Re. Lloyd Vinish’s letter, Questions Liberal reversals (Castanet, Feb. 13)
The letter is a classic example of a populist polemic, this time a critique of the (federal) Liberal government’s “180-degree about-face” on climate policy, i.e. carbon pricing and EV mandates. But the critique relies on a rhetorical trap, the false dilemma.
Only two options are presented:
Option A: The Liberals were lying before (climate change wasn’t a real threat).
Option B: The Liberals are lying now (the threat is real but they are abandoning the country to “climate devastation” for votes).
By stating, “They cannot both be true,” the writer ignores a third option, one that defines most centrist politics — pragmatic adaptation.
A government’s policies usually change when the economic or social cost becomes untenable or when new technologies emerge. However, for a populist writer, nuance is the enemy. By stripping away the middle ground, the writer attempts to force readers to conclude the Liberals are either incompetent or nihilistic.
The writer uses highly charged, emotive language to characterize the previous Liberal government’s actions over the last decade such as “waged war,” “lectured,” “bullied” and “enlisted.”
He frames ordinary Canadians as victims of an “onslaught” where “careers (were) cancelled” and “integrity and morality questioned.” That taps into the “anti-woke” and “anti-expert” sentiment prevalent among libertarian-conservative voters.
He asks, “Is there anything the Liberals truly believe in?” This is a powerful populist trope: the idea that the “ruling class” has no soul and no core values. By framing the policy shift as “jettisoning” a “fundamental government policy,” he characterizes the Liberals not as a party that has learned but as a party that is “up for sale.”
The letter lacks any discussion of the external pressures that might cause a government to pivot, such as inflation, housing costs or shifting global energy markets. Because it focuses entirely on the “lie,” it misses the opportunity to argue for conservative alternatives, choosing instead to remain in the realm of grievance.
“Grievance politics” lie at the core of Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre’s populist communication strategy. His punchy, repetitive slogans ensure particular grievances are easy to remember.
So how is this strategy working for Poilievre? Despite surviving a January leadership review with 87.4% support from delegates, Poilievre’s national favourability remains stuck below 40%. Analysts suggest his “grievance-based” messaging has consolidated the Conservative base but failed to reach swing voters.
As of mid-February 2026, major pollsters (Angus Reid, Research Co., and Leger) report favourability ratings for liberal leader Mark Carney at 55% to 60% and Poilievre at 35% to 39%.
When Canadians were asked specifically who would be the best prime minister, Carney received 44% support and Poilievre 25%. (Research Co., Feb 9, 2026)
