Poilievre isn’t Bernier, but his silence speaks volumes. By refusing to challenge the far-right rhetoric bubbling within his party’s orbit, he’s creating fertile ground for extremist ideas to take root and flourish. It starts subtly—questioning aid to Ukraine, a cause widely supported by democracies worldwide. Then, it escalates to calls for leaving NATO, a cornerstone of global security. Before long, Conservative voices echo Kremlin propaganda, amplifying narratives that undermine the values they claim to defend.
This isn’t a new phenomenon. History has shown us how extremism creeps in when left unchecked, how it reshapes political landscapes and erodes democratic norms. We’ve seen this playbook before and know exactly where it leads. So why is Poilievre willing to play with fire? Is it a calculated gamble to court a more radical base, or is it a failure of leadership to draw a line in the sand? Either way, the consequences could be catastrophic for his party and the broader political discourse.
The real danger lies in what happens when these flames grow beyond his control. Poilievre risks normalizing ideas that were once relegated to the fringes by giving tacit approval through his silence. And once those ideas gain traction, they’re not quickly extinguished. The question isn’t just about Poilievre’s strategy—it’s about the future of political accountability and the resilience of democratic institutions in the face of rising extremism.
Initially intended for Episode 4*
