I get it that The Line likes its Conservatives (conservatives) prostrate, deferential, and labile, if not actually defenestrated.
None of the folks in my Conservative EDA meet the description of the Party you have described.
Every single member of our Board joined due to the decay, diminishment, and destruction of our Country. None has uttered a word of support for Donald Trump, MAGA, or whatever other goblin you have conjured up to further disparage the best Leader of His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition in our history, the man whose Party chased off the worst Prime Minister since Confederation, and the man who forced The Great Canadian Economic Savant to adopt his own Party’s platform.
Yes, there are problems under this big tent. But are they any more insurmountable than the FarLeft-CentreLeft split between the Palestinian/Climate Fanatic/Woke/Progressive/Postmodern/Deconstructionist wing of the Liberal Party of Canada?
JJ should not have done what he did; like all elected members, the voters will decide his fate.
Given the number of real problems facing conservatism in this Country, perhaps The Line, generally, and this author, specifically, could get back to discussing those, and the actual problems threatening this Country.
The only Conservatives who are coming off as prostrate, deferential, and labile are Pierre Poilievre and Jamil Jivani. There is literally nothing more cucky than siding with the dementia addled goons seeking to deindustrialize Canada over the interests of the very country you seek to run. It's pathetic, weak, and disqualifying.
Also, I may understand why you have issue with Kenney, but how does one claim that Doug Ford (eyeing his fourth straight majority) or Harper (the most successful Canadian conservative in recent history) are defenestrated? You're telling on yourselves.
This is a movement that now clearly sides with losers. JG
Hear me out: maybe we want something from a PM other than just just winning elections. Both Harper and Ford have squandered opportunities to actually address some of the problems of this country and province. Ford is probably too dumb to be held accountable, but Harper should have done better.
Definitely. They've tried appealing to Toronto matrons of both sexes and various provinces of residence election after election, and it hasn't worked. Time for a new approach.
An example of the old approach is over "Lake America". Poilievre correctly denounced Trump's proposed name change, but is too cowardly to point out that the progressive great renaming that has gone on in Canada for years is worse - because we are doing it to ourselves. Net result is that the Toronto matrons still don't like him, but all the Canadian nationalists who ought to be his base are dunking on him for cowardice.
True. but when it became a political insult in alt-right circles around 2015, (cuckservative etc.) it was tied to the sub-genre of cuckold pornography in which a specifically white man is humiliated by his sexually unfaithful white wife as she has sex with a black man.
So yes, it’s what you said but with the added super-gross racist trope of the dangerous black man ravishing white women unless their white husbands keep control of “their women” and the black man.
If we only wanted to win, we would have chosen Jean Charest as leader. Nothing in our Country would change. We would have that mythical Red Tory/Blue Liberal Government that seems so coveted in Canada, but that never seems to gets anything done.
I do not belong to a movement of losers, Jen; I live in a Country that can never be wrong. We can never admit we need serious, lasting change.
I get it that some folks don’t like Pierre Poilievre: that is part of the challenge. But it also may be part of the problem with Canada.
Yes, Jamil Javani pulled a real boner for someone who is a pretty smart fellow. The voters will have their say.
Doug Ford is successful because the two opposition Parties are still in disarray, Kathleen Wynne was the worst Premier in the history of our Province, and Country, and because Ontarians are truly scared.
The Conservative Party of Canada is not MAGA adjacent, and it is ridiculous to suggest otherwise. Pierre Poilievre is laser focused on fixing the problems in Canada that are within our purview to repair.
Stephen Harper was an excellent steward of Canadian assets, but what did he really do to create the operational and intellectual foundations for a conservative movement?
I disagree that I am not a Kenney fan; honestly, I don't know that much about him.
My wife and I are 63, and we live in London, Ontario. Our votes do not count. The denizens of London Centre would vote Liberal if the Party ran Karla Homolka painted red.
Yesterday, my wife was driving to an appointment. 8:30 am. The main roads were extremely busy as folks went to work. As she traversed the overpass at Adelaide and York, an impaired, staggering, unkempt young lady stepped directly into traffic. My wife swerved and missed her, but my wife didn’t look back to see what happened next.
Here’s my point. Mark Carney is not here to solve Canada’s problems, or litigate the errors of the past; Pierre Poilievre genuinely wants to repair our Country. He has accepted enough of the drive-by comments, the snide, arrogant, and demeaning slags and just keeps going. He is there for the young lady my wife almost killed.
My expectations have been lowered, insufficiently, as it turns out, but I remain bitter with my fellow Countrymen.
We tried it their way, Jen, and their way doesn’t work.
While it’s implausible that Poilievre will be doing much for the young woman in your story, you can see the parallels between his career as leader and her adventures in traffic.
It's funny how the whole article was about the emotional affect he wants to see from Conservatives, rather than policy as such. More impotent screeching would only reinforce Canada's unstable ex-girlfriend vibe. We should be discussing what trade and economic policy is best for Canada, rather than futilely raging at Trump or, even worse, self-harmingly "retaliating".
The inability of the Conservative Party to present a realistic alternative to the governing party is a serious problem for Canadian democracy. The author’s thesis, that the Conservatives are misaligned with overwhelming majority of Canadians on Trump, is more evidence of this problem.
With Trudeau as PM, anyone could look like a reasonable alternative. Unfortunately for Poilievre, Canada faces a substantial challenge now and neither he nor the party look to be up to the challenge.
With intellectually lazy criticism like this, who needs enemies?
The idea that loyalty is owed to the governing party and prime minister, implicit in this piece, is absurd and disloyal.
As Canadians our first concern is not Trump, but what we can control which is our government. The lack of information and intentional duplicity by our prime minister is hugely concerning and the focus of media like this on supposed disloyalty instead is galling.
What deal did we walk away from? What were the specifics? Is this another Gordie Howe situation?
Literally today they are now saying that they will go back to the table because French label requirements are back on. Did we tank the deal for that?
The Trump regime will take notice and feel encouraged accordingly if there appears to be a mainstream movement within Canada that supports being more submissive to U.S. demands. Characters like Jamil Jivani would get less backlash if they simply clarified that the Canadian government is not 100% responsible for the trade fallout here, but that the Trump regime shares at least some blame.
The author never claimed that loyalty is owed to the governing party, nor did he imply it. That is your interpretation.
Of course our primary concern is Trump. He is the one launching economic attacks on Canada. He is the one who has repeatedly talked about annexing us or crushing us economically.
I find it very concerning that a member of the Loyal Opposition, Jivani, is openly deriding Canada to the Trump administration and that Poilievre has not shown him the door. That is of concern when Canada is under economic attack.
I do agree that the Liberal government needs to be much more open. Unfortunately, I don’t see that changing anytime soon. Governments throughout Canada are addicted to secrecy.
Hi, unfortunately fine comments like this willfully under-informed.
First, we are in this position because we have very intentionally damaged and harmed our own economy just for shits and giggles. You may recall that Japan and Germany came here for LNG and we told them there was no business case. We have repeatedly blocked pipelines and I can give you a long long list of resource projects that have been held up in BC because of first Nations rights. We could go on and on here.
Never mind the immigration or many other related issues. Many of these problems are directly at the door of the very people still in government. The same politicians and bureaucrats that created these problems are still present, not even having lost their jobs.
Further, if we want to pretend that you just woke up today and realized there's a problem then wouldn't you be building these projects immediately? Wouldn't there be a pipeline to the east and west coast already being built right now? Wouldn't you actually be approving new resource projects? Eliminating bureaucracy and related impediments? Wouldn't you create a business-friendly environment?
No offense but what you're talking about is complete bullshit that requires one to believe that government statements are facts. You are heavily propagandized.
You, of course, know nothing about me, so have no idea whether I am “heavily propagandized” or not. So, let’s try to avoid the personal attacks.
I agree with the caution that Canada takes with respect to natural resource projects. The list of environmental disasters caused by mining, oil, and other heavy industry is long. On top of that, these businesses typically walk away from the mess, leaving it to society to clean up it up.
I also agree that, if we see Canada as a country governed by the rule of law, we cannot simply run roughshod over Indigenous lands that have not been ceded to Canada. I recognise that it’s a huge pain in the ass that greatly increases the time and money required to get these projects across the finish line. But where would you draw the line? Would it be okay if the government rolled the bulldozers up to your front door to make way for a pipeline without asking or providing any compensation?
And this is why Canada's economy sucks and is saddling massive debt on the younger generations. You live in faery land, completely disconnected from the reality of how public services are paid for, how Canada can accrue power in the face of US threats, and how resource extraction actually works in Canada.
You’re right. As an engineer, I have no idea how resources are extracted, how they are turned into products, or how we pay for public services in Canada. I bow to your clearly superior knowledge.
It's laughable that the exact same people who have lost their minds the hardest at Trump's blustering threats and economic sanctions have been the most complicit in kneecapping Canada's economy to a collectively worse extent just to feel the warm fuzzy feels, or as you put it, "for shits and giggles".
