Thread by @kedcoleman

So let's talk about @PierrePoilievre and his interview in Maclean's magazine, on March 16. Billed as an in-depth interview where he can get into policies and positions. Strap in cause this will be a spicy🧵

Can we start with this picture? The only good answer is that this is a selfie Poilievre took while doing his "real human facial exercises" - his fake smile is off-putting and creepy.

They lead off with a real softball question - how do you pronounce your name? Immediately we're telegraphed one of his targets for this interview: francophone voters. "Haha stupid anglos amirite?" is the subtext of this response.

Following that he makes an attempt to show off how educated and smart he is, with a grade-school-level take on the history between the HoC and Crown. Big anti-establishment energy in the words chosen.

Next answer is a bit of both - pandering to Quebecois/francophone voters and vague allusions to Freedom™, while again trying to show off that big brain naming an historical PM that many know but don't really anything about.

Incidentally, on the topic of Laurier, this feels like something Pierre or a staffer cooked up that feels super-smart to them but isn't, really. Poilievre is trying to take ownership of a Liberal PM who first used the term "sunny ways" (French: voies ensoleillées).

Laurier also massively increased immigration to flood the west with new Canadians, did some massive infrastructure spending, and strongly resisted military spending. Not sure if these are policies his base would agree with.

Back to the interview, he then proceeds to stake a position in opposition to a gigantic straw man. Nobody in any major party is saying the things he's against - no LPC/NDP/GPC is for abolishing religious upbringing, restricting who can marry whom...

Also, the phrasing "[I]f you want to raise your kids with traditional Judeo-Christian values, you can do that. If you want to live the secular or even atheistic life, you can do that too." is telling, framing "athiest" as a distant, laughable, afterthought. Signal to the base.

Poilievre obviously not taking this seriously, at all. So why should we take him seriously?

When someone asks you about a partisan reputation, and your response is to say your political opponents are the real partisans, it makes you look very fucking partisan, Pierre. C'mon. Is your campaign run by an edgy 16 year old?

This is just straight-up bullshit. I challenge anyone, @PierrePoilievre included, who can show anything backing up the claim that there are people in government that want a one-party Liberal state. It's bananas and feeding into right-wing victimhood.

The next few questions are pretty pointed, about the trucker occupations. He spends a while splitting some *incredibly* fine hairs and winking support while condeming a government that took rights away (they didn't).

From here there's a few questions about vaccines and mandates, which ... is a lot. Break to digest this and try to parse his positions clearly.

And we're back.
So the next few questions are all about vaccines and mandates. It's actually pretty generic stuff, really, hashing the same antivax rhetoric that it's a personal choice, freedom, etc. Pierre is definitely just leveraging those talking points...

and feeding them back to his potential supporters so they hear what they want to hear. Glossing heavily over how we, as a society, have plenty of restrictions in place for public safety and health, notably with vaccines on top of other things.

"[Y]ou don't know their stories", "individual responsibility", allusions to judgement of others, removal of freedoms - hitting all the important buzzwords to signal support.

"Aren't you being divisive?"
"No you are"
This is such a grade-school position on legitimate concerns about his political style - just trying to deflect blame back on the other side without addressing any actual concerns

Here he brags about his simplistic gotcha-style questioning style. The problem being he's not asking substantive questions - he tries to reduce complex situations into simplistic yes or no queries, which strips context and shows a lack of care or...

...understanding to the scope of issues. The next paragraph is actually hilarious, though, because on top of taking the time for a weird brag about "millions of views", he puffs himself up about giving "10-minute dissertations on monetary policy"...

...that are "historical speeches" and "insights into governance and deep public policy questions". Listen, the depth of Pierre's policy really seems to be "bitcoin good trudeau bad". That's not the kind of position that puts you alongside Laurier, right?

Oh god I'm only halfway through this puff piece, aren't I? #saveme

Because this hasn't been a softball brag session enough for Poilievre, at this point the interview gives him a chance to tell his background. Between a sob story about his childhood he still manages to ...

take a swipe at PET and the National Energy Program and how it personally ruined his life. No, seriously. This is a wild overstatement of Trudeau Sr's governance, and is obviously intended to play on his base's fear of Trudeau Jr ...

being some kind of communist who is going to seize your freedom and jobs and nationalize everything. It's alluding to the bullshit spraypainted on the sides of F150s. "I didn't understand it but Trudeau did it and it ruined my childhood". Stay classy.

Brief pause - because reading his words is hurting my soul - to circle back around to what I feel are the big targets he's trying to hit

1. People who feel unrepresented in the current CPC - ie. francophones who feel distanced from the West-centric party currently
2. PPC voters who have broken from the CPC that he wants to bring back. These are the convoy/antivaxxers he's catering to in the middle

3. Libertarians. This is the group targeted with the "intellectual" answers; they like to see themselves as logical and unappreciated geniuses. They also respond well to simple answers for complex questions

4. To a lesser extent, low-information existing CPC voters. Again, simple answers resonate with them, they don't look deeper than the surface.
There is, of course, large overlaps between these groups. And now back to our interview...

You'd be hard-pressed to find anyone in the HOC that would say any different than this as their goals. There's nothing to back this up. How? What's impeding this? What will you do to fix it? Poilievre is all outrage and attack but no real answers.

Does anyone anywhere believe for one goddamn second that the CPC will change this for the better with First Nations? Anyone?

Is Pierre running for premier of a particular province? Because he'd have to be, to fix disability payments...that being a provincial jurisdiction, after all

Oh, bullshit.

Oh, BULL. SHIT.

We're just going to move on from energy workers, because climate change isn't on the menu for this interview (lol why tackle a real issue?) but we can safely say they make good money, and this is just jerking off oil & gas/Alberta folks.

Pierre wants us to think he's elected in an urban centre, that he's so popular that even the cities, which lean to LPC/NDP, will elect him. It is, of course, bullshit. His riding, Carleton, is the rural outskirts of Ottawa.

The remainder has nothing to do with politics or policy at all. Because it's been such a hardball, grueling interview, they need to soften it up with some chatter about being a dad. Jesus Christ, Maclean's, get your act together

He does manage to find a way to throw another scoop of smug on top of things at the end, though.