Poilievre will need disciplined aggressiveness

OAKVILLE, ONT.—Now that the dust has settled in the Conservative Party leadership race, I think it’s safe to look back on it all and say: Pierre Poilievre triumphed because of his personality. To put it somewhat crudely, Conservative Party members perceived him as a badass. And a badass leader is exactly what Conservatives want right now; they want a leader who's willing to mix it up with his opponents, who’s willing to vigorously defend conservatism, and who’s prepared to stand up to the “Laurentian elites.” Of course, it’s easy to see where this yearning for a hard-as-nails-leader is coming from. After all, the Conservatives lost back-to-back federal elections when led by leaders—Andrew Scheer and Erin O’Toole—who chose to project themselves as non-threatening, easygoing, amicable politicians who just wanted to “go-along-to-get-along.” Clearly, this nice guy approach didn’t work. So, tired of losing, Conservatives opted to throw niceness out the window by choosing as their new leader, Poilievre, a tough-guy politician with a reputation for being a brass-knuckle brawler. Conservatives hope they now have a leader who won’t back down from a fight. At any rate, as someone who has always supported the idea of aggressiveness, I can certainly sympathize with this thought process. In fact, I’d wholeheartedly agree that Poilievre will inject some much-needed grit into the Conservative Party’s political identity. Yet, at the same time, I also believe that to be successful, Poilievre’s aggressiveness will have to be strategic. What do I mean by that? Well, attacking Liberals simply for the sake of attacking Liberals might energize Poilievre’s base, but it won’t necessarily win over undecided voters. As a matter of fact, if a politician comes across as too aggressive or mean-spirited it can be counterproductive. Case in point: former U.S. president Donald Trump would often simultaneously lash out against a hundred different enemies over a hundred different issues. Not exactly a restrained approach. The end result was that Trump’s presidency seemed constantly awash in chaos and controversy. Now, I’m not saying there’s any real possibility Poilievre will follow Trump’s lead, (he’s too experienced a politician for that). All I’m saying is he needs to ensure that his attacks against Trudeau and the Liberals are part of a well-thought-out strategic plan. In other words, he must amass polling data to uncover the weak points in Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s armour, i.e., issues that make the Liberal leader unpopular with voters beyond the Conservative Party’s base. Then, once he discovers those weaknesses, he must have the discipline to stick to his message. This way, when Trudeau inevitably attacks Poilievre for being a radical, right-wing, crazy populist, the Conservative leader will be able to effectively retaliate with a surgical strike designed to degrade the prime minister’s brand. To see what I mean, let’s consider this hypothetical exchange between Poilievre and a reporter. Reporter: Mr. Poilievre, the prime minister today called you a dangerous fanatic, who’ll hurl Canada back into the Dark Ages. How do you respond? Poilievre: Mr. Trudeau’s shameless smear against me reveals his own desperation, he knows my message exposing his callous refusal to fight inflation is resonating with Canadians. Do you see how this is disciplined aggression? Rather than getting defensive or launching into some sort of unfocused anti-Trudeau tirade, this response is both tough (which would appeal to Poilievre’s base) and on message (which would appeal to undecided voters). What I’m trying to say is: Poilievre should seek to emulate the legions of Ancient Rome. Unlike their barbarian adversaries, who often rushed headlong into battle, Rome’s aggressiveness was organized, efficient and relentless. Gerry Nicholls is a communications consultant. The Hill Times