Political Line Dance

Politicians telling stories isn't new but the lengths they are going is incredible.

AI generated: by copilot.

Listening to politicians find convenient ways to be relatable to voters while doing the exact opposite of what they say is why I became interested in political narratives. I also grew up with the trope that “politicians lie” but I come from a blissful romanticized version of the past where there were consequences for government scandals and lying to voters. I’m only half joking.

There was a noticeable shift to me when leaders like Jason Kenney adjusted their apologies to “I’m sorry if some were offended.” Conservative leadership have long railed against “political correctness” and much of that came from their own personal discomfort with being called out for being disrespectful or unkind. The “it’s just a joke” era where a lot of people (in my case, women) were just “too sensitive”. As it turned out, they also “can’t take a joke” when they’re constantly the punchline. Shockingly enough.

When Ralph Klein was caught throwing change at a person on the street telling them to get a job, he didn’t say “sorry if you were offended”— he admitted it was a dick move. Danielle Smith has definitely followed in that path because even though she’s more in tune with the conspiracy theorists generally, she realized that the anti-vaxxers are not, in fact, the most discriminated against group in her lifetime. However, it’s different.

I see the hypocrisy in how Danielle Smith is “protected” more than “respected”. Going through some previous Hansard transcripts, as one does, I noted that when the Official Opposition attacked Premier Jason Kenney, the responses from his Cabinet members were inclusive; more “we” and “our” in their responses. Whereas under Ms. Smith’s leadership, the members with members tend to leap to the Premier’s defence without all that “we” and “us” language. Kenney’s cabinet treated criticism as aimed at the government; Smith’s caucus treats criticism as aimed at her— they don’t feel attacked— they feel that the Premier is being unfairly criticized and their apparent reasoning is that it must be because she doesn’t have a member to protect her.

…

It really flies in the face of the “strong conservative woman” rhetoric. Though, I suppose it doesn’t because can you imagine Joseph Schow standing up to defend a “strong conservative man”? I just did and it was hilarious. Because he’s a giant and Mr. Kenney was not and it’s just funny to imagine.

I’m not saying I don’t want my team to have my back, I’m just saying I don’t want them defending me because they think they need to defend me as a woman. Defend my point because I’m right. Obviously.

I also feel like they’ve chosen to weaponize that as some sort of pushback against feminism. Yet look at the backlash against Hillary Clinton; women (quite rightly) came out against supporting her because she was a woman. Granted, men don’t have to say the same thing out loud, it’s implied— because gender stereotypes are still a thing. The reason that the “women supporting women” mantra didn’t pan out for the Democrats in the U.S. hardly needs explanation with Danielle Smith as Premier. Yes, we want to see women in leadership roles but hell yes they have to offer more than their chromosomal makeup.

This is why the lizard brains are entirely against equity, diversity, and inclusion; they believe that only the genitalia at birth or the skin colour is being considered. There’s also the false premise that no one but one kind of dude is qualified for anything which is at the heart of the argument. If anything, it’s just a reminder that the battle to be evaluated on equal ground is nowhere near over.

Which brings me to Conservative Party of Canada MP, Jamil Jivani who makes me think of how annoying it would be if your neighbour just left their chihuahua outside all day to yell about how insecure it feels that the world is bigger than they will ever be.

Mr. Jivani, who surely put a lot of effort and expense into training as a lawyer, spent time with a right-wing think tank before moving to punditry as a radio host— and much like Alberta’s Premier— whose brain broke somewhere down the rabbit hole of COVID misinformation. Mr. Jivani, who held the role of “Diversity and Empowerment” fellow at the McDonald-Laurier Institute, later decided that such gobbledygook was beneath him. And I’m sure he didn’t check the box on his Yale application to indicate that he was a member of a minority group, either.

Like the right-wing favourite Thomas Sowell, a Black U.S. Army veteran who took advantage of the free education offered to former service members, some people feel the need to pull the ladder up behind them. Harnessing the confidence of those who believe they got where they are on merit would probably power the earth for millennia.

Mr. Jivani has been let off his leash with the Conservative Party of Canada Leader’s blessing. Party leaders have a lot of power over their caucus members and nothing happens without their tacit approval. Just ask Red Deer South MLA Jason Stephan who resigned from his Parliamentary Secretary for Constitutional Affairs role after authoring an op-ed in the Western Standard encouraging Albertans to sign the separatist petition— well after Danielle Smith realized it was not going to be a popular position. Leaders will put their fingers in their ears when the message is one they want getting attention, but have multiple options available if they want to shut their people up.

The fact that Jamil Jivani is still speaking, then, tells us that it is with Pierre Poilievre’s approval that Mr. Jivani does what he does.

Over the past year, that has included heading to the U.S. for non-official official visits with his former school mate J.D. Vance, and a Canadian college tour to tell young men that equity, diversity, and inclusion is to blame for their problems. This week, Mr. Jivani went after the Prime Minister for shaking hands with people at a PRIDE parade because he didn’t like the way a man was dressed.