All the 'build Canada' garbage is performative because those in power don't actually think there is a real threat. That's the only conclusion you can draw. Further questions: Why isn't Parliament re-convened? Why is Carney getting zero shit for attending the European Parliament rather than his own? Why are we still "consulting" with umpteen million stakeholders before building things? If we are really at "war" we would be sending in the bulldozers yesterday on any crucial projects as well as an infantry regiment to keep any protesters 20km from the site.
Further, why is the dollar only down like 0.5%? Why aren't Canadian markets crashing? It seems those with money think this is all theatre as well.
CPC ability to adequately participate in this stage production to not tie the NDP in poll numbers is of course an entirely separate issue.
Wow! TDS moves north of the border. Trump is America's president, responsible to American voters, who convincingly demonstrated in 2024 that they have more faith in his rationality and leadership than in that of the shadowy cabal that was pulling Biden's puppet strings and clearly had the same plan in mind for the inept, deeply confused Harris. Trump has no responsibility whatsoever to Canadian voters or political leaders: he doesn't need their 'support,' and doesn't have to listen to 'criticism' from them. For Canadians to go out of their way to antagonise an American president of either political party would be entirely pointless, and certainly wouldn't advance Canadian interests in bilateral negotiations on any matter.
Let Canadians—Liberals and Conservatives alike—get their own house in order: that isn't Donald Trump's job. The real threats to Canada's sovereignty and competent global performance emanate from within this country, and if Trump is more astute than our own leaders at putting his finger on some of the problems besetting us, that's on us. As Canadians, we should have no objection to sharing with an American the credit for insight into truth. Instead, we should profit from the wake-up call and get our own priorities straight.
As for Vance, he's quite likely to succeed Trump as America's president. For Canadians to join Democrats' ideologically-driven 'Resistance' against him and the majority of American voters, as the culture wars-tinged rhetoric in this article suggests, would be pure posturing and self-defeating.
"Convincingly demonstrated"? He got 49% of the popular vote, and much of that vote was a vote against what was seen as chaos of the Biden administration. That wasn't well thought out, as Trump has exacerbated most of the economic problems that people were upset about.
Beg to differ from south of the border. Do you have any evidence for "much of that vote"? The Biden administration wasn't "chaotic," and I don't believe it was widely seen that way. Indeed, it helped pull us out of the chaos of the first Trump administration, notably the botching of the response to COVID-19. Biden's #1 mistake was not keeping his promise to be a one-term president. His disastrous performance in the 27 June 2024 debate with Trump forced the issue, but he didn't officially withdraw till 21 July. The Democratic convention was only a month later -- with the election only two and a half months off. Under the circumstances, the Harris-Walz ticket did remarkably well, especially when one considers that the U.S. has never had a woman president, never mind a woman of colour president. The popular vote was 49.8% Trump-Vance, 48.3% Harris-Walz.
During the 2024 campaign, Trump denied all knowledge of the right-wing Project 2025, but after the inauguration his administration proceeded to implement significant chunks of it, with Elon Musk's DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency) acting as wild card wrecking ball. I think it's safe to say that most Trump voters didn't bargain for what they got, and even those of us who thought we were prepared for the worst didn't know the half of it.
“During the 2024 campaign, Trump denied all knowledge of the right-wing Project 2025...”
This simply isn't true. If he'd had no knowledge of Project 2025, he wouldn't have been in a position to point out that it formed no significant part of his own platform, right?
“...but after the inauguration his administration proceeded to implement significant chunks of it...”
Such as what, specifically? If you have in mind Trump's attitudes to immigration, crime, government overspending, and various culture wars issues, those were always his views to begin with.
“...with Elon Musk's DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency) acting as wild card wrecking ball.”
(?) Among American voters the size and out-of-control spending of America's multi-tiered bureaucracies is one of those 80-20 issues: if you aren't in favour of a little more efficiency in this realm, you're almost alone out there. The fact that Musk seems lately to have abandoned his reform attempts for the apparently much easier task of sending people to Mars is both discouraging and frightening.
I wrote “Trump denied all knowledge” of it. I didn’t say he had no knowledge of it. These are two different things. If you were following the story, you may remember that his version, uh, “evolved.” He didn’t deny knowing about Project 2025 at first. That changed when he (or his handlers) realized that it was controversial in some quarters.
If Trump actually read any of it, I’d be very surprised. It’s about 950 pages long. I skimmed maybe a third of it. That was enough.
If, analogically, you're talking about the difference between 'knowing about' the existence of, say, Plato, Newton or Kant while having no first-hand 'knowledge' of their work, I grant there's a distinction to be made there. Clearly, what Trump was denying was any indebtedness of his own ideas to Project 2025's, a denial that wouldn't be undermined by any overlaps between the two.
Regardless of whether he ever bothered reading Project 2025's wish list, Trump almost couldn't have avoided knowing about it: its very existence was a scandal in Democrats' eyes for months. Apparently, left-sympathizers have a monopoly on Utopian wish lists, which can be as extreme as they please. The right should never aspire to do the same.
No. I’m going by what Trump said publicly. At first he denied knowing anything about Project 2025. Later he acknowledged that he did know about it. I doubt very much that he has any firsthand acquaintance with it — the man doesn’t read — so I’m inclined to take the original denial at face value. Most likely his handlers/advisors realized that people weren’t likely to believe his denial even if it was 99% true. Notice also that when Trump II got underway, it was Elon Musk et al. that got to work implementing Project 2025. Trump himself, not surprisingly, was far more interested in the grift, crypto, etc. None of which, IIRC, was in Project 2025.
Let’s be clear that we’re talking about people who voted for Trump in 2024, not the motivations of those who didn’t. Most voters are not that politically engaged. They missed the Project 2025 controversy, and they didn’t hear what Trump was saying at rallies either. Instead, their decision making was based on the TV ads, a general dissatisfaction with the inflation they were experiencing, and a sense that things had been better in the first Trump term. The Trump depicted in the TV campaign was radically different than the Trump visible to anybody paying attention to the bigger picture.
You don't seem to have much respect for the average voter, but given what you've said here the question of who's failing to see the bigger picture seems to me very much an open one. Surely voters relying for their opinions and political decision-making on the kind of 'TV' typically fed them by legacy media would have been much more likely to vote for Harris than Trump in 2024. The fact that they didn't suggests they've learned the wisdom and necessity of outflanking CNN and CBS, etc.
(?) It seems tautologically true that every ballot ever cast was simultaneously for someone and against the available alternative(s), yes?
As for how well Trump has performed in office this time around, you're never going to get a fair assessment of that from ideologically captured legacy media, which substituted reflex 'resistance' to Trump for journalism's normal mission of informing people impartially (thus enabling them to make up their own minds on issues) a decade ago. 2024 demonstrated decisively that a sufficient number of voters to get Trump re-elected understood perfectly well just how little relationship exists between Trump, the man, and legacy media's cartoon villain caricature of him.
If you haven't understood that yourself by now, it suggests you may be in an information silo. Broadening your information sources intelligently and non-partisanly is the solution to this, and something I strongly recommend as a retired reference librarian. After all, our judgment can be no more reliable than the sources that inform it. Legacy media's credibility languishes at historic lows for good reason: most individuals don't enjoy being lied to and having their intelligence insulted, and they can see for themselves just how untrustworthy legacy media has become.
By the way, prior to the 2024 election my own sources predicted Trump was going to win 312 electoral votes, exactly what he ended up getting. The extent to which the fraudulent 'information professionals' of CBS and NBC got exposed on election night has been a source of many very funny YouTube videos since—not that the debacle has dissuaded these same fraudsters from continuing to masquerade their activist projects as journalism, of course.
I am not a supporter of censoring MPs over civil political disagreements. While Jamil Jivani is being insufferably oblivious to the Trump regime's bad-faith motives, Jivani is still being perfectly civil in his communications, and the ban hammer does not need to be the first tool applied to someone who is being misguided.
That being said, Pierre Poilievre should at least be able to publicly slap Jivani on the wrist, and his not even doing that is truly weak.
Where is the sober evaluation of what damage Canadian tariffs can inflict on a population 10 times larger that holds most of the cards? Sobriety is nowhere to be found, because the Liberals want Canadians to float along on a story that they provide. "Strategically" has no meaning in a context devoid of relevant data.
Could central Canada please get with the needs of the 2020's instead of some now ancient era, and ask for information and data before deciding who to vote for?
Carney won't tell us what the US deal was, possibly because many voters would initially not support the decision to withdraw if they knew. But central Canadian voters will support the Liberal decision if Carney gets a story/spin started first. Carney/Ford are working on their story.
The Conservatives recognize that Trump is willing to negatively affect other economies, and disrupt spending patterns (such as the military) to strengthen the US economically. They realize that the deal is everything to Trump, and he is used to upsetting people to get the deal he wants. Central Canadians are uniquely easy to upset. Just make up a story they buy into.
