Pierre Poilievre: Pros and Cons
Pro: He's not Justin Trudeau. Con: He's Pierre Poilievre.
A friend asked me recently: “Caleb, what do you think of Pierre Poilevre?”
My friend is into politics but skeptical, especially of the “axe the tax” candidate.
Pierre Poilievre will fix Canada’s Justin Trudeau problem. And right now, that’s our biggest problem.
A good chunk of what’s wrong with Canada's current state can be traced back to the former snowboard instructor/drama teacher who a majority of Canadians in Quebec and Ontario decided was fit for office three times.
Fortunately, economic reality has hit home for these people. They now realize what I knew in 2015. The budget won’t balance itself, and to say that the economy grows “from the heart outwards” is akin to hearing a medical doctor tell a dying family member that “God will cure you.”
But what about Pierre Poilievre? Love him or hate him, he’s… well, what, exactly? Trustworthy? Efficient? Competent?
If Justin Trudeau is a toddler, Pierre is a 12-year-old. Neither is fit for telling you how to run your life, but I’d rather have a 12-year-old calling the shots than some fucking nipper.
Hey now! There’s a controversial t-shirt idea. Cue the image of Justin in blackface.
Justin Trudeau is a Nipper
But onto Pierre.
Pierre Poilievre: Pros
What are some good things about Pierre Poilievre? Other than not being Justin Trudeau.
Well, for one, he reads.
I’m not sure if Justin Trudeau has ever read a book in his entire life. I guess he must have at least once. How else do you attend college and teach?
But he’s also a Trudeau. Just like Robert F. Kennedy Jr going through Harvard while addicted to heroin. Most likely it’s the last name providing the passing grade.
Pierre does not have this luxury. But suppose he did. And suppose Justin didn’t. The facts still speak for themselves.
With the exception of a well-rehearsed ChatGPT-like response about quantum computing, Justin Trudeau has never indicated anything beyond average intelligence.
And remember what George Carlin said: “Imagine how stupid the average person is, then realize half of all people are stupider than that.”
Pierre Poilevre, on the other hand…. also displays average intelligence. But at least he reads.
In podcast interviews, Pierre has referenced Milton Friedman, Frederic Bastiat, and Thomas Sowell.
If you don’t think these thinkers are right or even smart, who cares? Indicating you’re familiar with them shows more intellect than we’ve seen from our current man-child PM.
And that’s all I’m asking for. Someone who at least appears competent. It doesn’t have to be a Conservative. I prefer if it isn’t one. I’ve never voted Conservative in my entire life. I’m still not sure if I want to.
The NDP could have a shot if they kick out their Rolex-wearing, Maserati-driving, anti-working-class Toronto lawyer.
Or if the Green Party stops resembling a cult and more of a viable political party. They can start by also booting out their leader, embracing nuclear energy, and recognizing that Israel is a world leader in green tech.
Imagine if Israel could devote more funds to desalinating water cheaply instead of defending itself against its anti-Semite neighbours?
But I digress.
Pierre Poilievre’s biggest pro is that he’s not Justin Trudeau. That he has at least some level of competency when it comes to running the federal government.
After all, he’s a career politician, right? If anyone knows how to make Ottawa work, it should be the guy who’s been there since he was 25 years old.
Wasn’t that the argument for Hillary Clinton in 2016?
Donald Trump captured the narrative. He said he would “drain the swamp” because he was an outsider. Hillary played right into his game. She said because she was a woman she was the ultimate outsider.
No one took her seriously.
Instead, she should have run on a campaign of: why the hell would you want some man-child billionaire in charge instead of a competent woman with plenty of experience?
And isn’t that Pierre’s appeal? Putting the adults back in charge of the federal government?
Otherwise it’s hard to find a “pro” in a career politician. Whether it’s Hillary Rodham Clinton or Pierre Milhouse Poilievre.
In the end, Poilievre will be like Stephen Harper. Not great. But not terrible. Neutral. Could be better but could be worse.
I certainly would have preferred Harper in charge of the country for the last decade. Does anyone think the environment or social services are really better under this “left-wing government” than the former “right-wing” one?
Things are fucked no matter who is in charge.
Our housing situation would still be fucked, but at least immigration wouldn’t have gotten out of control. And the cultural fabric of the country wouldn’t have shifted left.
There would have been no pursuit of a “post-national” identity.
Oh, and we’d still have balanced budgets.
So that’s Pierre’s ultimate pro. He’s a return to the Stephen Harper years. Which leads us to the downsides of a Poilievre Conservative Government.
