Trump’s fiery brand of politics threatens to crash like a wrecking ball into the Canadian political arena. While Trudeau seems eager to tap into potential anti-Trump sentiments among the Canadian electorate, Conservatives dismiss these attacks as acts of desperation.
With the country’s future hanging in the balance, Trump’s looming presence brings risks for both leaders. Trudeau’s economic missteps appear to leave him no choice but to wield Trump’s name like a cudgel against his surging opponent Poilievre.
But Trudeau’s exaggerated efforts to demonize Poilievre as a Trump clone could seriously backfire.
The winner of the election will likely be whichever leader can keep the focus on practical domestic policies rather than get sidetracked by sensationalist attacks trying to tie their opponent to Trump controversies.
The looming possibility of a Donald Trump reelection bid in 2024 has Canadian politicians bracing for the potential fallout. As Justin Trudeau and Pierre Poilievre gear up for Canada’s next federal election, Trump’s fiery and polarizing brand of politics could spill over the border to reshape the race.
According to political strategist Scott Reid, who previously worked for former Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin, “A second Trump presidency almost certainly creates a situation where the next election won’t be about Pierre Poilievre or Justin Trudeau — it will be about Donald Trump and Canada’s relationship with an America that is led by an angry, vengeful creature.”
Reid elaborated that “I don’t know if that might benefit Poilievre or if it may benefit Justin Trudeau, but I think it is the kind of event that has the force to reset the next election in Canada.”
A syncing of the US and Canadian election cycles in 2024 could see Trump dominating Canadian news coverage.
While the possibility of Trump saturating Canadian media coverage raises concerns, Conservatives are rightly more focused on confronting specious Liberal allegations closer to home. Specifically, Trudeau and his party have disingenuously tried to draw parallels between Poilievre and Trump’s stances on Russia.
However, Conservatives have challenged this characterization of Poilievre’s foreign policy views.
The Liberal attempt to link Poilievre to Trump’s positions on Russia and Ukraine is obviously a politically-motivated move. As Conservatives have pointed out, Poilievre does not actually share Trump’s worrisome admiration of Putin.
While one Liberal MP deviously claimed Poilievre is “cozying up” to the Russian dictator, this is not an accurate representation of Poilievre’s views. He has been vocal in supporting Ukraine against Russian aggression.
The Conservative position opposing only a minor component of the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement is being intentionally distorted to conjure nonexistent parallels to Trump. Poilievre and the Conservatives should not be mischaracterized this way just for opposing a specific policy detail.
These exaggerated allegations reveal the desperation of Trudeau and the Liberals to avoid substantive debate on issues important to Canadians. They aim to tap into negative sentiments about Trump in the hopes of tarnishing Poilievre’s reputation.
According to former Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s communications director Kory Teneycke, “The Conservative Party is leading with female voters, with new Canadian voters. It’s a party that embraces those new Canadians as opposed to having undertones of nativism and xenophobia. That’s why it doesn’t work.”
Teneycke argued that the comparison between Poilievre and Trump does not ring true, stating “This is not a winning strategy.” He added that Poilievre has more nuanced positions that set him apart from Trump’s aggressive populism.
Teneycke provides an important perspective. He refutes the Liberal attempt to draw parallels between Poilievre and Trump by pointing to evidence that Poilievre appeals to a much broader faction than Trump does.
Specifically, Teneycke highlights the Conservatives’ strong support among women and new Canadians under Poilievre’s leadership. This directly contradicts accusations that Poilievre promotes nativism or xenophobia in any way reminiscent of the Liberal accusations.
Instead, Teneycke underscores how Poilievre has focused on issues like affordability that resonate across demographic groups.
On another front, political scientist Alex Marland points out that Trudeau has absolutely avoided going negative, getting other people to be the ones to say negative things.
But Marland notes that Trudeau seems to be shifting strategy based on research showing that direct attacks are currently the most effective approach against Poilievre, who is ahead in the polls.
Trudeau appears prepared to capitalize on the substantial anti-Trump sentiments that exist among many Canadian voters. Previous opinion polls and surveys have indicated that former President Trump is highly unpopular in Canada after straining diplomatic ties and fostering tensions between the two neighboring countries during his time in office.