The Liberals' willingness to delay puts Canada in economic and possibly other perils. We are done in by the central Canadian culture of supporting half true stories. Meanwhile - would you rather the US remain the dominant world economy or face the Chinese Communist jackboot? Don't avoid the weakness in the US that forces Trump to get going on economic renewal.
I will still vote to stay in Canada because I think that Alberta and others can get a better deal from central Canada, and there are no viable plans for what happens should we separate. BUt central Canadians could kill their own economy and ours with their willfull blindness.
Amazing the blindness by so many otherwise intelligent people involved equating 'against' progressive/woke/CCP favouritism with 'pro-Trump'. Tedious and ever so tiring.
This assumption - especially endemic amongst media commentators/once-upon-a-time-journalists and pseudo-intellectual talking heads - kills honest investigation and meaningful dialogue about real world problems western countries generally, and Canada specifically, face. And that includes a world where Trump really is the President of the US and really does do things worth criticizing. But incorporating this assumption into opinions does serve to further tribal divisions and social dysfunction (and quite possibly economic ruin) in the name of 'patriotism' in the form of anti-Americanism. This is huge disservice to effectively dealing with very real and pressing problems through recommended policy. This article is no different.
Well put. If he does not have enough courage to end this behaviour than the verdict is he is a coward or that is who is really is. We need everyone pulling together. I am pleased to watch here in BC as the Conservative party (which use to be a moderate party under the Liberal label) is falling apart as the people are recognizing the danger of extreme under the tent. You are either a Canadian or you are not. Decide
Yes they should be, but that applies to the NDP as a whole. The difference in this instance is for some reason there is a vocal section of the Conservatives Party that supports Trump over Canada and that is extreme to a disloyalty level. It is one thing to say Trump has some points about our defence posture and maybe some other points which I cannot fathom and it is another to support him in spite of his obvious aim of subjecting us to US control and his whims.
I’m a Conservative, I live in a Conservative area and most people I meet and converse with on a daily basis are Conservatives. That said, 99% of those Conservatives are 100% against Trump, against his methods and against his aim to subjugate Canada. It is online where I come across the fools and the basis for much of their argument is Globalism, the foolish myth that a few actors are driving the world in a direction to benefit them. For some reason they totally overlook the fact that Trump is trying to reshape the world to benefit Trump. No President of the US has gained wealth in the amount or at the speed that Trump has in this term. Hers the danger, not the saviour.
Absolutely. We have this element now in all parties and political stripes. I was only speaking to the topic. The pendulum swinging far left/far right when Political parties want to win so badly they do not set boundaries.
Amen. Poillievre’s tough guy act with the government while treating guys like Jivani with kid gloves is not a projection of strength. It’s an unfortunate mirror of Trump, who treats America’s allies and his fellow Americans with callous disregard but is a silky soft pussycat toward America’s enemies.
Pierre has spent the last 26 years advocating for a suite of economic policies which stand in direct opposition to Trump's brand of economic nationalism. Meanwhile, the first policy Carney announced as Liberal leadership candidate was carbon tariffs. His first act as Prime Minister was to hold a Trump-style executive signing ceremony. The Liberals are doubling down on economic nationalist policies, including announcing a Sovereign Debt Fund months after Trump announced the same policy. Meanwhile the Mexicans have taken a page from Pierre's playbook of saying as little publicly as possible about Trump because they understand he is an insecure toddler with ADHD and cable news addiction. I would rather we say nothing about Trump and advocate for doing the opposite of what he does, then condemning Trump while adopting all his economic policies.
Drifting through this piece are buckets of ambiguity. Is the Line promoting (A) unification in the face of a threatening Trump or is it promoting (B) the sort of Democrat-like hate mongering so prevalent in much of what we hear and see in Canadian commentary.
C'mon Matt and Jen...come clean. We need to support Canada in the face of the US aggression. We do NOT need the sort of broad brush hate so common in our country.
“The more the CPC is associated with the pro-Trump faction that they refuse to remove, and the more the CPC lets the toxic influencers define the CPC brand, the more voters will rightfully recoil from supporting the Conservatives in their current iteration.”
Poilievre couldn't bring himself to forcefully and clearly condemn Trump's bullying in the run-up to the 2025 federal election. I haven't seen a more credible explanation for that than either being sympathetic to Trump, or afraid of alienating a significant Trump-sympathizing faction of people who Poilievre thought would vote Conservative.
Want to treat this problem as a straw man? Go for it. We'll see how long it takes (and how many elections Conservatives have to lose) before you do.
Speaking of straw men, the idea that anybody who criticizes the current Conservative Party must be a supporter of one of the 3 parties to the left falls into the same category. You don't know me or who I am. You almost certainly don't know that I used to have a membership in the Conservative Party during the Harper years, and you've probably never seen pictures of me sitting in the crowd behind Stephen Harper with my daughter at a campaign rally in 2011.
What I'd like you to understand is that I see the Conservative Party as having left *me* by drifting into populism and culture war nonsense. I dropped my party membership after one too many fundraising phone calls trying to get me riled up about what the Liberals were doing and having to stop them from trying to pull together another risky coalition instead of telling me what the Conservative Party was planning to do for Canada.
I can imagine only the narrowest set of circumstances where I'd ever vote NDP (basically the equivalent of Saskatchewan in the early '90s when it would've been necessary to eject the utterly corrupt PC government of the era.) I can stomach the Liberals when they're in a fiscally conservative phase and competent government rather than culture wars and social engineering, but I'd still rather cast a vote for Conservatives focused on fiscal conservatism and competent government. I'd appreciate having that choice available to me again, with a party led by somebody other than a cherubic lightweight or a partisan bombthrower who've never had a job outside of politics.
Suggesting that one who disparages the Conservatives would also favour the left-of-centre Canadian Political Parties is not a Straw Man argument.
You put some work into your reply, so I commend you for that.
I have no expectation of Conservative victory for the rest of my lifetime, just as I have given up on the Toronto Maple Leafs ever enjoying another Stanley Cup parade.
The Conservative, Reform, Alliance, Progressive Conservatives, and Liberal-Conservative Party before them all, has always been a coalition of kooks, crazies, small businessman, rural communities and larger business interests.
I am happy to see the Liberal/NDP Alliance Party continue to take Canada to the brink of economic and cultural extinction a few more times.
I am an old man, George, and I have little time, nor patience, to wait for the next Liberal Party of Canada reincarnation as a prudent, thoughtful, responsible Party capable of forming Government. It will be forced upon them like it was in the 90s, when no one with a hint of sense will touch our bonds.
Do you not think the Liberal Party of Canada indulges in aggressive fundraising? Ever heard of the “Conservative Hidden Agenda”?
We tried not their way, George, and their way doesn’t work.
I think the Conservatives have the best leader, the best bench, the best lineup, the best policies, and the best chance to repair the damage done during the “Lost Liberal Decade”, and that includes cultural issues.
I respect the fact you feel differently, but I will never understand how anyone could vote four times in succession for the fecklessness, futility, and failure of the past eleven years.
“This time it will be different.”
Permanent residents and citizens leaving in record numbers.
A complete breakdown of civilization in the streets of my City (London, Ontario).
Six successive fiscal quarters of more businesses closing up or leaving than opening.
An affordability crisis. A housing crisis. An immigration crisis. A concurrent mental health/drug abuse/homelessness crisis. A healthcare crisis. Uncontrollable deficits and debt.
I could go on, and on.
If you have stayed with me this far, you are a kind and patient man, George; given that you are such a gentleman, you get the last word.
I didn't vote for the Liberals in any of the past elections, by the way - I could tell Trudeau was bad news in 2015, and the problems with his government clearly outweighed any concerns I had with Scheer in 2019. I was happy to vote for O'Toole in 2021.
Last year, I voted for the Conservatives under Poilievre on the calculation that I'd rather take the risk of a half-baked Conservative platform over the prospect of a Trudeau Liberal caucus steamrolling a neophyte leader like Carney. Carney's exceeded my expectations (which didn't take much.) Poilievre has only validated my concerns about him, and this Trump-related ambivalence is just more in that vein.
I'm afraid partisanship doesn't really connect with me. I'm looking for alignment with my values and priorities, and the current political offerings are like choosing between a dodgy egg salad sandwich from a gas station vs. the lunch special at the cafeteria with fly paper hanging from the ceiling where the waiter's picking his nose surreptitiously.
You say that, but in my life I keep running into (former) Conservative voters who keep saying that Mark Carney is fantastic and defends Canada... but Pierre Poilievre is junior grade and doesn't have what it takes.
And I'll agree with you that none of that seems fair. But it is what it is. I'm not making the news or even telling you what I think. I'm just telling you what I hear from people who thought Justin Trudeau was an imbecile and Stephen Harper was great.
Join your local Conservative EDA . Join the fight. Our Board has taken on four or six splendid young people who make me very proud to be a Conservative/conservative.
Andrew, I concede Canadian politics will never be fair.
I have never met anyone who admits to have been an enthusiastic supporter of Justin Trudeau, and everyone claims to have loved Stephen Harper.
