A small experiment in what Canadians say they want in a Prime Minister versus whom they actually choose
There is something about Pierre Poilievre that drives a particular kind of Canadian absolutely insane. Not disagreement. No, THAT would be normal. I mean the visceral stuff.
Things like the instant sneer or label of "Skippy" at the mere mention of his name. Or the "Career politician" sputtered in contemptible disgust by so many without a clue of why this even upsets them in the first place, but they heard it on the CBC so it must be true. "Never had a real job" is shouted by the other half of the ignorant class who have never lifted a finger to fact check the claim for themselves. You know, the sort of reaction normally reserved for discovering someone microwaved fish in the staff lunchroom.
And I've been trying to understand it because, frankly, the logic is bizarre. Strip away the names, remove the party colours, and forget who CBC told you was scary this week and pretend you're hiring somebody to manage an actual organization instead.
Two resumes land on your kitchen table. One candidate grew up in a middle-class household, was adopted by two schoolteachers, attended ordinary public school, earned a university degree in international relations and has spent more than two decades learning and practicing within the institution he's applying to lead.
He was elected to Parliament at 25. He’s served in government and opposition, held cabinet portfolios, introduced Bill C-23 The Fair Elections Act and received royal assent, he studied parliamentary procedure, worked on economic files and spent years being questioned, challenged and publicly accountable for his positions.
You can hate every policy he's ever proposed, that's fine, but nobody can seriously claim the guy accidentally strolled into Parliament looking for directions.
Then there's the other résume. This candidate spent much of his adult professional life among some of the world's most powerful financial institutions... Goldman Sachs, the Bank of Canada, the Bank of England, Brookfield, most of it outside the country he was born in.
His natural habitat includes international boards, global finance, Davos-level circles, and lavish rooms where nobody has ever stared at their debit card wondering whether the grocery store is going to approve $187.43.
He's extremely accomplished, and that's not sarcasm. Mark Carney has an impressive résume. It's simply an impressive résume from a completely different universe than the one most Canadians actually live in. And before him, Liberals chose Justin Trudeau, the son of a former prime minister, raised with extraordinary privilege, political access and a last name that came with its own voter recognition.
So explain this one to me: why is the guy raised by schoolteachers the dangerous "elite," while actual elites keep getting marketed as champions of ordinary Canadians?
This isn't even really about Poilievre. It's about the Liberal Party's favourite little parlour trick: if somebody becomes politically dangerous, don't beat the argument. Brand the person until low-information voters are either afraid to examine the argument themselves or successfully gaslit into blind acceptance.
They toss labels like "extremist," or "far-right," and "dangerous." Then they cycle through the next set and use labels like "angry," "Populist," and "purveyors of misinformation," or whatever adjective survived the morning focus group.
Repeat it often enough, have enough friendly media voices repeat it too, and apparently we're supposed to mistake character assassination for evidence. It's incredibly efficient. Why defend your record when you can simply convince people that anyone pointing at it is unhinged? THAT'S the part that deserves contempt!
They don't need you to prove Poilievre wrong. They just need you sufficiently conditioned to hate him that you'll never bother checking whether he's right. Somewhere along the way, "career politician" became a devastating insult while "career international financier who had never held elected office" became reassuring evidence of competence.
Think about how stupid that is.🤦🏼♀️ If your furnace quits in Saskatchewan in January, nobody says: "Absolutely not. Don't call the guy who's repaired furnaces for twenty years. He's a CAREER furnace technician."
Nobody recoils from the mechanic with 25 years of experience. And nobody demands a surgeon who has never performed surgery because the experienced guy has been doing it suspiciously long and might very well be a dreaded expert. Apparently experience becomes a character defect only when we're choosing the people running the country.
Instead, we'd apparently prefer somebody who has never touched a furnace a day in his life, but has delivered several internationally acclaimed lectures on the future of furnace heat.
You can't convince me that logic makes perfect sense. And then there's the whole "relatable" thing. This may be my favourite part.
Poilievre gets mocked for being ambitious, rehearsed and political. Well... yes, d'uh. He's a politician. If "Being A Politician 101" were a University course, these traits and skills would be the course material. The logic employed here absolutely escapes me. This is rather like discovering your dentist has developed a fascination with teeth.
Meanwhile Canadians spent years being told Trudeau understood ordinary families while ordinary families increasingly couldn't afford ordinary houses. Now we're told Carney understands workers because he understands economies. Those are not even remotely the same thing.
A person can understand inflation beautifully on a spreadsheet without knowing what it feels like when hamburger finally goes on sale and you still can’t afford to buy any. That doesn't make wealthy people bad and it doesn't make bankers evil. And nobody needs to have driven a forklift before becoming Prime Minister.
But lived distance from ordinary life matters when you're making decisions that alter ordinary life for everybody else.
👉🏻 A carbon policy looks different from the back seat of a limousine than it does from a pickup truck that has to travel 70 kilometres for groceries.
👉🏻 An electricity regulation looks different in a boardroom than it does on the factory floor or when the bill lands on the kitchen table.
👉🏻 A housing policy sounds considerably different when you've never wondered whether your kid will ever afford one.
That’s not class warfare, that, everyone, is perspective.
And the Liberal definition of “elite” has become almost performance art. A man raised by schoolteachers who entered Parliament young and spent his adult life in Canadian public service is dismissed as an out-of-touch career politician.
Meanwhile, a multimillionaire international financier who spent most of his working adult years working outside the country in London, New York and global financial circles arrives and somehow becomes the natural voice of ordinary, every day Canadians.
You really have to admire the marketing. If Kellogg's could convince Canadians Frosted Flakes were a leafy green, we'd nominate their communications department for an Order of Canada.
And no, none of this means Poilievre must therefore be a wonderful Prime Minister. Maybe you dislike him, or maybe you despise his policies. Perhaps hearing him speak causes your left eyelid to twitch. Have at it then. But instead of becoming unhinged the moment somebody says "Pierre," criticize the actual policies.
Tell us which economic proposal is wrong. Tell us which tax proposal fails and why. Tell us which housing proposal won’t work while you’re at it. And please, enlighten the rest of us as to which foreign-policy position is terrifying when Poilievre proposes it but suddenly becomes sensible statesmanship when Carney steals the idea and does it himself. That right there ought to be thoroughly entertaining.
Explain Pierre Poilievre Derangement Syndrome and it's underlying trigger that seems borne of hypocrisy. Because "Skippy" isn't an argument. It's what you say when you've run out of one. And once the personalities, photographs and party logos disappear, we're left with something considerably more uncomfortable.
So let's try something.
Below are two Canadian political leaders with the names, photos, parties and tribal decorations removed.
Try this on a Liberal voter in your life before showing them the answer. 😂
Read both profiles. No Googling. Pick who seems better qualified to lead Canada, then decide which is Pierre Poilievre and which is Mark Carney.
Don’t study it to death. If you stare long enough, the answer becomes obvious. The point is who you thought they were before it did.
😉 Melanie in Saskatchewan
👓 This content is reader supported. Consider sharing Melanie in Saskatchewan with friends and family.