Pierre Poilievre claims that he's a populist. Actually, Linda McQuaig writes, he's an anti-populist:
Let’s face it: Pierre Poilievre is a dead-ringer for someone you’d meet at a private school debating tournament.
I mean no disrespect — either to the new Conservative leader, or to private school debating tournaments (which I confess to attending in my youth). I just mean that all the media hype about him as a fiery populist is just talkity-talk. In truth, Poilivre is more debating nerd than populist — by a country mile.
Indeed, the notion that he’s a populist — someone who backs working people over elites — isn’t just wrong, it’s downright silly. He’s actually the anti-populist: instead of championing the interests of working people, he routinely crushes those interests.
Sure, he’s quick to bad-mouth the “elite” — you know, people like teachers, public health officials, journalists or anyone who supports vaccine mandates or thinks it’s bad to honk horns all night while people try to sleep.
Strangely missing from his elite are CEOs, billionaires, hedge fund managers and other corporate bigwigs who actually make the decisions that shape our economy and impact the pocketbooks of ordinary Canadians.
Today’s corporate elite is focused on suppressing the suddenly revived aspirations of working people to make more money.
If workers want to make more money, they have to act collectively -- in a union:
So where does Poilievre, the fiery populist, come down in this classic struggle? Well, he’s solidly on the side of the corporate owners who want to make it hard for workers to flex their muscles through unions. He has a long history of pushing anti-union legislation and denouncing “union bosses.”
In 2020, he proclaimed himself dedicated to bringing “right-to-work” laws to Canada. These notorious U.S. laws, with roots in the Jim Crow era, are aimed at undermining unions. Barack Obama said they’re about “the right to work for less money.”
Poilievre has enthusiastically served wealthy interests most of his life. As a teenager, he was already focused on helping the rich, arguing in an essay competition that, if he were prime minister, he’d abolish the capital gains tax — an odd policy choice for a 19-year-old supposedly grappling with how to make the world a better place. Poilievre didn’t win the contest, but he landed a job with its corporate sponsor.
He also blended seamlessly into the right-wing Alberta crowd, glomming onto Preston Manning, Stockwell Day and Ezra Levant. But his conservative juices really started flowing when he served as a pit-bull in the cabinet of Stephen Harper, acting out the prime minister’s basest instincts.
Poilievre could be dubbed Harper Lite, or maybe Harper XXL; he’s got all Harper’s ideological rigidity, mean-spiritedness and ruthlessness — just without the charm.
Like his hero to the south, Poilievre is a fraud. In the case of Trump, New York's Attorney General made that abundantly clear yesterday.
Image: YouTube
10 comments:
I read McQuaig's piece this morning, Owen. There is no doubt that she has his number. A pity more people don't.
She must have been a good debater, Lorne. She knows when someone is full of sound and fury signifying nothing.
Poilievre is a Controller! He is a Nasty one at that. Question: Please tell me what makes a teacher an elite? Doesn't one have to be a multi-million or a billionaire to qualify as an Elite? Anyong
Pierre has his own dictionary of terms, Anyong.
Is there anything elitist about Skippie's future abode, Stornoway? I guess he can give up the limo service but he would be unwise to forfeit the security detail.
"Harper’s ideological rigidity, mean-spiritedness and ruthlessness — just without the charm."
Harper had charm?
I expect he'll take full advantage of the amenities, zoombats.
I didn't see any, PoV. Maybe I missed it.
There is nothing about P.P. that is worth voting for.
Working people are now "elites"? Many occupations he names are people working in what I refer to as "help occupztions". That does make them elite in a manner of speaking but I'd suggest P.P. is referring to the "huge" amounts of money they make, i.e. a living wage.
I've always said if it weren't for Unions we"d all still be working for $30 a month.
If you have a look at American states which have "right to work or right to be poor" laws, they are the states with higher poverty rates, lower education standards, less health care, etc. If you look at countries which ban Unions, you'll see more dictatorship, lack of human rights, lack of social programs, etc.
P.P. is not a populist. He's a lap dog for the powerful and rich. If he isn't one of them then what is he getting out of it.
They pay their servants well, e.a.f.
Post a Comment