Do we want to be led by "Humans," or Actors?

"Not normal?" Andrew Coyne obviously missed my Star column on Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre.

In a “kill or be killed” situation, the vast majority of people would choose the former.

I’m one of those who believes that you can hold that view, and also be opposed to capital punishment, for fear that an innocent person might be unfairly put to death due to some grave mistake perpetrated by the legal system.

When Canada was still a jurisdiction that deployed the death penalty, a civilian had to murder an on-duty police officer or prison guard to be eligible for the gallows. Prior to 1967, however, the crimes of murder, treason and rape were all sufficient for the noose; 710 convicted criminals served the ultimate prison sentence between 1859 and 1962. While many Canadians may believe that we’re a more sophisticated society than that era, it comes to mind in the wake of the attempted assassination of former U.S. president Donald Trump.

The FBI is convinced that Matthew Crooks pulled the trigger, and while he narrowly missed Mr. Trump, several spectators at Saturday’s campaign event were left dead or seriously wounded. Had a police sniper not quickly identified the threat and shot Mr. Trump’s assailant, it’s hard to believe that others wouldn’t have been killed as well — including members of the USSS protection detail. Instead of a long trial and life in prison, with all of the expense and undeserved fame that follows an attempt against someone like Mr. Trump (why do we easily recall the name John Hinckley Jr.?), one might say that — as a byproduct of the threat being neutralized — justice was relatively swift in this case.

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre’s statement on the attempted assassination included a reference to him being “happy that the suspected shooter is dead.” This didn’t sit well with Globe Columnist Andrew Coyne, who admitted that “it’s human enough, in such moments, to think it,” but was aghast that Mr. Poilievre would share his inner thoughts publicly: “But to say it…this is not normal.”

Mr. Coyne’s a far better newspaper columnist and political observer than I’ll ever be, his research is always compelling, and I often agree with him. Some six months ago, I went over to his table at Bar Centrale and complimented him on a piece he’d just written about Canada and Israel. It was that good.

As Arthur Lucas and Ronald Turpin were being led to their death in the early morning of December 10, 1962, “members of the Don Heights Unitarian Congregation were holding a death-watch service in their church. ‘This ugly thing must be fought,’ said Rev. Franklin Chidsey. ‘I refuse to accept the principle that there is anything such as a legal killing.’” Perhaps this is also how Mr. Coyne sees capital punishment, whether it comes pre or post-trial.

Mr. Coyne’s Twitter handle reflects support for the governments of both Ukraine and Israel, which also happen to be two of the nations currently executing armed warfare/retribution against their enemies (making him unique among high profile Canadian journalists — and I’m all for it). That he’s comfortable with that, but offended by Mr. Poilievre apparently “rejoicing in retribution” against a murderer might be curious to some, but I’m more troubled that his take on the CPC Leader’s statement reflects a level of denialism that will not serve either he or The Globe’s readers well in the months to come.

This is who Mr. Poilievre is: he’s often visceral. In this day and age, why is that a bad thing?

Some months ago, I waded into what some suckholes thought were dangerous waters when I penned this about Mr. Poilievre in The Star (April 3rd):

If you’re waiting for Pierre Poilievre to start acting like a “prime minister-in-waiting,” you’ve not been paying attention. While Poilievre is more John Diefenbaker than Stephen Harper, this is not your Father’s Progressive Conservative Party.

Politics traditionally draws the type of person who cares deeply about what others think of them. That’s only natural. To get elected, you need to be more popular than everyone else on the ballot.

With almost 18 months under his belt as Conservative leader, it’s becoming clear that Poilievre has a certain superpower that sets him aside from most of his predecessors, whether they be Liberal or Conservative: he doesn’t care what “we” think of him.

That’s not to suggest Poilievre isn’t hustling for votes. His daily tour schedule presents gruelling evidence of a tireless campaigner who thrives when speaking to a room of working-class families, farmers or new Canadians.

That the guy is wired differently presents a unique challenge for the Liberals as they prepare for the 2025 campaign. How do you attack someone who doesn’t care how the alleged “elites” view him?

Despite being one of the “elites” in question, it’s clear that Mr. Coyne didn’t read my piece. I’m not offended by that; heck, most of my acquaintances probably don’t yet pay to read my Star columns, either (try as I might to earn their patronage). But there’s no excuse for Mr. Coyne yearning for Leaders who hide their true selves. Leaders who are “human” but hide their “unguarded” feelings from the public.

Wouldn’t we all be better off if our leaders “showed their face,” as my late Mother would say?

That most don’t may explain why our corporate chiefs remain AWOL on anti-Semitism, for example (see prior post “Corporate Canada must do more to combat anti-Semitism” Oct. 31-24). In the case of CEOs, their defence is that they have shareholders to serve — and Warren Buffett has long since warned them to not offend a particular demographic for fear that they’re also your customer.

As a voter, however, I’d far rather know what someone is thinking, and assess them accordingly, than to wonder how much of their public persona is schtick…scripted purely for our collective consumption. What thoughts might bounce around in their brain, or roll off their tongue in an unguarded moment, is highly relevant. Are they sexist? Racist? Self-serving? A frenemy by nature?

Ronald Reagan, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Justin Trudeau and Volodymyr Zelenskyy were all actors prior to their election to high office. It can work, but not always. Canadians have come to learn that an attractive, virtue-signalling, professionally-trained actor is not necessarily the best person to run a G-7 nation.

Mr. Coyne doesn’t think that Mr. Poilievre’s formal statement met the test of “normal,” but in a world that suffers from “fashion over function,” who can argue that traditionally-accepted norms have been working for the citizens of England, France or America, for example? Voters in those three democracies don’t seem to think so.

As time passes, most talented leaders will grow in their role, whether they’re running a private debt fund or a national political party. That requires outside observers to continually reassess their initial perspectives. My advice to Mr. Coyne is to accept that i) Mr. Poilievre is who he is, ii) that he doesn’t care what “we” might think of him, and iii) that he’s “human.”

And not “human” like Gary Hart; but like those Canadians who were glad that Crooks didn’t live to see another day. Someone’s innocent Dad didn’t come home that night, which would not have been lost on anyone who has a husband, brother, son or father.

Mr. Coyne might not think these three traits are superior to accepted convention, but they’re obviously appealing to a big chunk of the Canadian electorate.

Stop wishing that it weren’t so. You’ll find it cathartic.

MRM

(this post, like all blogs, is an Opinion Piece)