Memo To Mark Carney: Smother Poilievre With Patriotism

A Serious Idea

In recent weeks and months, Pierre Poilievre has been the victim of a conspiracy theory - the theory that his refusal to seek a security clearance is somehow an admission that he can’t pass a clearance, or in some way he is not seeking a clearance because of something in his personal life. That conspiracy was dealt a blow last week by the Hogue Report, and also by ever having argued with a stubborn asshole who would argue that the sky is actually taupe instead of ever agreeing with someone they dislike.

It’s notable that we go into a time of national crisis having so recently dealt with questions of a political leader running rampant, so I think in the name of the national interest and putting this issue behind us, Mark Carney should extend an olive branch to Pierre Poilievre. He should give a speech this week or speak before taking press questions, he should make specific note to mention his productive relationship with Harper’s Conservative government of which Poilievre was a MP and Minister, and make sure to talk about how Poilievre is a loyal Canadian who advocates for what he believes to be best for Canada.

And then point out that what he thinks is best for Canada would fuck us all.

..

One of the great lost arts in politics is finding creative, and nominally polite, ways of calling people fucking idiots. Some of the greatest political insults or moments are ostensibly polite disagreements that are actually brutal, and the reason for it is that people dismiss obvious vitriol as just mudslinging. The art of a clever rhetorical flourish is being lost, to be replaced by Maple MAGA or Carbon Tax ____ as insults. And this is a moment for Carney to both elevate himself, and utterly knife Poilievre at the same time. Seriously, think about something like this.

“I just want to say something about this moment in history. I know that we’re in the middle of a Liberal leadership race, and there will be a general election this year, and that can lead to heightened emotions and immense partisanship. But I want to take a moment to highlight the people I hope to face in that election, if I’m lucky enough to win the Liberal leadership and become PM.

Canada is blessed by patriotic men and women across the political spectrum, all of whom are willing and eager to do what’s best for Canada and stand firm in the face of US aggression. There has been remarkably little political sniping as this economic uncertainty has gripped us, and I’m grateful for that. There is a time and place for partisan attacks, and right now is not one of them.

I saw Pierre Poilievre’s comments from the weekend, and while I don’t agree with all of them, I was happy to see him stress the point that the blame for these unjustified and illegal tariffs lies firmly at the feet of Donald Trump. I often reflect on the fact that Opposition leaders in this country serve as the leaders of His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, because disagreement on policy must not mean undercutting or betraying your country. That we have an Opposition Leader coming up on 21 years of years of loyal service to Canada is commendable.

I’m heartened to know that if I have the honour of serving as PM, I will square off against an Opposition leader whose greatest sins are not believing in investment in people and in protecting corporate interests above the people’s interest. There are serious issues with the Conservatives plan for this country, from their unwillingness to call out failures from their own side, commitment to spending cuts without any concern for the consequences, and a leader who questioned the utility of saving jobs and livelihoods during COVID. I’m grateful that those crucial differences will be allowed to take centre stage, instead of doubting whether the Conservative Party will stand with Canada or with Donald Trump.”

This is nominally incredibly polite, and if delivered in a serious tone and with a kindness of spirit it could be devastating. Pierre Poilievre’s party is split between standing with Trump and standing with Canada, and a big part of Poilievre’s appeal is he’s allegedly an outsider when he’s not one. So, wrap him in the fucking flag, be calm and nice about him, and then ever so subtly point out that he’s a dangerous ideologue who will destroy everything good.

The problem with Hillary Clinton losing the 2016 election is it made people think that Michelle Obama’s “when they go low we go high” is bad politics in all circumstances. It is if you’re never willing to go low, but it is absolutely true that Canadians and Americans like the idea of political leaders not being blood enemies. The best thing we could do as a country is have the PM host a dinner for the other party leaders in Parliament every 6 months and have a government photographer take some photos of them sipping beer or wine and eating a steak or whatever. Reminding our people that we are Canadians before we’re Liberals or Conservatives is a good bit of politics at a time like this.

But this is also an opportunity for Carney to reframe the ballot question. Poilievre tried desperately to make the election about Liberal failures and incompetence, namely but not exclusively the Carbon Tax, but Carney can reframe the election around choices - or, as he’d say, Value(s). One of the ways you get people to listen to a critique of Poilievre’s values? By not coming off like a hackish partisan right before you stick the knife in.

It would also hurt the Conservatives amongst lower trust, more anti-system voters. Draping Poilievre around the flag and talking about the long time he’s been in government and his loyal service to Canada can frame Poilievre as just another Ottawa Elite who won’t actually stand for Real Canadians in [insert right trending working class area of your choice here]. That messaging can potentially drive Poilievre’s numbers down a couple points in key Atlantic Canadian, Northern Ontario, and non-Lower Mainland BC contests and save progressive MPs.

It would also make Carney seem reasonable and downright bipartisan to say that, boosting his credentials with centrists and making him seem like a decidedly Different Kind Of Liberal, which helps the whole outsider thing. It certainly would be a rhetorical change from calling Poilievre and co. Maple MAGA. Additionally, it would make Poilievre look like a complete asshole if he came back and couldn’t do a similar thing for Carney, and if he does praise Carney most of his argument against Carney goes up in smoke.

Praising Poilievre’s patriotism while viciously attacking his ideas is something the Carney campaign should seriously consider. It would make him look like a statesman, it would hammer home the key messages against Poilievre while being nominally polite, and put Poilievre in a bind. It’s the kind of move that has little downside and all upside. I hope they do it this week.

(Also, in light of Mexico getting a month delay of their tariffs, I would just like to say that if Sheinbaum manages to get a deal and Justin Fucking Trudeau cannot get one today I will lose my fucking mind, so look for a column tonight on our avoiding them or what will be the single meanest column I’ve ever written.)