Poilievre is clear and fearless, but what does he stand for?


Commentary

Pierre Poirievre participated in the Federal Conservative leadership race before it began, and other Nags smell the glue factory while the press participates in horse racing. But it’s not just about winning politics, so let’s take a quick look at whether he should win and why and how.

If Poilievre is unfamiliar to you, you will not follow Canadian politics. With an upset victory, he joined Congress at the age of 24 and has been there ever since, which is bad. But he is clear and fearless, which is good. Also, abrasives, partisans, and snides, which are good and bad. And he has matured, that’s a good thing.

Note that we haven’t mentioned the idea yet. And in Richard Weaver’s classic understated formulation, “ideas have consequences,” so let’s take a look at what Poirievre is.

Well, first, let’s get rid of the ash heap of history of all commentators who aren’t conservatively friendly and, as expected, offer bad advice on ideas. Specifically, experts and consultants tell the Tories to throw away all their toxic right-wing nonsense, and then offer a real conservative alternative.

It also means choosing Erin O’Two as a leader. Others, a little more substantially, want the Libertarian Party in essence, leaving it to social issues and leaving a void in defense, but in favor of the free market. But most of the time, when pushed, it’s in the 1980s. In short, a vintage neoconservative who promised to pursue liberal goals through conservative means such as the carbon tax.

I went there, did it, and didn’t get anything. Such “third way” stories about markets and small governments are at best wasteful, as they reach the smelling drugs at about the same speed as truck horns by proposing to get rid of public programs. It is shown to be. And I realized that most of Maxime Bernier was of little use, even before his stubborn libertarianism turned populist purple.

It’s strange that reputable people in the four major Federal Social Democrats are afraid, especially given the endless story of diversity and tolerance. For example, you might think that there is a difference between block and liberal. But asking to take pride in Canada’s heritage, warts, and everything else leads to a very similar refusal. And while it’s not clear why the Greens support higher minimum wages and abortions on demand, they do. But if the Tories don’t, will the world end?

My topic is Poilievre, so I probably have to say something about whether he really differs from the consensus of the major areas. But I don’t know. Not surprising, I was a little disappointed that he kicked off by making it personal. Sign up now to replace Trudeau and help regain your freedom. I will not give in to anyone that the current Prime Minister wants to start as soon as possible and have a long and happy retirement. But Trudeau, like most politicians, is far more symptomatic than the cause. Now let’s talk about regaining control of our lives. What does Poilievre mean?

Does he envision a very small role of the federal government in our lives? I presume that, to the extent that he is a federal government, it does not mean any further COVID obligations. For his crowd, please the obvious crowd. But it’s temporary. Is he consistent with the limits of peaceful protests regardless of cause? We need someone who can lower the temperature, and our dedication to the truth to the tribe is very helpful there.

Will he simply rule out the other things that “Ottawa” is currently doing about the essence of “freedom”? Please do not modify it. groove. If the answer is “nothing”, his conservatism is more liberal behind the fierce blue mask.

So will he abolish the Canada Health Act? Would you like to reduce torque equalization to a minor annoyance? Do you want to curb bureaucratic spiders that weave tens of thousands of pages of trivial and nasty regulations each year? Do you want to get rid of social engineering ministries and the causes they got in? Would you like to reduce your spending and balance your budget?

How about climate change? He can growl about carbon taxes with the best of them. But so was Erin O’Futile. Will he challenge the science behind climate panic? Or does he try to rally the opposition again around the white flag?

Will he at least allow free voting in caucuses on abortion on those nasty social issues? Freedom of parliamentarians as a stepping stone to citizens’ freedom?

If Poilievre believes in challenging legitimacy in public debates, he would be a good choice as he would not be threatened or tripped in the absence of a script. And, despite his rough edges, if he sticks to substance and presentation, he can be a force to calm down. But we need to know what he represents and how he stands.

Well, time to get it from the horse’s mouth.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

John Robson

follow

John Robson is a documentary filmmaker, National Post columnist, Dorchester Review contributor editor, and Executive Director of Climate Discussion Nexus. His latest documentary is “Environment: True Story”.