Justin Trudeau Has Often Embraced The Most Cynical Elements Of Populism

The Liberal PM makes use of populism when it suits him, and then pretends to be against it.

Looking at the rhetoric from the establishment media and the Jean Charest campaign, it becomes clear that the line of attack against Pierre Poilievre will be to accuse him of being a ‘populist,’ and then claiming that populism is ‘bad’ and ‘dangerous.’

Much of that messaging will be based on the use of gaslighting, as some will claim that Poilievre’s crowds – which continue to grow as he campaigns across the country – are ‘evidence’ of something dangerous, rather than admit that they show his message resonates with many Canadians.

Instead of confronting the ideas, they will try to demonize the person.

What’s missing from those going after Poilievre as a ‘populist’, however, is an acknowledgement of how hypocritical this all is.

In many ways, Justin Trudeau could easily be called a populist, as he has often embraced the most cynical aspects of populism in order to stay in power.

Here are some examples:

Pandering to authoritarian leaders to gain domestic votes

One of the negative aspects of populism we often see is leaders in democratic countries who try to strengthen their ties with authoritarian leaders and authoritarian regimes in order to win votes domestically and increase their party fundraising. For example, Marine Le Pen in France has repeatedly pandered to Russia and expressed support for Vladimir Putin, and – even after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine – talks about removing France from NATO. Her party previously received a lot of money from Russia. This means that – flawed as he may be – Emmanuel Macron is ironically more of a pro-freedom candidate than Le Pen.

Le Pen has rightfully been criticized for this.

Yet, few have mentioned how Justin Trudeau is quite similar to Le Pen in this regard, except swap Russia for China.

Early on as Liberal Leader, Justin Trudeau expressed an affinity for China’s Communist ‘basic dictatorship,’ expressing admiration for an authoritarian system that ‘gets stuff done.’

Trudeau spent years trying to distance Canada from our democratic allies and move us closer to the orbit of China, even showing interest in an extradition treaty with China and pushing for a free trade deal with China that would have given that country even more power over us.

Trudeau showed a consistent unwillingness to criticize China or call out their human rights abuses, and the Liberal government allowed China to buy up many Canadian companies – including some that were closely linked to our national security.

When Covid-19 first emerged, the Trudeau government also showed trust in China, trust which was proven to be horribly misplaced.

To get a sense of how cynical this was, the Trudeau government repeatedly accused the Conservatives of being ‘racist’ when they asked questions about China’s influence over our country, and the Liberals seemed glad to reap the fundraising and vote-getting benefits in certain parts of the country by remaining in a submissive posture towards China.

Only when the kidnapping of the Two Michaels took place and Canadian public opinion turned decisively against closer ties with China did the Liberals change course.

So, like those the media often denounces as populists, Trudeau was glad to trade away Canada’s values and principles for closer ties to an authoritarian state that he felt could provide a domestic political benefit for him.

Populist budgets

A key aspect of many populist leaders is that their budgets tend to promise more than can be delivered, and are fiscally irresponsible. And in this regard, Justin Trudeau certainly fits the bill.

Populists often think of their very short-term political benefit, and will spend heavily and borrow heavily in order to remain in power.

Debasing of the currency often takes place in populist governments, as they feel increasing pressure to avoid austerity or restraint at all costs, and prefer stoking inflation to making tough budget decisions.

They will often borrow and spend for years, leaving the economy more and more unbalanced and fragile, and then demonize their opponents for ‘daring’ to propose realistic – but difficult – responses to the growing crisis.

Trudeau certainly spends and borrows like many populists throughout history.

Seeking to control the media

Populists – particularly populists who want to move their country in a more authoritarian and centralized direction – love to go after the media.

And Justin Trudeau is no different.

The Trudeau government has sought to co-opt much of the media by making it dependent upon taxpayer money, has repeatedly increased the funding of state-controlled CBC, and has sought more and more control over the internet.

As noted by Michael Geist, there is already self-censorship occurring in the media:

“I know of cases where opinion pieces have been spiked by mainstream media outlets because they criticized the previous Heritage Minister at a time when he was being actively lobbied on a potential media bill. Those decisions come on top of blank front pages and advertorials designed to curry support for the measures. The blurring of editorial and financial may be a fact of life, but it ultimately diminishes the credibility of the media.

This comment was based on first-hand experience. In 2021, I pitched an opinion piece on then Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault to one of Canada’s leading media outlets. The opinions editor liked the idea and worked with me over several drafts to finalize the piece. I was told it was ready for publication and then I waited. And waited. And was then told the piece was spiked by upper management given the subject matter and the campaign for legislative support from Canadian Heritage.

It should therefore come as little surprise that the same issue has already arisen with respect to Bill C-18. News coverage has appropriately provided balanced reporting, but masthead editorials and opinion pieces drive in a single direction with no shortage of supportive op-eds: the National Post, Toronto Star, Winnipeg Free Press, and Toronto Sun among them. In fact, I’ve been advised that further commissioned opinion pieces are on the way. Yet Carleton professor Dwayne Winseck reports that he had an approved piece that raised criticisms of the bill spiked by the National Post (the Toronto Star spiked an opinion piece of his last year on similar grounds).”