As Marland analyzes, “Past polling shows Canadians have a distaste for Trump, after his presidency upended Canada’s historically strong relationship with the U.S. — when Trump tore up NAFTA — and Trudeau could position himself as standing up for the country’s interests.”
With these sentiments lingering, Trudeau seems eager to seize the opportunity to paint his Conservative opponent Poilievre as a disciple of Trump’s playbook. By tapping into the well of anti-Trump feeling, Trudeau hopes to sway voters by arguing Poilievre will put Canada on a similar path.
This strategy would showcase Trudeau as the defender of Canadian sovereignty against an overbearing Trump administration. However, Conservatives caution that voters will see through the political posturing.
Michelle Rempel Garner, a Conservative Member of Parliament, dismissed the emerging attacks as “the early stages of a ‘Hail-Mary election play’.“ She believes “a MAGA-messaging-reliant Liberal campaign narrative with Justin Trudeau still at the helm has only one optimal window for an election: the October before a Biden vs Trump presidential election day.”
Garner believes Trudeau is making a risky political move by using anti-Trump feelings to attack Poilievre. She thinks Trudeau wants to have a Canadian election right before the 2024 US election so he can call Poilievre a Trump supporter. Without Trump actually running again, Rempel Garner implies Trudeau wouldn’t be able to criticize Poilievre in this way.
In Garner’s view, the Liberals are desperately clinging to anti-Trump rhetoric as their best hope of defeating Poilievre, whose populist message has energized Conservatives.
According to another political analyst, concrete issues like interest rates and grocery prices will likely have more impact on the election than any fear-mongering about Trump. If the cost of living comes down, it could ease public anger and dissatisfaction, making the Liberals’ attacks on Poilievre less effective.
If Canada avoids a recession, the Liberals may not need to rely on painting Poilievre as a Trump imitator. But if economic turmoil persists, Trump could remain their political weapon of choice.
Poilievre will need to carefully calibrate his brand to avoid confirming the Liberals’ attacks. As professor Marland concludes, “If there’s a drumbeat of certain messaging and catchphrases coming out of Donald Trump supporters that are finding their way into Canadian politics and are being emanated by conservatives, then there’s no question the Liberals are going to draw upon that and try and create this connection.”
If Trump comes to dominate the narrative of the Canadian election, the substantive policy debates that should be at the center could end up being sidelined. Instead of an in-depth discussion on how each party plans to address issues that impact Canadians’ daily lives, like the rising cost of groceries and fuel, the focus may shift to broad branding strategies.
The Liberals seem intent on blanketly portraying Poilievre as a Canadian version of Trump, hoping to tap into anti-Trump sentiment. But this could distract from Poilievre’s nuanced proposals on inflation and other kitchen-table economic issues.
The risk is that the Trump duplicate Poilievre branding by the Liberals generates more heat than light, obscuring the important differences between Poilievre and Trump on policy specifics. This branding exercise could end up muddying the contrast between Poilievre’s pragmatic inflation-fighting plan and the Liberal fiscal approach.
On another note, Trudeau’s relentless attacks portraying Poilievre as a Trump-esque figure could seriously backfire on him. By fixating on superficial Trump comparisons rather than engaging in substantive policy debates, Trudeau is risking appearing desperate and manipulative in the eyes of many Canadians.
This could inadvertently benefit Poilievre by fueling further anti-elite backlash and enhancing his populist outsider credentials.
If swing voters see through the Trump attacks as shallow fear-mongering intended to distract from real kitchen table issues impacting Canadians, it may create a major opening for Poilievre.
He can position himself as the leader offering real solutions rather than exaggerated partisan caricatures. Poilievre may successfully capitalize on Canadians’ desire for meaningful change and substantive policy discussion.
In a tight race, Trump’s looming presence could prove decisive in determining Canada’s political direction. Poilievre and Trudeau both face risks from a Trump candidacy renewing tensions with Canada.
With so much uncertainty ahead, the victor may be the leader who can keep voters focused on constructive domestic solutions rather than cross-border controversies.