This is a separate matter, but in Canada, the conservative movement has never established the intellectual groundwork for a string of electoral victories. In the States, when things get tough, conservatives lean back on the hard work of William F. Buckley Jr. , Barry Goldwater, Milton Friedman, Ronald Reagan, or George Will.
Name one solid, consistent Canadian conservative writer or intellectual of that heft.
> I have never met anyone who admits to have been an enthusiastic supporter of Justin Trudeau, and everyone claims to have loved Stephen Harper.
I have. Plenty. And plenty of "Harper was terrible" people as well. Frankly, I'd say the trend of voting for the Conservatives and now deciding Mr. Poilievre doesn't cut it isn't nearly as bad as the precipitous drop Justin Trudeau had... but Pierre Poilievre isn't starting from already being Prime Minister. I don't know if he's permanently toast or if he can still change course and therefore the narrative... but I don't see the narrative changing without him making a change.
Solid Canadian conservative writer? Honestly the first name that springs to mind is Christie Blatchford.
But I take your point. We've got a problem there and NOT just in relation to the Americans. Look at the British conservative intellectual tradition. I think fixing this might involve shaking off our appreciation for the USA. Not because we hate them or anything, but simply because they're not us. We need to notice what's Canadian...recognize that it's different from the American stuff and generally more relevant to us simply by virtue of being more us. Also we could just try getting better. That's always a good plan.
I was enthusiastic about Trudeau until he screwed up voting reform. Rather than ram what he wanted down people's throats, he somehow did something exactly as politically damaging and which improved nothing. And then just kind of did that over and over, except for the times where he did do something and made it worse.
Ronald Reagan does NOT belong in that list, I would add. Coherence and Reaganism don't exactly go together. I don't always agree with those others, but their positions are logically consistent.
I need a new conservative party divorced from the fringe trump fetish. The fact the CPC hasn't the nuts to excise this boil means it will take even more time and extra effort for them to be trusted.
The new party could maybe call themselves the Progressive Conservatives, who I actually voted for a few times. I haven't done that since Reform took the PCs over.
First, I will say I am pro-Canada. But I do not view being pro-Canada as being pro-tariffs. People - but particularly politicians, seem to forget that tariffs actually hurt the country who imposes them.
Let Donald Trump put his tariffs in. Say oh-well and ignore while Americans deal with inflation that is caused by their own president's tariffs. The sky-is-falling attitude about tariffs is part of the problem. And then giving Canadians a bill to pay because our cost of goods increases due to retaliatory tariffs is just dumb.
Does Canada need to respond? Sure. But is a response that hurts Canadians the best response? Absolutely not. It's foolish and ignores that interprovincial trade has more barriers that cost more money than the US tariffs. So why are we having such an over-sized reaction?
This is being turned into politics. But not of the useful or right kind.
Governments have tried (correctly) to respond with symbolic but narrow tariffs first, like the booze stuff.
But all that low-hanging fruit has been picked. The "dollar for dollar" retaliation that is now being discussed will be very noticeable and painful to Canadians... to the point where I question the government's ability to actually follow through on it. Just yesterday, they scrapped a tariff because the east coast aquaculture industry complained.
The Democrats would be no different in terms of protecting and repatriating US jobs. They have been in bed with big unions for a few generations. The Republicans managed to identify with the workers - a job made easier by the overt elitism of Eastern democrats such as Hillary Clinton who took Big Labor and the Black and Latino vote for granted.
Unfortunately Canada’s response to the US job repatriation via tariffs has been governed more by TDS than anything else. But Trump in spite of being a loose cannon and his erraticness - so well cultivated and amplified by US mass media - enjoys the support of 80 million largely working class Americans. Polievre projecting the image of a meek polite Canadian who has spent his entire working career in the Ottawa government bubble has zero in common with the average working Canadian.
It would help immensely if Canadian leaders would look at their work culture and the entitlements which make them less efficient than the competition. Starting with unemployment benefits and subsidies intended to keep people where they are regionally and the myth of free health care which is rationed by waitlists (except for MAID).
The CPC is finished. The 2 loudest voices are both unelectable idiots. But let's not pretend Doug Ford is anything less than Ontario's Trump, and we were just as stupid to re-elect him as the US was.
No, he's not. He's a "Trump Conservative". He cares about Doug. he cares about Doug's friends. That's it. Let's not pretend any Conservative government in the last 40 years has approached fiscal responsibility. They have nothing else to offer.
Very true about Doug Ford, but I take issue with your assertion that no Conservative governement in the last 40 years has approached fiscal responsibility.
Early stage Klein was fiscally conservative, but lost the plot mid-way through.
Harris was fiscally conservative, perhaps the most so in Canadian history.
Harper was fiscally conservative, though too incremental.
Each man's fiscally conservative direction helped balance the books and attract investment, albeit not without a lot of pain and kicking other very real problems down the road for future governments to worry (and spend) on.
Mike Harris is an enigma. He's the only politician in my lifetime who said he would do something...and then did it. His first term was exceptional. His second was a complete disaster. have cut fat, he cut muscle and bone, severely damaging the healthcare and education systems, and selling the 407. From first to worst. Dalton and Kathleen gave him a run, but Doug has set a new standard for the most useless premier in Ontario history.
I voted for Harper 3 times. He finally got his majority and did nothing useful with it, never balancing (despite his fiscal juggling and bullshit optics of his final year). He didn't want to win in 2015, as confirmed by his idiotic, barbaric cultural practices hotline.
I can't comment on Klein because I wasn't paying enough attention to politics in those days.
I've said it here many times... the vacuum of leadership in Canada is a disaster in the making. Carney may be on the right track, but the time for talk is over. Backing actions are required. It's wartime.
Klein was largely quite disturbingly boorish in real life, but he had a canny handler (Rob Love) and Klein also possessed what Smith and Kinew and the Ford brothers and (vomit) even Trudeau II all did - an uncanny ability with retail politics. Klein was actually a card-carrying Liberal in his media days, and only joined the Alberta PC's after his miraculous run as Calgary mayor. Perhaps it was all timing - he became a bit of a joke in his third term, and all the fiscal responsibility evaporated.
I agree completely with your disappointment in Harper's majority term - he could have done so much more than he did.
There's a book on Mike Harris I've been meaning to read, and would encourage you to if you're interested.
I am informed by a CPC staffer of the time who was at the meeting where the cultural practices hotline was announced that it got enthusiastic applause and everyone thought it was brilliant. To his credit he has realized this was dumb of them.
Consider that, if Doug Ford or someone like him took over the CPC, he would immediately stop being useful to the media as the Better Conservative, the Why Can’t They Be Like That Conservative. The discussion would flip to, Wow, Ontario is really mismanaged and poor, eh?
Bigger picture, I don’t think this essay is helpful. The anti- and pro-Trump factions are going to have to stay together, for the kids. No one is purging anyone. Perhaps Poilievre is inartfully handling this bed-death marriage. He is after all a Desantis type, lacking the natural warmth of say Danielle Smith or Doug Ford. Fine. But there has to be a way to say, without passing judgment on how people feel about Trump, that (1) Canada literally has not been attacked and literally is not at war, it’s insane and hyperbolic for Carney to say otherwise, (2) the Trump administration is objectively sinking and rudderless, and its means don’t match its ends, even if you are sympathetic to those ends, his style or his movement, and (3) the LPC and the media are not interested in Canadian welfare but rather Resistance Theatre. And the it’s true, the Show is popular; tickets are sold out. But at the end of the day, you can’t eat and you can’t live in chest-thumping, dunking on a feckless old man whose bark has always been worse than his bite. Because that’s all Carney offers. There will be no deal with Europe, who hates Supply Management more than the US does. There will be no surge in exports to China or whomever, because Carney has no interest in reforming land use or the ports. Heck, even on Carney’s own term, there’s no “war footing”!!! I mean c’mon. Nothing has changed in anyone’s daily life!
I get it that The Line likes its Conservatives (conservatives) prostrate, deferential, and labile, if not actually defenestrated.
None of the folks in my Conservative EDA meet the description of the Party you have described.
Every single member of our Board joined due to the decay, diminishment, and destruction of our Country. None has uttered a word of support for Donald Trump, MAGA, or whatever other goblin you have conjured up to further disparage the best Leader of His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition in our history, the man whose Party chased off the worst Prime Minister since Confederation, and the man who forced The Great Canadian Economic Savant to adopt his own Party’s platform.
Yes, there are problems under this big tent. But are they any more insurmountable than the FarLeft-CentreLeft split between the Palestinian/Climate Fanatic/Woke/Progressive/Postmodern/Deconstructionist wing of the Liberal Party of Canada?
JJ should not have done what he did; like all elected members, the voters will decide his fate.
Given the number of real problems facing conservatism in this Country, perhaps The Line, generally, and this author, specifically, could get back to discussing those, and the actual problems threatening this Country.