Trudeau’s clear antipathy for a truly free press tracks with the actions of many ‘populist’ leaders.

You may be wondering why I brought up Le Pen earlier. The reason is that some in the Canadian media are already trying to compare Poilievre to Le Pen. Here’s an excerpt from a recent Globe & Mail opinion article:

“While it may not be fair to strictly compare him with Ms. Le Pen, there are elements of their politics that are strikingly similar. First off, they are both populists who feed off the anger of the disenfranchised – particularly disgruntled white folks. Mr. Poilievre shocked many by supporting the truckers (and others) who occupied downtown Ottawa for three weeks earlier this year. That he would want to be associated with a group that had white-nationalist elements among it was beyond the pale for many. He didn’t see it that way.

Like Ms. Le Pen, Mr. Poilievre has made cost-of-living increases – something he has dubbed “Justinflation” in a bid to associate it with the policies of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau – central to his campaign. And just like the National Rally leader, he is not allergic to making outlandish claims, such as suggesting cryptocurrency would allow people to “opt out of inflation,” or that he plans to make Canada “the world’s freest country,” as though we’re currently living under some sort of dictatorship.”

This is such a transparent effort to delegitimize Poilievre and his supporters. The hope is that somehow people will think “Le Pen = Bad, Poilievre = Le Pen, Poilievre = Bad.” 

Yet, Le Pen bears more similarities to Trudeau than Poilievre.

Here are some examples of Le Pen’s heavy-handed approach towards the media:

“At a news conference on Tuesday, Le Pen was quizzed about why a team of journalists from a popular evening program were refused accreditation. She responded, saying the show was entertainment rather than journalism.”

Le Pen personally denied ‘accreditation’ to a media outlet she disagreed with, a very Trudeau-style move:

“A French television news and entertainment show that has long delighted in poking fun at Marine Le Pen and her father has become a battleground in the far-right leader’s election contest with President Emmanuel Macron.

“Quotidien” casts a critical eye on French politics, calling out and teasing politicians for their foibles, inconsistencies and positions. The weekday show is also a frequent stop for top entertainment stars and has more than three quarters of a million Twitter followers.

Marine Le Pen isn’t a fan.

During a news conference on Tuesday, she said she personally decided to deny the show’s reporters accreditation as she crisscrosses France and campaigns for the presidency.

“There are no journalists at ‘Quotidien,’” she asserted.””

Trudeau and the Liberals have done the same to media organizations they disagree with, denying them accreditation and claiming they aren’t real media.

Le Pen and Trudeau seem to have many similarities in that regard. Both are big-government proponents, seeking to use the state to impose their vision of society, rather than try to reduce the role of the state and limit the power of government.

Demonizing minority groups in order to win votes

One of the most important and fundamental principles of a successful Liberal Democracy is the understanding that while dividing the country and demonizing minority groups can win votes in the short-term, the long-term damage isn’t worth it.

Every political party struggles with that trade-off in one way or another, which is why even the freest and most democratic nations have moments in their history when minority groups are targeted and demonized.

‘Populists’ are often accused of this kind of behavior.

With that in mind, let’s consider how Justin Trudeau’s rhetoric towards unvaccinated Canadians changed over time.

At the beginning, Trudeau was adhering to the principles of Liberal Democracy, when he said that Canada wasn’t a country that mandated vaccination, noted that people had good reasons for not wanting to be vaccinated, and that the government shouldn’t impose on people.

But then, when he started to get worried about losing an election, he completely flipped.

He brought in draconian measures on unvaccinated people, demonized them repeatedly during election rallies and press conferences, appealed to the “90% who did the right thing” (about as obvious and naked an appeal to majoritarian sentiment vs a minority group that we’ve seen in this country), and did everything possible to deflect public anger away from his government and towards unvaccinated Canadians.

When the going got tough, Trudeau was willing to throw away Liberal Democratic values and embrace a ruthlessly divisive rhetorical style in order to divide the country, direct anger towards a minority group, and remain in power.

That’s the exact same kind of behavior that the establishment press denounces as ‘populism’ when we see it in other countries.

Trudeau’s cynical populism vs Poilievre’s individual empowerment

Considering everything discussed above, we can see that Trudeau’s pandering to authoritarian leaders, his willingness to demonize minority groups, his out-of-control spending and borrowing, and his efforts to control the free press all put him in league with the ‘dangerous populists’ that the media loves to criticize.

By contrast, Pierre Poilievre is talking about limiting the power of government, reducing taxes, spending responsibly, and empowering individual Canadians, families, and entrepreneurs rather than seeking power over them.

In many ways, Poilievre’s message is the opposite of what is normally ‘considered’ populism.

If Poilievre becomes CPC leader, Canadians will have a clear choice between Trudeau’s cynical populism and Poilievre’s message of individual empowerment.

Spencer Fernando

Photo – YouTube

***

Unlike CBC and much of the establishment media who are now beholden to the government,  I rely upon voluntary contributions. If you value my perspective, you can show your support by making a contribution through PayPal, or directly through Stripe below. Your support is always appreciated.


[simpay id=”28904″]