Populism enters the mainstream

Poilievre summons up shades of Trump. Should we be worried?

With the election of Pierre Poilievre at the helm of the Conservative Party of Canada, populism is entering the political mainstream by the front door.

Poilievre won almost all of Canada’s 338 ridings in his party’s leadership race by mobilizing old and especially new members around a dual agenda: traditional conservative ideas, seasoned with grating populist rhetoric. But what is populism exactly? Populism has been around in the West since at least the end of the 19th century, and yet it is still a slippery concept to grasp, for two reasons.

First, it is what political scientists call a “thin” ideology or set of political ideas, meaning that it does not have a well-defined, “thick” concept, like liberalism or socialism. These days, most famous populist politicians are “right-wingers” (Trump in America, Orbán in Hungary, Poilievre in Canada), but they could also hail from the left (the late president Hugo Chávez in Venezuela is the best example from recent memory).

Second, populism is an original recipe, but it uses a common ingredient in democratic politics: the idea that power should be in the hands of the people. Hence the confusion between populism and “popular” or “for the people.” Most democratic politicians who talk about empowering the people are not populists, or if so, only superficially.

Populism comes on a spectrum (more or less) and, in small doses, it can be quite compatible with democracy. The Canadian Prairies were once fertile ground for left-wing populism (the Co-operative Commonwealth

Federation — the CCF — which became the NDP), as they were later for the right-wing Reform Party of Canada. Poilievre himself grew up in Calgary.

But in its mature stage, populism can imperil democratic values and institutions. Why? Because it turns politics into an existential fight between “the people” and the political elites, in league with the cultural elites (media, universities and, these days, health authorities), and sometimes the economic elites as well (in Poilievre-talk, the Davos elites). Those elites are all determined to feather their own nests and lie to the masses. Such a mindset is evidently hospitable to conspiracy theories. If what you see is not what you get, there must be a hidden explanation.

The logic in populism is not pluralistic (for example, the idea that plurality of groups and interests is normal and healthy in a democracy), but apocalyptic: the people (and its leader) must defeat the corrupt elites. The antidemocratic potential here is obvious; once elected, many populist leaders use majoritarian power to curtail institutions that limit their power (a.k.a. the “people’s power”), especially legislatures, the courts and the media.

POILIEVRE VS. TRUMP

Where does Poilievre fit on that spectrum? A quick comparison with the most (in)famous populist of our time, Donald Trump, is illuminating.

First, the striking similarities: Poilievre’s vilification of the media (especially the organization once established by a conservative government, the CBC); the way he defended cryptocurrencies; his medical populism (basically: one should be “free” to ignore recommendations by nearly all infectious disease specialists); and finally, his itching to embrace like-minded “F*** Trudeau” protesters, as they were revelling in illegal blockades and occupations.

There are some important differences, too.

In order of importance: first and foremost, Poilievre is not a racist. He doesn’t even indulge in occasional and opportunistic dog-whistling on immigration, like Premier François Legault in Quebec or former prime minister Stephen Harper during his last electoral campaign, for instance.

Second, his economic policy is textbook Conservative Party of Canada platform: free trade (which Trump detests), low deficit and less regulation.

Finally, as a matter of style, Poilievre seems determined to soup up his humble origins, which in fact are not humble at all. But never mind, that’s something Trump couldn’t do, with no regrets. He once told a bluecollar crowd in Wisconsin how their Harley-davidsons are great but he prefers limousines. The Donald instinctively understands the essential nerve of populism: not be of the people, but be the amplifier of its anger and resentment.

All in all, could a Poilievre government be as divisive and harmful to democracy as Trump’s?

Probably not, but only the future may tell.