The only Conservatives who are coming off as prostrate, deferential, and labile are Pierre Poilievre and Jamil Jivani. There is literally nothing more cucky than siding with the dementia addled goons seeking to deindustrialize Canada over the interests of the very country you seek to run. It's pathetic, weak, and disqualifying.
Also, I may understand why you have issue with Kenney, but how does one claim that Doug Ford (eyeing his fourth straight majority) or Harper (the most successful Canadian conservative in recent history) are defenestrated? You're telling on yourselves.
This is a movement that now clearly sides with losers. JG
Hear me out: maybe we want something from a PM other than just just winning elections. Both Harper and Ford have squandered opportunities to actually address some of the problems of this country and province. Ford is probably too dumb to be held accountable, but Harper should have done better.
You're allowed to want more, but the bare minimum you need to demand is that they actually win. Which requires understanding why it's not working out.
Definitely. They've tried appealing to Toronto matrons of both sexes and various provinces of residence election after election, and it hasn't worked. Time for a new approach.
An example of the old approach is over "Lake America". Poilievre correctly denounced Trump's proposed name change, but is too cowardly to point out that the progressive great renaming that has gone on in Canada for years is worse - because we are doing it to ourselves. Net result is that the Toronto matrons still don't like him, but all the Canadian nationalists who ought to be his base are dunking on him for cowardice.
> There is literally nothing more cucky
Eww.
Seriously eww Jen. Please don't say that. The term originates with racial humiliation porn. Please don't.
Actually, the term is a bastardized version of cuckold; i.e, a man whose sexually unfaithful wife makes him an object of derision.
True. but when it became a political insult in alt-right circles around 2015, (cuckservative etc.) it was tied to the sub-genre of cuckold pornography in which a specifically white man is humiliated by his sexually unfaithful white wife as she has sex with a black man.
So yes, it’s what you said but with the added super-gross racist trope of the dangerous black man ravishing white women unless their white husbands keep control of “their women” and the black man.
which is an extra reason I say… EWW.
I was not aware of the meaning mention. I can’t help but think that this was not Jen Gerson’s intent.
I too am sure it wasn’t.
And sorry to be the one to tell you something so grotesque.
Technically you're both kind of right...
Thank you.
That word is appalling.
Hi, Jen. thank you for the reply.
If we only wanted to win, we would have chosen Jean Charest as leader. Nothing in our Country would change. We would have that mythical Red Tory/Blue Liberal Government that seems so coveted in Canada, but that never seems to gets anything done.
I do not belong to a movement of losers, Jen; I live in a Country that can never be wrong. We can never admit we need serious, lasting change.
I get it that some folks don’t like Pierre Poilievre: that is part of the challenge. But it also may be part of the problem with Canada.
Yes, Jamil Javani pulled a real boner for someone who is a pretty smart fellow. The voters will have their say.
Doug Ford is successful because the two opposition Parties are still in disarray, Kathleen Wynne was the worst Premier in the history of our Province, and Country, and because Ontarians are truly scared.
The Conservative Party of Canada is not MAGA adjacent, and it is ridiculous to suggest otherwise. Pierre Poilievre is laser focused on fixing the problems in Canada that are within our purview to repair.
Stephen Harper was an excellent steward of Canadian assets, but what did he really do to create the operational and intellectual foundations for a conservative movement?
I disagree that I am not a Kenney fan; honestly, I don't know that much about him.
My wife and I are 63, and we live in London, Ontario. Our votes do not count. The denizens of London Centre would vote Liberal if the Party ran Karla Homolka painted red.
Yesterday, my wife was driving to an appointment. 8:30 am. The main roads were extremely busy as folks went to work. As she traversed the overpass at Adelaide and York, an impaired, staggering, unkempt young lady stepped directly into traffic. My wife swerved and missed her, but my wife didn’t look back to see what happened next.
Here’s my point. Mark Carney is not here to solve Canada’s problems, or litigate the errors of the past; Pierre Poilievre genuinely wants to repair our Country. He has accepted enough of the drive-by comments, the snide, arrogant, and demeaning slags and just keeps going. He is there for the young lady my wife almost killed.
My expectations have been lowered, insufficiently, as it turns out, but I remain bitter with my fellow Countrymen.
We tried it their way, Jen, and their way doesn’t work.
While it’s implausible that Poilievre will be doing much for the young woman in your story, you can see the parallels between his career as leader and her adventures in traffic.
2 likes, Jen??
You people are disgraceful. Grow up.
It's funny how the whole article was about the emotional affect he wants to see from Conservatives, rather than policy as such. More impotent screeching would only reinforce Canada's unstable ex-girlfriend vibe. We should be discussing what trade and economic policy is best for Canada, rather than futilely raging at Trump or, even worse, self-harmingly "retaliating".
The inability of the Conservative Party to present a realistic alternative to the governing party is a serious problem for Canadian democracy. The author’s thesis, that the Conservatives are misaligned with overwhelming majority of Canadians on Trump, is more evidence of this problem.
With Trudeau as PM, anyone could look like a reasonable alternative. Unfortunately for Poilievre, Canada faces a substantial challenge now and neither he nor the party look to be up to the challenge.
With intellectually lazy criticism like this, who needs enemies?
The idea that loyalty is owed to the governing party and prime minister, implicit in this piece, is absurd and disloyal.
As Canadians our first concern is not Trump, but what we can control which is our government. The lack of information and intentional duplicity by our prime minister is hugely concerning and the focus of media like this on supposed disloyalty instead is galling.
What deal did we walk away from? What were the specifics? Is this another Gordie Howe situation?
Literally today they are now saying that they will go back to the table because French label requirements are back on. Did we tank the deal for that?
This essay is just vapid foolishness.
The Trump regime will take notice and feel encouraged accordingly if there appears to be a mainstream movement within Canada that supports being more submissive to U.S. demands. Characters like Jamil Jivani would get less backlash if they simply clarified that the Canadian government is not 100% responsible for the trade fallout here, but that the Trump regime shares at least some blame.
The author never claimed that loyalty is owed to the governing party, nor did he imply it. That is your interpretation.
Of course our primary concern is Trump. He is the one launching economic attacks on Canada. He is the one who has repeatedly talked about annexing us or crushing us economically.
I find it very concerning that a member of the Loyal Opposition, Jivani, is openly deriding Canada to the Trump administration and that Poilievre has not shown him the door. That is of concern when Canada is under economic attack.
I do agree that the Liberal government needs to be much more open. Unfortunately, I don’t see that changing anytime soon. Governments throughout Canada are addicted to secrecy.
Hi, unfortunately fine comments like this willfully under-informed.
First, we are in this position because we have very intentionally damaged and harmed our own economy just for shits and giggles. You may recall that Japan and Germany came here for LNG and we told them there was no business case. We have repeatedly blocked pipelines and I can give you a long long list of resource projects that have been held up in BC because of first Nations rights. We could go on and on here.
Never mind the immigration or many other related issues. Many of these problems are directly at the door of the very people still in government. The same politicians and bureaucrats that created these problems are still present, not even having lost their jobs.
Further, if we want to pretend that you just woke up today and realized there's a problem then wouldn't you be building these projects immediately? Wouldn't there be a pipeline to the east and west coast already being built right now? Wouldn't you actually be approving new resource projects? Eliminating bureaucracy and related impediments? Wouldn't you create a business-friendly environment?
No offense but what you're talking about is complete bullshit that requires one to believe that government statements are facts. You are heavily propagandized.
You, of course, know nothing about me, so have no idea whether I am “heavily propagandized” or not. So, let’s try to avoid the personal attacks.
I agree with the caution that Canada takes with respect to natural resource projects. The list of environmental disasters caused by mining, oil, and other heavy industry is long. On top of that, these businesses typically walk away from the mess, leaving it to society to clean up it up.
I also agree that, if we see Canada as a country governed by the rule of law, we cannot simply run roughshod over Indigenous lands that have not been ceded to Canada. I recognise that it’s a huge pain in the ass that greatly increases the time and money required to get these projects across the finish line. But where would you draw the line? Would it be okay if the government rolled the bulldozers up to your front door to make way for a pipeline without asking or providing any compensation?
And this is why Canada's economy sucks and is saddling massive debt on the younger generations. You live in faery land, completely disconnected from the reality of how public services are paid for, how Canada can accrue power in the face of US threats, and how resource extraction actually works in Canada.
So again - heavily propagandized.
You’re right. As an engineer, I have no idea how resources are extracted, how they are turned into products, or how we pay for public services in Canada. I bow to your clearly superior knowledge.
Good. Glad that’s settled.
It's laughable that the exact same people who have lost their minds the hardest at Trump's blustering threats and economic sanctions have been the most complicit in kneecapping Canada's economy to a collectively worse extent just to feel the warm fuzzy feels, or as you put it, "for shits and giggles".
All the 'build Canada' garbage is performative because those in power don't actually think there is a real threat. That's the only conclusion you can draw. Further questions: Why isn't Parliament re-convened? Why is Carney getting zero shit for attending the European Parliament rather than his own? Why are we still "consulting" with umpteen million stakeholders before building things? If we are really at "war" we would be sending in the bulldozers yesterday on any crucial projects as well as an infantry regiment to keep any protesters 20km from the site.