Pierre Poilievre: Cons
I’m not going to launch typical left-wing strawmen. I don’t even care that he’s a career politician.
First, it’s obvious Pierre Poilievre is lying about at least some things. That’s the nature of politics. As Frank Zappa once said, “Politics is the entertainment branch of the military-industrial complex.”
What’s true and what’s a lie with Pierre remains to be seen.
He’ll probably axe the carbon tax at the individual level, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he keeps some kind of carbon pricing scheme in place for businesses. The extra tax money is too good to give up.
The typical criticisms lobbied at him are pedantic. He’s a politician running an (as-of-yet unofficial) campaign to become prime minister by gaining a majority of seats in the House of Commons.
So we can expect a little dumbing down for the masses. (See the Carlin quote above).
What about some actual criticisms? What about something substantial? Here, we can get into the real cons of Pierre Poilievre. Not the midwit opinions of basic white girls “OMG he’s going to outlaw abortion!!!!”
I mean real criticism. Not something you saw on TikTok.
Pierre Poilievre’s Con #1: The Economy, Stupid
Pierre is sympathetic to the Chicago School of Economics. He is not an Austrian economist like Argentina's president Javier Milei.
So what? At least he’s not a goddamn socialist, amirite?
Well, maybe. Maybe not. The “Chicago School” of economics is not a free-market ideology. It has more in common with John Maynard Keynes than Ludwig von Mises.
And no, not the singer of Tool. That’s Maynard James Keenan. I’m talking about John Maynard Keynes, a long-dead economist.
John Maynard Keynes said elected governments should spend your money to “manage” demand. Milton Friedman said unelected bankers should control the money supply to create economic stability.
Both forms of intervention assume that politicians and bureaucrats (or technocrats) know more about your life and community than you do.
Both Keynes and Friedman focused on aggregate economic metrics like GDP, inflation rates, employment levels, etc.
Both men ignored the nuances of individual choice and entrepreneurial action. They favoured artificial abstractions they could model into algorithms.
Keynes wanted direct government involvement. Friedman wanted the secretive central bank to perform these activities.
And here, you can see why “left-wing” economics tends to get a free pass in universities compared to “right-wing” economics. And why large corporations prefer the latter.
On its surface, Keynes is all about direct democracy in economic life. In contrast, Friedman supports the actions of unelected bankers who apparently know better than you do.
But that was the whole point of both their theories. It wasn’t a result of going out in the world and coming back with scientific answers. It was to develop a theory of why liberal democracies need a central bank.
Central banks are parasites. Both Keynes and Friedman defended central banks as integral to the capitalist system. They were wrong.
Central banks are essential to the neo-liberal, crony-capitalist system. A genuine free market has a free market in money and banking.
Pierre Poilevre is not for a free market in money and banking.
He won’t legalize competing currencies. His support of crypto is one of the lies he tells.
If - under his watch - Canadians begin trading in crypto instead of CDN dollars, you can bet your ass he’ll be swift to crush the competition.
Friedman’s monetarism assumes changes in the money supply are neutral. A monetarist would say that Trudeau’s economy is a problem because he added too many dollars over too short of a time frame.
This means Pierre Poilievre is fine with a growing money supply so long as it’s done steadily. But this is inflation. Inflation is not some naturally occurring aspect of the economy but a deliberate policy of governments and banks to create more dollars chasing fewer goods.
Consider the words of former Bank of Canada Governor James Coyne: “I don’t even like to think of inflation at the rate of 1 per cent a year because after thirty years, what have you got? Savings are cut in half, if you had any savings.”
Pierre Poilievre’s Con #2: World War 3
Of course, Justin Trudeau is just as likely to lead us into World War 3. But if there’s any doubt about Pierre’s foreign policy, this meme should tell you everything you need to know:
Pierre Poilievre is willing to go to World War 3 over Ukraine or Israel or pick your poison. Just as Stephen Harper was gung ho to join Bush Jr. in the illegal invasion of Iraq.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I support Ukraine. Fuck Putin and his useful idiots in the West parroting Kremlin talking points. But I also prefer to support causes based on my individual assessment and then, if I so choose, my consensual financial support.
Sending our tax money to Ukraine’s military when we barely have one ourselves (and we also border Russia!) while families struggle to make ends meet is beyond infuriating.
Like Trudeau, Poilievre will have no problem using our tax money to pay for the world’s problems. The only difference is that Poilievre will be more tactful in his approach.
Justin Trudeau sincerely believes our money is his to spend.
