Canada was becoming a more populist nation amid a backlash against Justin Trudeau. Now, a backlash against Donald Trump could move things in the other direction.
For years, Canadian politics has been defined by backlash.
Former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s election was a backlash to years of perceived rigidity and austerity under former Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre’s rise in the polls was a backlash to years of perceived excessive left-wing policy and incompetent governance under Trudeau.
And the unprecedented surge in Liberal support is a backlash against Donald Trump.
This is something the Conservatives are struggling to adapt to, and they don’t have much time to get it right.
Of course, the whiplash is understandable. Things are changing at a remarkable pace.
For years, Canada has been trending in a more populist direction.
Anger toward perceived ‘Liberal elites’ had driven many Canadians towards the Conservative Party, and Pierre Poilievre actively sought to shift the image of the party in a more populist working-class direction.
The NDP had attempted the same pivot but executed it far less effectively.
Still, it’s easy to forget that up until a few months ago, the Jagmeet Singh-led party stood a good chance of increasing its seat count and popular vote total.
Before Trump’s re-election and Justin Trudeau’s departure, the NDP was polling around 20%, and a few polls even put it close to 25% with the Liberals languishing in third place.
We were thus likely to see an erosion of the ‘centre’ in Canadian politics (though the Trudeau Liberals were not really a centrist party), and an increase in support for both the left and the right.
As a result, Canada’s populist era was set to continue and possibly entrench itself. Canada was going to be defined – at least for half a decade or so – as a country where anti-elitist politics and aggressive populist rhetoric around wealth, education, immigration, and the role of government dominated, while more careful ‘centrist’ and ‘moderate’ rhetoric – that associated with the Chretien to Harper era – would subside.
Ironically, this is likely what would have happened if former U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris had won the U.S. Presidential election.
There would be no threats of annexation.
There would be no new tariffs.
Most Canadians wouldn’t be thinking of the United States at all, and the prevailing Canadian trend – a backlash against Justin Trudeau – would likely have been played out in an election where the Liberals lost a bunch of seats and Pierre Poilievre became Prime Minister with an overwhelming Conservative majority and clear victory in the popular vote.
Now, it’s still possible for the Conservatives to win.
The polls remain close, and Poilievre remains an effective communicator.
But there’s no way to deny that something fundamental has shifted in this country, and it’s shifted because of Donald Trump.
The politics of revulsion
Revulsion is a strong word.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines it as “a strong pulling or drawing away,” “a sudden or strong reaction or change,” and “a sense of utter distaste and repugnance.”
And that certainly describes how Canadians feel about the U.S. President.
According to a recent survey (conducted in March by Sondage Leger/Quebecor) 79% of Canadians have an unfavourable view of Donald Trump, compared to 12% who have a favourable view.
The survey shows there is no base of support for Trump in Canada.
Over 70% of Canadians in every age group oppose him.
In the most ‘pro-Trump’ province – Alberta – 77% have an unfavourable view of him, while just 17% have a favourable view.
63% of Conservative supporters have an unfavourable view of Trump, compared to 27% who have a favourable view.
67% say their view of Trump has worsened since he took office, while just 6% say it has improved.
72% agree with how the Canadian government has responded to Trump’s tariffs, while 16% disagree.
Canadian unity
We are seeing an unprecedented level of unity in Canada when it comes to our shared revulsion towards Donald Trump.
And because of how we associate political ideologies with specific personalities, this is having a profound impact on Canada’s political scene.
Justin Trudeau was associated with Canadian liberalism.
Justin Trudeau became incredibly unpopular.
Thus, Canadian liberalism became incredibly unpopular.
But now, Mark Carney is associated with Canadian liberalism, and Mark Carney is a relatively popular figure at the present moment.
Meanwhile, conservatism in the Western world is increasingly associated with Donald Trump.
Canadian conservatism is its own unique institution, but many Canadians still associate it with the broader conservative/populist movement, especially as the party has moved in a more populist direction.
As a result, the image of the Canadian conservative/populist movement is taking a hit.
This means the rejection of Donald Trump by Canadians is also turning into a rejection of the populist shift on the right.
Canadians want the “opposite of Trump,” and that means a shift towards a more moderate and cooperative approach.
Ditch the ‘globalist’ rhetoric and return to Mulroney-Harper conservatism
So, what should Canada’s conservatives do?
Should they abandon conservatism?
Of course not.
Instead, they should move away from the populist rhetoric of the past few years and return to the bedrock Canadian conservatism of the Mulroney-Harper era.
Remember, Trump is an aberration in terms of Western conservatism, and he is in many ways not a conservative at all.
Mulroney & Harper’s conservative bona fides were much stronger than Trump’s.
Both Mulroney & Harper believed in the positive vision of Western conservatism that helped to defend and strengthen liberal democracy following the end of WW2.
They supported free trade and mutually beneficial cooperation between friendly nations.
They supported NATO – the strongest military alliance and greatest force for global peace and stability the world has ever known.
They were pro-immigration but also believed immigration levels should be sustainable and largely skill-based.
They both supported Ukraine and upheld the long-standing Western conservative tradition of opposing Russian imperialism – something Trump has abandoned.
They believed in defending Canada’s historic European roots while also deepening our understanding of Indigenous history and recognizing that newcomers have always helped to build and shape our nation.
They struck an effective balance between recognizing Canada’s imperfect past while also making clear that we have much to be proud of as Canadians.
And at critical moments – they stood up against forces on the far-right and ensured Canadian conservativism would remain rooted in Canadian identity and would remain open to all Canadians willing to embrace it.
This is the kind of conservative governance Canada needs right now.
And it’s the kind of conservative governance that the Conservative Party can provide if they are willing to set aside the divisive rhetoric about ‘globalists’, stand up to the pro-Russia fringes on the right, and avoid pandering to misinformed perspectives on a myriad of issues fuelled by the non-Canadian online ‘influencers’ who are seeking to undermine our country.
The upcoming election will be a test of whether the conservatives can thread this needle. As Canadians reject the harshness and divisiveness of populist politics increasingly associated with Donald Trump, the Conservatives have an opportunity to chart a new course for Canada based on a return to Canada’s unique form of traditional moderate conservatism. However, if the CPC allows itself to be trapped in the populist mindset, it could watch as Prime Minister Mark Carney seizes the mantle of moderation out from under them.
Spencer Fernando
If this piece left you clearer than it found you, that's the point. I write for readers who want to think past the week, to see the longer pattern beneath the daily story, and to come away steadier rather than more agitated.
That longer view gets built somewhere. On Patreon, essay by essay, I'm constructing The Long Work, a body of analysis meant to outlast the news cycle that prompted it. The readers there make it possible. No subsidies, no strings. The work answers to them.
$8/month to read it as it's built, and to have a hand in building it.