Further, why is the dollar only down like 0.5%? Why aren't Canadian markets crashing? It seems those with money think this is all theatre as well.
CPC ability to adequately participate in this stage production to not tie the NDP in poll numbers is of course an entirely separate issue.
Wow! TDS moves north of the border. Trump is America's president, responsible to American voters, who convincingly demonstrated in 2024 that they have more faith in his rationality and leadership than in that of the shadowy cabal that was pulling Biden's puppet strings and clearly had the same plan in mind for the inept, deeply confused Harris. Trump has no responsibility whatsoever to Canadian voters or political leaders: he doesn't need their 'support,' and doesn't have to listen to 'criticism' from them. For Canadians to go out of their way to antagonise an American president of either political party would be entirely pointless, and certainly wouldn't advance Canadian interests in bilateral negotiations on any matter.
Let Canadians—Liberals and Conservatives alike—get their own house in order: that isn't Donald Trump's job. The real threats to Canada's sovereignty and competent global performance emanate from within this country, and if Trump is more astute than our own leaders at putting his finger on some of the problems besetting us, that's on us. As Canadians, we should have no objection to sharing with an American the credit for insight into truth. Instead, we should profit from the wake-up call and get our own priorities straight.
As for Vance, he's quite likely to succeed Trump as America's president. For Canadians to join Democrats' ideologically-driven 'Resistance' against him and the majority of American voters, as the culture wars-tinged rhetoric in this article suggests, would be pure posturing and self-defeating.
"Convincingly demonstrated"? He got 49% of the popular vote, and much of that vote was a vote against what was seen as chaos of the Biden administration. That wasn't well thought out, as Trump has exacerbated most of the economic problems that people were upset about.
Beg to differ from south of the border. Do you have any evidence for "much of that vote"? The Biden administration wasn't "chaotic," and I don't believe it was widely seen that way. Indeed, it helped pull us out of the chaos of the first Trump administration, notably the botching of the response to COVID-19. Biden's #1 mistake was not keeping his promise to be a one-term president. His disastrous performance in the 27 June 2024 debate with Trump forced the issue, but he didn't officially withdraw till 21 July. The Democratic convention was only a month later -- with the election only two and a half months off. Under the circumstances, the Harris-Walz ticket did remarkably well, especially when one considers that the U.S. has never had a woman president, never mind a woman of colour president. The popular vote was 49.8% Trump-Vance, 48.3% Harris-Walz.
During the 2024 campaign, Trump denied all knowledge of the right-wing Project 2025, but after the inauguration his administration proceeded to implement significant chunks of it, with Elon Musk's DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency) acting as wild card wrecking ball. I think it's safe to say that most Trump voters didn't bargain for what they got, and even those of us who thought we were prepared for the worst didn't know the half of it.
“During the 2024 campaign, Trump denied all knowledge of the right-wing Project 2025...”
This simply isn't true. If he'd had no knowledge of Project 2025, he wouldn't have been in a position to point out that it formed no significant part of his own platform, right?
“...but after the inauguration his administration proceeded to implement significant chunks of it...”
Such as what, specifically? If you have in mind Trump's attitudes to immigration, crime, government overspending, and various culture wars issues, those were always his views to begin with.
“...with Elon Musk's DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency) acting as wild card wrecking ball.”
(?) Among American voters the size and out-of-control spending of America's multi-tiered bureaucracies is one of those 80-20 issues: if you aren't in favour of a little more efficiency in this realm, you're almost alone out there. The fact that Musk seems lately to have abandoned his reform attempts for the apparently much easier task of sending people to Mars is both discouraging and frightening.
I wrote “Trump denied all knowledge” of it. I didn’t say he had no knowledge of it. These are two different things. If you were following the story, you may remember that his version, uh, “evolved.” He didn’t deny knowing about Project 2025 at first. That changed when he (or his handlers) realized that it was controversial in some quarters.
If Trump actually read any of it, I’d be very surprised. It’s about 950 pages long. I skimmed maybe a third of it. That was enough.
If, analogically, you're talking about the difference between 'knowing about' the existence of, say, Plato, Newton or Kant while having no first-hand 'knowledge' of their work, I grant there's a distinction to be made there. Clearly, what Trump was denying was any indebtedness of his own ideas to Project 2025's, a denial that wouldn't be undermined by any overlaps between the two.
Regardless of whether he ever bothered reading Project 2025's wish list, Trump almost couldn't have avoided knowing about it: its very existence was a scandal in Democrats' eyes for months. Apparently, left-sympathizers have a monopoly on Utopian wish lists, which can be as extreme as they please. The right should never aspire to do the same.
No. I’m going by what Trump said publicly. At first he denied knowing anything about Project 2025. Later he acknowledged that he did know about it. I doubt very much that he has any firsthand acquaintance with it — the man doesn’t read — so I’m inclined to take the original denial at face value. Most likely his handlers/advisors realized that people weren’t likely to believe his denial even if it was 99% true. Notice also that when Trump II got underway, it was Elon Musk et al. that got to work implementing Project 2025. Trump himself, not surprisingly, was far more interested in the grift, crypto, etc. None of which, IIRC, was in Project 2025.
Let’s be clear that we’re talking about people who voted for Trump in 2024, not the motivations of those who didn’t. Most voters are not that politically engaged. They missed the Project 2025 controversy, and they didn’t hear what Trump was saying at rallies either. Instead, their decision making was based on the TV ads, a general dissatisfaction with the inflation they were experiencing, and a sense that things had been better in the first Trump term. The Trump depicted in the TV campaign was radically different than the Trump visible to anybody paying attention to the bigger picture.
You don't seem to have much respect for the average voter, but given what you've said here the question of who's failing to see the bigger picture seems to me very much an open one. Surely voters relying for their opinions and political decision-making on the kind of 'TV' typically fed them by legacy media would have been much more likely to vote for Harris than Trump in 2024. The fact that they didn't suggests they've learned the wisdom and necessity of outflanking CNN and CBS, etc.
49%? If only Carney could brag about that...
Different system. On the other hand, Carney’s approval is over 60%; Trump is at 38%.
For now.
(?) It seems tautologically true that every ballot ever cast was simultaneously for someone and against the available alternative(s), yes?
As for how well Trump has performed in office this time around, you're never going to get a fair assessment of that from ideologically captured legacy media, which substituted reflex 'resistance' to Trump for journalism's normal mission of informing people impartially (thus enabling them to make up their own minds on issues) a decade ago. 2024 demonstrated decisively that a sufficient number of voters to get Trump re-elected understood perfectly well just how little relationship exists between Trump, the man, and legacy media's cartoon villain caricature of him.
If you haven't understood that yourself by now, it suggests you may be in an information silo. Broadening your information sources intelligently and non-partisanly is the solution to this, and something I strongly recommend as a retired reference librarian. After all, our judgment can be no more reliable than the sources that inform it. Legacy media's credibility languishes at historic lows for good reason: most individuals don't enjoy being lied to and having their intelligence insulted, and they can see for themselves just how untrustworthy legacy media has become.
By the way, prior to the 2024 election my own sources predicted Trump was going to win 312 electoral votes, exactly what he ended up getting. The extent to which the fraudulent 'information professionals' of CBS and NBC got exposed on election night has been a source of many very funny YouTube videos since—not that the debacle has dissuaded these same fraudsters from continuing to masquerade their activist projects as journalism, of course.
I am not a supporter of censoring MPs over civil political disagreements. While Jamil Jivani is being insufferably oblivious to the Trump regime's bad-faith motives, Jivani is still being perfectly civil in his communications, and the ban hammer does not need to be the first tool applied to someone who is being misguided.
That being said, Pierre Poilievre should at least be able to publicly slap Jivani on the wrist, and his not even doing that is truly weak.
Where is the sober evaluation of what damage Canadian tariffs can inflict on a population 10 times larger that holds most of the cards? Sobriety is nowhere to be found, because the Liberals want Canadians to float along on a story that they provide. "Strategically" has no meaning in a context devoid of relevant data.
Could central Canada please get with the needs of the 2020's instead of some now ancient era, and ask for information and data before deciding who to vote for?
Carney won't tell us what the US deal was, possibly because many voters would initially not support the decision to withdraw if they knew. But central Canadian voters will support the Liberal decision if Carney gets a story/spin started first. Carney/Ford are working on their story.
The Conservatives recognize that Trump is willing to negatively affect other economies, and disrupt spending patterns (such as the military) to strengthen the US economically. They realize that the deal is everything to Trump, and he is used to upsetting people to get the deal he wants. Central Canadians are uniquely easy to upset. Just make up a story they buy into.
The Liberals' willingness to delay puts Canada in economic and possibly other perils. We are done in by the central Canadian culture of supporting half true stories. Meanwhile - would you rather the US remain the dominant world economy or face the Chinese Communist jackboot? Don't avoid the weakness in the US that forces Trump to get going on economic renewal.
