Ginny Roth: Neither Trump nor Trudeau—Poilievre’s free market realism brings modern savvy to tried-and-true economic principles

A couple of weeks ago, at the request of his editors, the New York Times’ David Leonhart wrote about an emerging political consensus. He coined it neopopulism. As these useful meta-narrative columns often do, it drove the conversation on major podcasts over the following days. Public intellectuals have been grappling with how to describe the moment in politics and economic policy, and Leonhart seemed to be providing them with a useful frame and vocabulary.

Leonhart’s basic point is that for all the hand-wringing about political polarization, the energy among both Republicans and Democrats in the United States these days is around the exact same theme—a rejection of the simplistic old Washington consensus and an embrace of a new approach that considers state intervention in the economy necessary in order to promote the welfare of American workers and fight foreign threats (sometimes, in order to do both at once).

While the frame is useful for thinking about Canada, it’s inadequate. Justin Trudeau’s Laurentian capitalism lacks the reform and relevancy to fit Leonhart’s definition of neopopulism. More importantly, while Pierre Poilievre’s approach contains some savviness to the political moment, giving it a frisson of neopopulism, his approach is fundamentally economically liberal, better described as free market realism, and may perhaps even serve as a model for Republicans emerging from a post-Trump era.