Jay Gamma: If not Pierre, then who?
A leader's imperfections are not always a sufficient argument to replace them.
If you missed the fracas on conservative Twitter in recent weeks, do not fret. Bridges were burnt, credibility was lost, and feelings were hurt. Your time would be better spent reading the exchange between Howard Anglin and Ben Woodfinden, in which collegiality remains between those who disagree. The remarks from the leader’s lectern that sparked that dust-up have revived a debate we thought had ended at the convention in January: should Pierre Poilievre continue as leader of the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC)?
Remarks accusing fellow conservatives of being ‘eastern liberal lobbyists’ are, his detractors claim, unbecoming of a leader. They divide a party sorely in need of unity and demean individuals who have given much to the conservative movement. This is difficult to dispute.
There was little to be gained from kicking Caroline Elliott’s campaign team while they were down, beyond the satisfaction of returning fire in an ongoing spat between the respective circles of Poilievre and Doug Ford. Were a few chuckles and cheers at a Stampede breakfast worth it?
His critics have given as good as they’ve got – I certainly don’t defend their actions – but it is Poilievre who wears the mantle of leader and Poilievre who must be held to a higher standard. For anyone who seeks to lead the big, raucous tent that is the Conservative Party of Canada, magnanimity is mandatory. There are enough forces at work against the movement in this country; we need not bolster their ranks with our own.
Carl Vallée: Why Liberals keep winning the patriot game
Last week, the Globe & Mail ran a controversial but fascinating piece by Andrew Coyne on Canadian conservatives’ relationship with patriotism.
For my part, I was reminded of a conversation I had at the party convention, at which we thought we had settled the question of Poilievre’s leadership. I went into the leadership review as an undecided voter, unconvinced that Poilievre had a path to victory. My vote was won by a question: ‘If not Pierre, then who?’
The CPC may have failed to form government in the previous election, but Poilievre has exerted a unique influence on policy from the opposition benches. He won the debates on the carbon tax, crime, and immigration so decisively that he forced the Liberals to reverse course on core policies.
As Anglin remarks to Woodfinden, conservatives do not lack ideas; they lack only the ability to execute them. Mark Carney’s quasi-implementation of conservative ideas may sting, but it is proof positive that a platform built from those ideas can win. Although Poilievre was not the one implementing those policies, he is nevertheless the reason they were adopted.
Questions of leadership require an alternative, not simply dissatisfaction. Poilievre is not without fault, but that is not a sufficient argument to replace him as leader. While aspirants to the leader’s chair would no doubt prefer to run against a vacancy, we should not allow them to do so.
If we are to discard a leader who has proved remarkably able to force the government to concede on key issues and who is beloved by the grassroots, if not the Empire Club, there must be good reason to believe that a better alternative exists. To oust Poilievre in response to anonymous pressure is to replace him with whoever survives the ensuing knife-fight, not necessarily with the person the party would prefer.
If there is a conservative who believes they are better suited than Poilievre, let them stand and be counted. Let them present their vision alongside Poilievre’s and win support for their cause. A public leadership challenge would stress the party, to be sure, but so too would undermining Poilievre in the hope of turning the party against him.
If you cannot convince your fellow conservatives of your vision, why would we believe you capable of convincing the electorate?
Jay Gamma lives in Edmonton Alberta and holds a PhD in Translational Medicine from the University of Alberta. He serves as Vice President for the Edmonton Gateway CPC Electoral District Association, and volunteers with the Alberta chapter of Build Canada.
For more from Without Diminishment and its contributors, follow along on X, YouTube, and Instagram.
Without Diminishment is a project of the Without Diminishment Foundation, a registered non-profit in British Columbia. If you value the unique perspective we bring to Canada’s cultural landscape, consider supporting our work with a generous donation.
Great essay, Jay.
This is why I subscribe to and read Without Diminishment.
I agree, the civil debate between Mr. Anglin and Mr. Woodfinden was a delight to consume.
It is important to remember that which Mr. Poilievre has achieved: he chased away the worst Prime Minister since Confederation.
He forced the Liberals to pretend to assume a somewhat conservative stance, if only for them to fall back on wasteful, ignominious, and destructive policies once elected. That Canadians were fooled again is not on Pierre; that is on Canadians.
He forced the Country to face the climate debate head on, and rethink its position.
He was the first to identify and recommend policies to address the house-flipping, money laundering economy of the “Liberal Lost Decade”.
He grabbed an increasing share of the vote.
He destroyed the socialist myth the NDP has promulgated for seventy years, and sent their leader packing.
There were no “bozo eruptions” during his one campaign against the Liberals. That was not the case in the previous three elections.
He is the best leader of His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition in the history of our Country.
We are again talking about sustainable resource extraction and exploitation in this Country because of Pierre Poilievre: not because of Donald Trump or Mark Carney.
I think the Conservative Party needs to decide whether or not it simply wants to win elections, or if it wants to actually effect substantive change in a Country desperately in need of change.
Great article, Jay; please write again.
It will be difficult to find someone who can create a conservative big tent after he leaves.