he wouldn't start dabbling more in the area as PM. Hunting for prestigious international accomplishments is a tradition for Canadian PMs anxious to accumulate a legacy.
Which only goes to show that Pierre surrounds himself with great people and recognizes their strengths.
Up to a point. It was obviously good judgment on Poilievre's part to appoint Chong as Shadow Critic for International Affairs. But Chong never publicly advocated for or defended the CPC's decision to vote against the Ukraine trade deal, which strongly implies that Chong did not advise the CPC's vote choice and so gives us a hint that Poilievre is capable of letting his worst instincts get in the way of following sound advice.
You get one vote and I get one vote. I will be casting mine wisely for the CPC candidate in my constituency. Sounds like you won’t.
(?) What Poilievre's public policy legacy will be remains to be seen. What's certain is that the locutions following your "because" don't even have any relevance for the claim you evidently think they explain, never mind furnish support for it.
I do not understand your last sentence, can you please rephrase?
When most readers see a claim that's followed by a 'because,' they expect to be offered some relevant reason(s) for thinking the claim true; but you've disappointed that expectation here. Either you're using the word 'because' in a novel way, or you have a fuzzy grasp of what qualifies as a relevant reason. This exhausts the alternatives as far as I can tell, but it's your post: perhaps you can clarify its meaning for us.
By the way, like everyone else you're entitled to your own judgment about Poilievre's foreign policy competence. What you can't do, though, is claim he's weak in that area "because of his lack of policy depth." That's the logical fallacy of begging the question: Poilievre sucks because he sucks. Far from offering us a reason or an explanation for your opinion you've simply stated it twice, while using the word 'because' misleadingly for a second time.
I made a simple proposition that is persuasive because it would be easy to refute with counter-examples, *if* there were any. If Poilievre had any meaningful policy depth, his defenders would respond to my post by citing striking examples of novel policies that Poilievre personally pioneered, policies which his party did not already support for a long time.
You cannot personally think of any examples of policy that were originally introduced by Poilievre, can you?
You seem a tad confused as to where the responsibility for supporting a claim lies, which is always with the claimant. Those unpersuaded by the wisdom of your claims are never under any obligation to give reasons for not sharing your convictions about them.
In this case, as has already been twice pointed out, you have yet to cite any reasons that need to be countered, or arguments that need to be refuted. You've simply made a couple of assertions, followed by 'becauses' that are fraudulent since they don't fulfil their implied promise of supplying relevant reasons and/or arguments to support those assertions.
As for policies 'originally introduced by Poilievre,' what is the purpose of embarking on this irrelevant side-excursion? Citing examples of these, if any, would tell us nothing about what's at issue. You can't substitute the concept 'originally introduced by' for 'obviously not particularly intelligent on' in a claim without changing the claim's meaning. Is such a transparent example of the fallacy of logical equivocation really all you have to offer readers, in lieu of reasons?
I really don't know what to say, I guess this is how we get to the "Cult of personality". It's pretty well the last thing I care about before I mark my ballot.
Hard hitting journalism. :(
Yikes
The fact that Poilievre is a bit of a coffee snob is probably the only thing I really like about the guy
I guess this served to confirm the reasons for my general reluctance to read books about famous people. It all seems a bit too prurient for my tastes.
Another of my many shortcomings, I suppose.
A shortcoming that I share.
Jesus, what a Puff piece.
From what I have seen and heard of the couple, I would vote for Ana far more willingly than for Pierre.
What a strange choice of excerpt.
...I am about 25% charmed and 75% just kind of amazed. Like...imagine telling a woman you barely know that you missed your flight because she wouldn't kiss you. And having that work. Imagine having the gall to say it in the first place? Am glad they're happy, and by reports from people who would know they do seem to be.
Also, his resemblance to Futurama Nixon when he doesn't wear glasses is uncanny and someone should tell him to put them back on.
Keep this crap up and I’ll unsubscribe.
I'm surprised Prime Ministers and aspiring Prime Ministers are allowed to marry at all these days. You know... the power imbalance in the relationship. Totally unacceptable!
Power imbalances in the workplace do not necessarily translate into power imbalances in the household. Though, it is surely a different matter if a politician forms a romantic relationship in the workplace itself, something that Patrick Brown and John Tory both appropriately got in trouble for.