Pierre Poilievre And The Crazy Penalty

Lessons From The US

There are a decent amount of people who hold these two views in opposition. They are deeply opposed to Pierre Poilievre ever becoming PM, but deeply convinced he will become it. The problem is, their reasons for thinking so are not particularly logical – in fact, they’re entirely bullshit. The fundamental argument of so many people on the left is that Poilievre is a complete moron and idiot and deeply unqualified to become Prime Minister … and that the Canadian people are too stupid to figure it out.

It's a very weird thing, but it stems from the fact that Boris Johnson and Donald Trump have won elections in the last decade, and that a lot of the Laurentian Elites like Hillary Clinton, so there’s this need to come up with a reason for why this happened beyond they both ran against incompetent idiots. This belief ignores the fact that Justin Trudeau has won elections before, that Pierre Poilievre hasn’t, and that the economy is almost assuredly going to be better by polling day in 2025 than it is today, but it also assumes that the Canadian people will just elect someone who in their view is dangerous and insipidly stupid.

The problems with this view are a thousand fold, and I’ve thought it incredibly dumb for a while, but let’s take a second here – the American people did exact a price for craziness and stupidity last week, and that’s a damn good sign if you’re convinced Poilievre will show his whole ass here.

…

The story of the US election, purely from a results and ideology perspective, is that there was a very large crazy penalty applied to candidates from the extremes. Democrats mostly avoided it because they mostly ran sensible, left wing but not crazily so candidates, and the GOP paid it immensely, because they ran certifiably nuts people. Losing both major statewide races in Arizona and Pennsylvania, losing attempts to dethrone Democratic governors in Kansas and Wisconsin, and the fact that they got laughed out of the room in Michigan and Minnesota prove that the GOP paid a clear crazy tax. When they ran even remotely normal candidates – Mike DeWine in Ohio or Brian Kemp in Georgia – they outran the crazy Senatorial candidate by a ton.

At the House level, it was still a thing – Democrats won the Trump-supporting and right-trending Ohio 9th easily, because the GOP nominated a fake veteran and Jan 6th QAnon wackjob, but failed to win the Biden-supporting, left trending New Jersey 7th, because there the newly elected GOP congressman is just Generic Republican and son of a political dynasty in that part of Jersey.

Election deniers for Secretary of State positions across America routinely got the worst results of the statewide GOP ticket, and it’s pretty clear that extremist views on abortion and election denialism was correlated with less electoral success than a neutral candidate in a similarly partisan race and district. It’s just very clear that, contrary to many of the expectations, there was actually a crazy penalty to pay.

What does it mean for Canada? Nothing, in a sense. Poilievre isn’t nearly as crazy as the average Republican, let alone the average election truther Republican, but it is a good sign that the crazy penalty does exist, because Poilievre ain’t free of that allegation. Be it his opposition to child care deals because other people shouldn’t get your tax dollars, his weird insistence that handguns shouldn’t be banned, and his famous crypto is a way to “opt out of inflation” shit, Poilievre has taken a lot of stances that put him in opposition to the Canadian majority.

The blithe belief that the Canadian people would just elect a lunatic without any second thought has always rubbed me the wrong way, because it’s a part of what I try not to do on this site, which is misunderstand the voters who are increasingly voting for right wing parties globally. Those voters are, generally speaking, culturally conservative and hold views on abortion, gay rights, and trans rights that I do not support – but I get why they hold them. There’s no sanctimony from me on this, just a clear understanding of who these people are. Would I prefer they agree with me on these issues? Sure, but they don’t, and no amount of condescension from elites will change it.

That said, the idea that those voters are therefore dumb is bullshit. They’re not dumb for now voting for right wing parties – the modern NDP does not represent working class ideals above all else, they’re a party for woke Millennials and Gen Zs who call minor inconveniences trauma. That someone who worked for 30 years in a paper mill or a mine would find their bullshit offputting is not a surprise to anyone who actually understands this shit.

And given that these people are not changing their votes out of stupidity or ignorance, but actual, meaningful reasons, there is a decent amount of reason to think these voters will be repulsed by a smarmy career politician who earned a life pension at 31 and has the charisma of the dining room table this column is being written on. There clearly has been a crazy price exacted – against Republicans last week, against Boris Johnson and Liz Truss this past year in the UK, and against Scott Morrison in Australia – which should put to bed the idea that the Tories are going to be able to survive if Poilievre seems like he’s too extreme.

Is he too extreme? We’ll see, but the thing is, the early returns on Poilievre aren’t great. He’s leading in the polls, sure – but he’s not up much, and certainly not up by an amount that would suggest he’s on track for a victory of any kind when you remember that polls two months after a leader is elected are mostly dogshit.

He is easily rattled, as the way he speaks to the media shows every single time he does it, and his supporters tend to disproportionately come from some of the worst people – as his tagging a well known incel phrase on all his YouTube videos and meeting with a key far right organizer shows. Poilievre has made a case for his electability that runs outside of the Golden Horseshoe and outside the suburbs, but it ignores the fact that he can’t rely on a small town sweep. For him to win without some suburban ground, it requires him to run the table outside the big cities and their suburbs – which, between residual NDP support, the fact that there are a lot of colleges in Northern Ontario, and sheer luck, he probably won’t – he needs to walk a fine line. And right now, he’s driving on both sides of it and praying he doesn’t crash.

By the time of the next election, Poilievre will have to take opinions, and votes, on issues that stops that. If he votes like a moderate, the PPC will galvanize on the idea that he’s a fraud. If he votes like his base wants him to, then he alienates both socially liberal suburban moderates and those who want to vote Tory but worry he’s a nutter. And if he splits the difference, then they’re fucked on both ends.

Poilievre’s best chance of winning the next election is hoping that bad times will get people to vote CPC without having to do the work to earn their votes. Unfortunately for him, Justin Trudeau will likely have a better economy in 3 years than it does now, so that’s likely off the table. What’s left is for him to win on his own merits, but Poilievre refuses to make that case, in large part because he knows that the vision that wins the country and the vision that wins his members cannot be reconciled easily. The reason Poilievre sticks with platitudinal bullshit about “Freedom” is the second the platitudes get replaces with details, he’s fucked, because someone will be mad.

The crazy penalty was real in the US, and in the UK. Poilievre needs it not to be in Canada, and sorry, that’s not how this works. Unless he gets a grip and finds an actual, substantive vision, the Liberals remain heavy favourites next time.