Pierre Poilievre’s Con #3: He’s Axing the Wrong Tax
Axe the tax, but which one? Why the carbon tax? Shouldn’t we tax the things we want to see less of?
Tobacco? Alcohol? Foreign Buyers? Fossil fuels?
That’s why I’m against the income tax. It’s slavery with extra steps. And property taxes. We don’t have private property if you’re forever paying rent to the state.
But a carbon tax? Hell yes. Bring it on. That should be the only tax.
Let me repeat myself in case you’re about to click off.
The carbon tax should be the only tax.
So no carbon dioxide no government? Sounds like a great idea to me. But let’s get back to reality for a second. This is about Pierre Poilievre. He’s going to be prime minister, probably.
He’s axing the wrong tax. Maybe this will be his biggest lie of all. Keep the carbon tax and eliminate the income tax?
I don’t know why he wouldn’t run on that platform. Maybe all the campaign experts and demographic analysts have done the math and Canadians aren’t ready to hear it.
Have you ever read Tax Me I'm Canadian! by Mark Milke? I lost my copy somewhere in my twenties. I remember he had a big list of all the taxes Canadians pay. I’ll try to recreate that now updated for 2024.
Ask yourself: which one of these taxes is Pierre Poilievre going to eliminate? Not reduce. Eliminate.
Income taxes on individuals
Income taxes on businesses
Capital gains taxes
EI premiums (these are taxes don’t kid yourself)
CPP premiums (forcing Canadians into a monopoly Ponzi scheme does not negate the coercive nature of the schemes’ collection)
Payroll taxes
Goods and Services Tax
Excise Taxes and “Duties” that include
tobacco
alcohol
cannabis
fuel
“luxury” items (introduced by Justin and could very well be eliminated by Pierre)
Custom Duties (so much for free trade)
Carbon Tax (We’re on #10 and finally found our first tax Pierre will eliminate!)
Fossil Fuel Excise Tax (this is in addition to the fuel tax mentioned above)
Export Duties on Natural Resources (this really should be the only way the federal government earns its money. And all proceeds should go directly into the military and national border control. How likely is it that Pierre will encourage this type of thinking? More so than the NDP or Liberals, of course, but once in power, Conservatives really need to hold Pierre’s feet to the fire.)
Financial Institution Taxes (introduced in response to the bank’s excessive profits during covid. A better answer would be to eliminate the chartered bank oligopoly and legalize competing currencies and free banking).
Excise Duty on Imported Goods (similar to customs but with specific products in mind, like alcohol and automobiles that compete with Canadian manufacturers).
Real Estate Taxes (won’t even get into that minefield).
The list goes on. I’ll find another copy of Tax Me I’m Canadian! and see if I can add to this list later.
In the meantime…
Pierre Poilievre: Lovable Milhouse or CONservative PM?
I hope Pierre Poilievre becomes PM because I’m tired of seeing Justin Trudeau’s face. I never did like the fuck. All that negativity that surrounds him originated with me.
You’re welcome.
In the meantime, we could be stuck with the status quo until next fall. I hope NDP leader Singh will pull the plug once he gets his pension in the New Year, but I doubt it.
Oh, that pension ain’t a guarantee either. Pierre could revoke it by an Act of Parliament. He can do a lot with a supermajority and anything the Supreme Court doesn’t like he can overrule with the notwithstanding clause.
But what are the odds?
Axe the carbon tax but keep the rest of this shit-storm in place? He’s flirted with the idea of simplifying the tax code. So there’s that.
Pierre is the correction Canada needs after nearly a decade of political mismanagement. But he’s not a cure-all.
He’s a CONservative just like Justin is a LIEberal, and like how Singh is irrelevant.
This is what happens when the typical centrist party goes for an egomaniac dumbass like Justin Trudeau.
If Pierre Poilievre simplifies the federal tax code and reduces taxes (and even eliminates a couple), then he’s worth the cost of a Conservative government.
Can’t be any worse than a Liberal government.
Left and right back and forth. Vote this guy in vote that guy out. When will we learn?
Does a tiny vanguard always pressure the masses? What if a tiny vanguard led the masses to a conscious awakening?
What if we—dear readers—joined the Green Party and outnumbered its current membership? Together, we could reshape its policies: embrace nuclear energy, simplify and eliminate most taxes, and prioritize real solutions over platitudes.
Who’s with me? Axe the tax! All of them—except the carbon tax and a few import/export duties.
After all, we need to defend the Arctic from the Russians. Relying on America would be like calling ourselves the 51st state.
And we’re better than that. I know we are.