I will still vote to stay in Canada because I think that Alberta and others can get a better deal from central Canada, and there are no viable plans for what happens should we separate. BUt central Canadians could kill their own economy and ours with their willfull blindness.
Actually, I'm for Canada. Not the same thing.
Amazing the blindness by so many otherwise intelligent people involved equating 'against' progressive/woke/CCP favouritism with 'pro-Trump'. Tedious and ever so tiring.
This assumption - especially endemic amongst media commentators/once-upon-a-time-journalists and pseudo-intellectual talking heads - kills honest investigation and meaningful dialogue about real world problems western countries generally, and Canada specifically, face. And that includes a world where Trump really is the President of the US and really does do things worth criticizing. But incorporating this assumption into opinions does serve to further tribal divisions and social dysfunction (and quite possibly economic ruin) in the name of 'patriotism' in the form of anti-Americanism. This is huge disservice to effectively dealing with very real and pressing problems through recommended policy. This article is no different.
Well put. If he does not have enough courage to end this behaviour than the verdict is he is a coward or that is who is really is. We need everyone pulling together. I am pleased to watch here in BC as the Conservative party (which use to be a moderate party under the Liberal label) is falling apart as the people are recognizing the danger of extreme under the tent. You are either a Canadian or you are not. Decide
What about extreme under the NDP or Liberal tents? Aren’t they subject to the same criticism?
Yes they should be, but that applies to the NDP as a whole. The difference in this instance is for some reason there is a vocal section of the Conservatives Party that supports Trump over Canada and that is extreme to a disloyalty level. It is one thing to say Trump has some points about our defence posture and maybe some other points which I cannot fathom and it is another to support him in spite of his obvious aim of subjecting us to US control and his whims.
I’m a Conservative, I live in a Conservative area and most people I meet and converse with on a daily basis are Conservatives. That said, 99% of those Conservatives are 100% against Trump, against his methods and against his aim to subjugate Canada. It is online where I come across the fools and the basis for much of their argument is Globalism, the foolish myth that a few actors are driving the world in a direction to benefit them. For some reason they totally overlook the fact that Trump is trying to reshape the world to benefit Trump. No President of the US has gained wealth in the amount or at the speed that Trump has in this term. Hers the danger, not the saviour.
I don't know what Conservative is anymore. Fiscal responsibility is gone, so what else do they have to offer?
Absolutely. We have this element now in all parties and political stripes. I was only speaking to the topic. The pendulum swinging far left/far right when Political parties want to win so badly they do not set boundaries.
missing the point a bit
Amen. Poillievre’s tough guy act with the government while treating guys like Jivani with kid gloves is not a projection of strength. It’s an unfortunate mirror of Trump, who treats America’s allies and his fellow Americans with callous disregard but is a silky soft pussycat toward America’s enemies.
Pierre has spent the last 26 years advocating for a suite of economic policies which stand in direct opposition to Trump's brand of economic nationalism. Meanwhile, the first policy Carney announced as Liberal leadership candidate was carbon tariffs. His first act as Prime Minister was to hold a Trump-style executive signing ceremony. The Liberals are doubling down on economic nationalist policies, including announcing a Sovereign Debt Fund months after Trump announced the same policy. Meanwhile the Mexicans have taken a page from Pierre's playbook of saying as little publicly as possible about Trump because they understand he is an insecure toddler with ADHD and cable news addiction. I would rather we say nothing about Trump and advocate for doing the opposite of what he does, then condemning Trump while adopting all his economic policies.
Drifting through this piece are buckets of ambiguity. Is the Line promoting (A) unification in the face of a threatening Trump or is it promoting (B) the sort of Democrat-like hate mongering so prevalent in much of what we hear and see in Canadian commentary.
C'mon Matt and Jen...come clean. We need to support Canada in the face of the US aggression. We do NOT need the sort of broad brush hate so common in our country.
“The more the CPC is associated with the pro-Trump faction that they refuse to remove, and the more the CPC lets the toxic influencers define the CPC brand, the more voters will rightfully recoil from supporting the Conservatives in their current iteration.”
Spencer, your only friend is a straw man.
Poilievre couldn't bring himself to forcefully and clearly condemn Trump's bullying in the run-up to the 2025 federal election. I haven't seen a more credible explanation for that than either being sympathetic to Trump, or afraid of alienating a significant Trump-sympathizing faction of people who Poilievre thought would vote Conservative.
Want to treat this problem as a straw man? Go for it. We'll see how long it takes (and how many elections Conservatives have to lose) before you do.
My riding only votes Red, George. I don’t have a horse in this race, and haven’t for some time.
The next election is a forgone conclusion regardless of who leads the Party. We haven’t yet bottomed out. But that day is coming.
Fret not, however; you still have three left-of-centre Parties from which you can choose to anoint.
Speaking of straw men, the idea that anybody who criticizes the current Conservative Party must be a supporter of one of the 3 parties to the left falls into the same category. You don't know me or who I am. You almost certainly don't know that I used to have a membership in the Conservative Party during the Harper years, and you've probably never seen pictures of me sitting in the crowd behind Stephen Harper with my daughter at a campaign rally in 2011.
What I'd like you to understand is that I see the Conservative Party as having left *me* by drifting into populism and culture war nonsense. I dropped my party membership after one too many fundraising phone calls trying to get me riled up about what the Liberals were doing and having to stop them from trying to pull together another risky coalition instead of telling me what the Conservative Party was planning to do for Canada.
I can imagine only the narrowest set of circumstances where I'd ever vote NDP (basically the equivalent of Saskatchewan in the early '90s when it would've been necessary to eject the utterly corrupt PC government of the era.) I can stomach the Liberals when they're in a fiscally conservative phase and competent government rather than culture wars and social engineering, but I'd still rather cast a vote for Conservatives focused on fiscal conservatism and competent government. I'd appreciate having that choice available to me again, with a party led by somebody other than a cherubic lightweight or a partisan bombthrower who've never had a job outside of politics.
You’ve certainly got yourself in a bind, George.
Suggesting that one who disparages the Conservatives would also favour the left-of-centre Canadian Political Parties is not a Straw Man argument.
You put some work into your reply, so I commend you for that.
I have no expectation of Conservative victory for the rest of my lifetime, just as I have given up on the Toronto Maple Leafs ever enjoying another Stanley Cup parade.
The Conservative, Reform, Alliance, Progressive Conservatives, and Liberal-Conservative Party before them all, has always been a coalition of kooks, crazies, small businessman, rural communities and larger business interests.
I am happy to see the Liberal/NDP Alliance Party continue to take Canada to the brink of economic and cultural extinction a few more times.
I am an old man, George, and I have little time, nor patience, to wait for the next Liberal Party of Canada reincarnation as a prudent, thoughtful, responsible Party capable of forming Government. It will be forced upon them like it was in the 90s, when no one with a hint of sense will touch our bonds.
Do you not think the Liberal Party of Canada indulges in aggressive fundraising? Ever heard of the “Conservative Hidden Agenda”?
We tried not their way, George, and their way doesn’t work.
I think the Conservatives have the best leader, the best bench, the best lineup, the best policies, and the best chance to repair the damage done during the “Lost Liberal Decade”, and that includes cultural issues.
I respect the fact you feel differently, but I will never understand how anyone could vote four times in succession for the fecklessness, futility, and failure of the past eleven years.
“This time it will be different.”
Permanent residents and citizens leaving in record numbers.
A complete breakdown of civilization in the streets of my City (London, Ontario).
Six successive fiscal quarters of more businesses closing up or leaving than opening.
An affordability crisis. A housing crisis. An immigration crisis. A concurrent mental health/drug abuse/homelessness crisis. A healthcare crisis. Uncontrollable deficits and debt.
I could go on, and on.
If you have stayed with me this far, you are a kind and patient man, George; given that you are such a gentleman, you get the last word.
My best to you.
I didn't vote for the Liberals in any of the past elections, by the way - I could tell Trudeau was bad news in 2015, and the problems with his government clearly outweighed any concerns I had with Scheer in 2019. I was happy to vote for O'Toole in 2021.
Last year, I voted for the Conservatives under Poilievre on the calculation that I'd rather take the risk of a half-baked Conservative platform over the prospect of a Trudeau Liberal caucus steamrolling a neophyte leader like Carney. Carney's exceeded my expectations (which didn't take much.) Poilievre has only validated my concerns about him, and this Trump-related ambivalence is just more in that vein.
I'm afraid partisanship doesn't really connect with me. I'm looking for alignment with my values and priorities, and the current political offerings are like choosing between a dodgy egg salad sandwich from a gas station vs. the lunch special at the cafeteria with fly paper hanging from the ceiling where the waiter's picking his nose surreptitiously.
You say that, but in my life I keep running into (former) Conservative voters who keep saying that Mark Carney is fantastic and defends Canada... but Pierre Poilievre is junior grade and doesn't have what it takes.
