Why would people want to support leaders who look down on them, and who prefer to take the side of the same establishment that has led Canada so poorly?
In my previous article, I wrote about how the attacks against Pierre Poilievre are becoming more and more unhinged:
A point I made in that article is that these attacks are not just against Poilievre, but by extension are against his supporters.
This is a point that needs explanation.
Let’s remember for a moment that Poilievre’s support stands at about 50% or more among Conservative supporters, far ahead of any of the other candidates.
He leads in every poll, and has by far the most engagement on social media.
He has built up his following over a significant period of time by emphasizing the Conservative principles of sound money, limited government, and individual freedom.
Furthermore, he has fought back against the Liberal narrative, showing that he will seek to define his views himself, rather than having them defined – and demonized – by others.
So, when candidates like Jean Charest and Patrick Brown demonize Poilievre – as Brown did by trying to use the tragedy in Buffalo to score points against Poilievre, and as Charest did by claiming Poilievre’s support of the Freedom Convoy meant he should be “disqualified,” they are showing contempt for much of the CPC base itself.
As surveys show, the objective truth is that Pierre Poilievre is the least divisive candidate among the CPC base, while Jean Charest is the most divisive:
“According to the poll, 50% of current CPC supporters have a positive impression of Poilievre. 20% have a neutral impression, while just 7% have a negative impression. 22% say they “don’t know.”
Meanwhile, just 26% of current CPC supporters have a positive impression of Jean Charest. 30% have a neutral impression, and 21% have a negative impression of him. 24% say they don’t know.”
This makes intuitive sense.
When Poilievre attacks Charest, he attacks Charest for holding Liberal positions on the carbon tax, gun policy, lockdowns, and his work for Huawei.
When Charest attacks Poilievre, he attacks him for supporting accountability at the Bank of Canada, supporting those who lawfully protested against draconian lockdowns/mandates, and for supporting Canadians’ rights to invest in potential alternatives to our rapidly inflating fiat currency.
Given that most of the Conservative base shares the views Poilievre espouses, and opposes much of what Charest espouses, it makes sense that Charest would be divisive within the party, and Poilievre would be unifying within the party.
This of course is the opposite of what much of the media would have you believe.
When they call someone ‘divisive,’ what they really mean is that they don’t meekly submit to the Liberal establishment narrative.
Someone with the confidence to speak their mind, and not back down at the first hint of criticism is what scares the establishment, because they know that kind of attitude could lead to real debates and a real discussion about the future direction of Canada.
Much of the Conservative base – and Canadians as a whole – have been awaiting those real debates and real discussions, because we can see all around us that the status quo is failing.
For those reasons, when Poilievre’s opponents launch their increasingly unhinged attacks against him, they’re not only attacking him, they are attacking every Canadian who believes our country needs a new direction to achieve a brighter future.
We need to stand up to the dishonest narratives of the establishment media. I am fighting for the truth, and if you value my work, you can make a contribution through PayPal, or directly through Stripe below.