American-style politics doomed Poilievre — but there’s time to rebound

Opinion

By now, the shock has settled. Pierre Poilievre, the once-unstoppable Conservative firebrand, lost his seat in Carleton in the April 28 federal election, and with it, his claim to lead the country.

It was a stunning reversal for a man who just months ago was riding high in the polls, commanding massive crowds, and confidently declaring the Liberals “finished.”

But Canadians had other ideas.

Despite the Conservatives increasing their popular vote, they failed to translate that into victory in what became largely a two-party race between them and the Liberals.

So, where does that leave Poilievre now? Is this the end of the road for his style of politics? Or can he simply bide his time and wait for the next time-for-change cycle to deliver him to the Prime Minister’s Office?

Either way, it doesn’t look like he’s going anywhere.

Poilievre didn’t lose because of a lack of ideas. His campaign had focus. He talked about affordability, inflation, housing, and crime — issues that matter deeply to Canadians. The problem wasn’t what he said. It was how he said it.

Too often, he veered into the kind of performative rage that plays well in U.S. conservative media circles but turns off the suburban swing voters who decide Canadian elections. When he attacked journalists, sneered at experts, flung around slogans like “axe the tax,” and regularly used words like “woke” and “radical left,” it sounded like he was running for Congress in Ohio, not for Prime Minister of Canada.

Most Canadians don’t mind strong opinions. But they also value respect, nuance, and a sense of proportion — especially in a country that prides itself on civility in politics. And when Donald Trump began implementing tariffs against Canadian imports and threatening to make his northern neighbour a “51st state,” it amplified Poilievre’s U.S.-style of politics.

The Liberals didn’t waste the opportunity. They framed the entire campaign as a referendum on American-style populism. It worked.

Now, Poilievre is at a crossroads. If he stays on — and there’s every indication he will — he can go one of two ways.

The first path is transformation.

That means moderating his tone, sounding less like a right-wing YouTuber and more like a future prime minister. It means ditching the culture war rhetoric and refocusing on the bread-and-butter issues in a way that appeals to middle-of-the-road Canadians. It means reaching out to new Canadians, Indigenous communities, and suburban families — not with slogans, but with serious policy proposals backed by credible spokespeople.

To his credit, Poilievre has shown flashes of this. In the early days of his leadership, he spoke convincingly about freedom and opportunity. He even started talking about social mobility and mental health. But that version of Poilievre took a backseat to the pit bull persona he adopted in question period and on social media.

If he can bring back the former and leave behind the latter, he may yet win over the voters he lost in this last election.

There’s also a second path — patience.

The argument here is simple: governments grow old, tired, and unpopular, no matter what their record in office is. Eventually, a time-for-a-change dynamic sets in and governments are defeated.

If the Carney government manages to stay in power under minority status for the next three or four years (there’s no reason to believe they can’t, with the co-operation of opposition parties, none of whom want an election anytime soon), the Liberals will have been in government for 13 to 14 years. That’s a long time for any political party in Canadian federal politics.

Under that scenario, Poilievre may not need to overhaul his image. Perhaps he just needs to wait it out (after winning a seat in a byelection), keep pounding away at Liberal mistakes, and eventually the voters will hand him the keys to the PMO.

It’s a tempting proposition, and one that has some historical precedent. Think Stephen Harper in 2006 or Justin Trudeau in 2015. Both inherited electorates fed up with the incumbents.

But there’s a risk.

If Poilievre sticks to the same hard-right persona and the Liberals continue to hold on — thanks to vote splits, redistricting, or a growing suburban advantage — he could find himself sidelined within his own party.

Conservatives are nothing if not pragmatic. If he becomes more of a liability than an asset, internal pressure will mount for a leadership review.

The real question for Poilievre — and the Conservative movement more broadly — is not just how to win the next election, but how to define conservatism in Canada in the post-Trump era.

Do Conservatives want to be the party of grievance, anger and suspicion? Or do they want to be the party of solutions, competence and modernity?

Right now, the brand is muddled. That’s a problem.

Poilievre is a gifted communicator and a tireless campaigner. But his message, when wrapped in the garb of American-style populism, simply doesn’t land with enough Canadians. If he can find a more authentically Canadian conservative voice, he still has a shot.

If he keeps lurching toward the angry fringe, waiting for the Liberals to self-destruct, he may find himself waiting a long time. And there’s a risk that under the latter strategy, he may not make it to the finish line.

tom.brodbeck@freepress.mb.ca