To be clear, he didn’t like the way a man was dressed in this situation but has no problem with men being half-dressed generally.

Apparently, being photographed with half-naked men is only “appropriate” when they are preparing to beat the crap out of someone— “love is love” is for sissies?

What Mr. Jivani claimed to be enraged about was politicians being asked why they don’t go to PRIDE; a question Mr. Poilievre was asked by reporters who apparently follow a “Liberal agenda” of showing support for Canadians, even if they’re members of the 2SLGBTQ+ community. Mr. Jivani then used a lot of words to explain how uncomfortable he was seeing men’s bodies at PRIDE even though he’s totally fine with it if he can watch them inflict pain.

There’s, ahem, a word for that preference by the way.

For his equity, diversity, and inclusion rants, Mr. Jivani tried a bit called “end Liberal racism”. To rail against PRIDE, he has offered up “Liberal degeneracy”. It plays well with people who are enraged by the modern world, to be sure. It’s an erosion of tolerance that is assuredly backed by more chaos agents outside of Canada than within, but their numbers will only grow here, too, if we can’t find our way back to balance.

It is a space that Prime Minister Mark Carney has managed to fill with a conservative level of both confidence and effortlessness that has to be a source of perpetual envy from those seeking to take his place. Even if they cannot articulate those feelings with words like grown adults.

And that, finally, brings me to the CPC leader himself.

Less than two weeks ago, Pierre Poilievre (along with Alberta’s UCP) suddenly decided to weigh in on municipal bylaws around noise volumes at venues off the Stampede grounds. It came after one venue owner, Cowboys, wrote a scathing opinion piece about the rules (though it’s far more likely he just put his name to it). Calgary Mayor Jeromy Farkas took it in stride, adding that the owners were informed there would be new rules regarding the decibel output. Importantly, the rules were not about the level of noise at the source— it was about reducing that noise level at the closest neighour.

As conservative politicians came out of the woodwork, the Mayor responded with a masterclass in political communications that came from a place of strength— and not just because he came from the same schools of conservativism that the CPC and UCP did. The strength Mayor Jeromy was able to capitalize on was the fact that residents of Calgary had asked for rule changes around the volume and late nights over the ten days of Stampede. They weren’t asking for events or venues to be cancelled, just that there was some recognition that not everyone has ten days off to party into the wee hours.

More than a few quizzical eyebrows were raised at the political pile-on and the Mayor snapped back with a solid hit, calling them “out of town politicians”. Yet, what seemed most short-sighted to me was the fact that CPC and UCP politicians who decided to start the fight aren’t just “out of towners”— they’re people who rely on the same voting bloc as Mayor Jeromy serves. Sure, they can cross their fingers because a majority of Albertans will put their checkmark beside a party name and have no clue who’s in the suit it corresponds to— but rubbing that fact in their faces is as discouraged as trying to train a puppy by rubbing their noses in their own urine; it doesn’t build trust.

It begged the question as to why they would have joined in at all. Maybe it’s just habit to throw down against the Calgary Mayor after fourteen years of having an easy target in Alberta’s high-wheeling and dealing conservative petro-hub that kept electing mayors who were decidedly not conservative enough. However, after it became public knowledge that Cowboys was represented by lobbyist Jenni Byrne and Associates— the same Jenni Byrne who managed the CPC’s 2025 campaign and apparently told Mr. Poilievre that changing circumstances wouldn’t require a change in strategy;— we had questions.

Mkay.

Ms. Byrne’s lobby group is very busy in Alberta. They not only represent Cowboys but also recently represented clients in the insurance industry in our province (ask not why your rates are going up but why the Alberta government doesn’t seem to care).

Effective lobbying is done by people who know people. They’re people who have politicians and influencers on speed dial. They can find someone to put their name to an opinion piece, call into a radio show to profess agreement with the topic or speaker, and they have a direct line to the editor of a foreign-owned national newspaper who will print it. They can also start a harassment campaign by sending out a mass message to a select group of contacts who include the Leader of the Official Opposition and the Premier of Alberta. Lobbyists with connections are in great demand (so long as there’s a like-minded government in power).

Weirdly, it’s also precisely the reason that Mr. Poilievre claims to dislike lobbying so much. He has all the right words, yet seems to be as willing to debase himself when the lobby groups have his number as the government leaders he claims are not acting in the best interests of their constituents by listening to them.

Certainly, it’s possible that, as with every other partisan interest, it’s okay when the leader likes the lobbyist and doesn’t really care about the effect on people who have to deal with the outcome, but it’s just one more tick on the negative side of the column for people who say one thing while doing the exact opposite.

It’s also why I do this instead of that.

Thanks to everyone who reads, shares, and becomes a free subscriber. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber to support my work; to those who have, your support is greatly appreciated!