And I'll agree with you that none of that seems fair. But it is what it is. I'm not making the news or even telling you what I think. I'm just telling you what I hear from people who thought Justin Trudeau was an imbecile and Stephen Harper was great.
Don’t worry about other folks.
Join your local Conservative EDA . Join the fight. Our Board has taken on four or six splendid young people who make me very proud to be a Conservative/conservative.
Andrew, I concede Canadian politics will never be fair.
I have never met anyone who admits to have been an enthusiastic supporter of Justin Trudeau, and everyone claims to have loved Stephen Harper.
This is a separate matter, but in Canada, the conservative movement has never established the intellectual groundwork for a string of electoral victories. In the States, when things get tough, conservatives lean back on the hard work of William F. Buckley Jr. , Barry Goldwater, Milton Friedman, Ronald Reagan, or George Will.
Name one solid, consistent Canadian conservative writer or intellectual of that heft.
I certainly can’t .
> I have never met anyone who admits to have been an enthusiastic supporter of Justin Trudeau, and everyone claims to have loved Stephen Harper.
I have. Plenty. And plenty of "Harper was terrible" people as well. Frankly, I'd say the trend of voting for the Conservatives and now deciding Mr. Poilievre doesn't cut it isn't nearly as bad as the precipitous drop Justin Trudeau had... but Pierre Poilievre isn't starting from already being Prime Minister. I don't know if he's permanently toast or if he can still change course and therefore the narrative... but I don't see the narrative changing without him making a change.
Solid Canadian conservative writer? Honestly the first name that springs to mind is Christie Blatchford.
But I take your point. We've got a problem there and NOT just in relation to the Americans. Look at the British conservative intellectual tradition. I think fixing this might involve shaking off our appreciation for the USA. Not because we hate them or anything, but simply because they're not us. We need to notice what's Canadian...recognize that it's different from the American stuff and generally more relevant to us simply by virtue of being more us. Also we could just try getting better. That's always a good plan.
I was enthusiastic about Trudeau until he screwed up voting reform. Rather than ram what he wanted down people's throats, he somehow did something exactly as politically damaging and which improved nothing. And then just kind of did that over and over, except for the times where he did do something and made it worse.
Ronald Reagan does NOT belong in that list, I would add. Coherence and Reaganism don't exactly go together. I don't always agree with those others, but their positions are logically consistent.
I need a new conservative party divorced from the fringe trump fetish. The fact the CPC hasn't the nuts to excise this boil means it will take even more time and extra effort for them to be trusted.
The new party could maybe call themselves the Progressive Conservatives, who I actually voted for a few times. I haven't done that since Reform took the PCs over.
First, I will say I am pro-Canada. But I do not view being pro-Canada as being pro-tariffs. People - but particularly politicians, seem to forget that tariffs actually hurt the country who imposes them.
Let Donald Trump put his tariffs in. Say oh-well and ignore while Americans deal with inflation that is caused by their own president's tariffs. The sky-is-falling attitude about tariffs is part of the problem. And then giving Canadians a bill to pay because our cost of goods increases due to retaliatory tariffs is just dumb.
Does Canada need to respond? Sure. But is a response that hurts Canadians the best response? Absolutely not. It's foolish and ignores that interprovincial trade has more barriers that cost more money than the US tariffs. So why are we having such an over-sized reaction?
This is being turned into politics. But not of the useful or right kind.
Governments have tried (correctly) to respond with symbolic but narrow tariffs first, like the booze stuff.
But all that low-hanging fruit has been picked. The "dollar for dollar" retaliation that is now being discussed will be very noticeable and painful to Canadians... to the point where I question the government's ability to actually follow through on it. Just yesterday, they scrapped a tariff because the east coast aquaculture industry complained.
The Democrats would be no different in terms of protecting and repatriating US jobs. They have been in bed with big unions for a few generations. The Republicans managed to identify with the workers - a job made easier by the overt elitism of Eastern democrats such as Hillary Clinton who took Big Labor and the Black and Latino vote for granted.
Unfortunately Canada’s response to the US job repatriation via tariffs has been governed more by TDS than anything else. But Trump in spite of being a loose cannon and his erraticness - so well cultivated and amplified by US mass media - enjoys the support of 80 million largely working class Americans. Polievre projecting the image of a meek polite Canadian who has spent his entire working career in the Ottawa government bubble has zero in common with the average working Canadian.
It would help immensely if Canadian leaders would look at their work culture and the entitlements which make them less efficient than the competition. Starting with unemployment benefits and subsidies intended to keep people where they are regionally and the myth of free health care which is rationed by waitlists (except for MAID).
Parliamentary democracies thrive under a strong loyal opposition. Polievre & the CPC don't seem to understand this basic concept.
The CPC is finished. The 2 loudest voices are both unelectable idiots. But let's not pretend Doug Ford is anything less than Ontario's Trump, and we were just as stupid to re-elect him as the US was.
Let's not pretend Doug Ford is a Conservative. He is basically a Liberal.
No true scotsman fallacy. Conservatives chose him as leader and have refused to remove him.
No, he's not. He's a "Trump Conservative". He cares about Doug. he cares about Doug's friends. That's it. Let's not pretend any Conservative government in the last 40 years has approached fiscal responsibility. They have nothing else to offer.
Very true about Doug Ford, but I take issue with your assertion that no Conservative governement in the last 40 years has approached fiscal responsibility.
Early stage Klein was fiscally conservative, but lost the plot mid-way through.
Harris was fiscally conservative, perhaps the most so in Canadian history.
Harper was fiscally conservative, though too incremental.
Each man's fiscally conservative direction helped balance the books and attract investment, albeit not without a lot of pain and kicking other very real problems down the road for future governments to worry (and spend) on.
Mike Harris is an enigma. He's the only politician in my lifetime who said he would do something...and then did it. His first term was exceptional. His second was a complete disaster. have cut fat, he cut muscle and bone, severely damaging the healthcare and education systems, and selling the 407. From first to worst. Dalton and Kathleen gave him a run, but Doug has set a new standard for the most useless premier in Ontario history.
I voted for Harper 3 times. He finally got his majority and did nothing useful with it, never balancing (despite his fiscal juggling and bullshit optics of his final year). He didn't want to win in 2015, as confirmed by his idiotic, barbaric cultural practices hotline.
I can't comment on Klein because I wasn't paying enough attention to politics in those days.
I've said it here many times... the vacuum of leadership in Canada is a disaster in the making. Carney may be on the right track, but the time for talk is over. Backing actions are required. It's wartime.
Klein was largely quite disturbingly boorish in real life, but he had a canny handler (Rob Love) and Klein also possessed what Smith and Kinew and the Ford brothers and (vomit) even Trudeau II all did - an uncanny ability with retail politics. Klein was actually a card-carrying Liberal in his media days, and only joined the Alberta PC's after his miraculous run as Calgary mayor. Perhaps it was all timing - he became a bit of a joke in his third term, and all the fiscal responsibility evaporated.
I agree completely with your disappointment in Harper's majority term - he could have done so much more than he did.
There's a book on Mike Harris I've been meaning to read, and would encourage you to if you're interested.
https://sutherlandhousebooks.com/product/the-harris-legacy/
I am informed by a CPC staffer of the time who was at the meeting where the cultural practices hotline was announced that it got enthusiastic applause and everyone thought it was brilliant. To his credit he has realized this was dumb of them.
Vacuum of leadership indeed. lol
Probably not thinking how many of them are Jewish or Christian.....
Consider that, if Doug Ford or someone like him took over the CPC, he would immediately stop being useful to the media as the Better Conservative, the Why Can’t They Be Like That Conservative. The discussion would flip to, Wow, Ontario is really mismanaged and poor, eh?
Bigger picture, I don’t think this essay is helpful. The anti- and pro-Trump factions are going to have to stay together, for the kids. No one is purging anyone. Perhaps Poilievre is inartfully handling this bed-death marriage. He is after all a Desantis type, lacking the natural warmth of say Danielle Smith or Doug Ford. Fine. But there has to be a way to say, without passing judgment on how people feel about Trump, that (1) Canada literally has not been attacked and literally is not at war, it’s insane and hyperbolic for Carney to say otherwise, (2) the Trump administration is objectively sinking and rudderless, and its means don’t match its ends, even if you are sympathetic to those ends, his style or his movement, and (3) the LPC and the media are not interested in Canadian welfare but rather Resistance Theatre. And the it’s true, the Show is popular; tickets are sold out. But at the end of the day, you can’t eat and you can’t live in chest-thumping, dunking on a feckless old man whose bark has always been worse than his bite. Because that’s all Carney offers. There will be no deal with Europe, who hates Supply Management more than the US does. There will be no surge in exports to China or whomever, because Carney has no interest in reforming land use or the ports. Heck, even on Carney’s own term, there’s no “war footing”!!! I mean c’mon. Nothing has changed in anyone’s daily life!
National media is ideologically captured against the CPC.