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

In the U.S., both Democrats and Republicans are departing significantly from the old orthodoxy that free markets and free trade lead to the best outcomes. The change manifests itself in practical politics, typified by the Biden administration’s multibillion-dollar investments in green energy and other climate-focused initiatives, Donald Trump’s promise to raise tariffs even more on imported goods if he wins re-election, and even bipartisan initiatives like the forced sale or ban of TikTok. It also manifests itself in earlier stage public policy development, through think tanks and elected officials, where policy papers and unlikely-to-pass legislation gestures as where practical politics could go next. But where the Americans have boldly unravelled a decades-long consensus in just a few short years, Canada has characteristically been more plodding. While one might interpret Trudeau’s political style through the neopopulism lens, Liberal public policy over the last nine years has been more aimless than revolutionary. It’s not that Canada has been immune to economic and geopolitical peril. Indeed, it’s been a lost decade. Growth has been anemic, inflation has been persistent, and foreign states are interfering in our elections. And it’s not that the Liberals have felt any fidelity to free market orthodoxy. Taxes and spending have gone up, the size of government is out of control, and red tape and regulations are strangling the supply of everything from housing to energy. But unlike in the U.S., the Trudeau Liberals aren’t courageously experimenting with new neopopulist approaches. Instead, they’re reading from the old Laurentian capitalism playbook, where when there are problems in the economy, there’s always another demand-side “solution.” Whether it’s cranking up immigration, or turning on the subsidy taps, the Trudeau Liberals have governed as though deep economic problems can always be papered over and costs can always be deferred another day. And while the Liberals have dreamed up new subsidies and protections, many businesses have returned the favour, applauding economically harmful policies if it’s meant a better carve out or side deal. But persistent inflation, especially in the housing bubble, is ushering in demand for an alternative, setting the stage for the change proposed by Poilievre. Poilievre’s Conservatives can’t easily be understood through the U.S. neopopulist model either. He isn’t talking about restricting trade or spending big on corporate welfare. He’s not anti-immigration, and he doesn’t seem to want to ban social media companies. He wants to cut taxes, remove the gatekeepers (i.e. deregulate) and fix the budget (i.e. reduce spending). In other words, he’s a free marketer, and in many ways, his worldview actually represents the Washington consensus, the very approach the neopopulists want to move on from. Then what of Poilievre’s appeal to blue-collar voters? What of his common sense agenda? And lest ye assume it’s merely rhetoric, what of his vote for banning replacement worker legislation and his opposition to major corporate mergers? Well, Poilievre is a free marketer, yes, but he’s a free market realist. Because while Poilievre Conservatives understand that a market economy is what works best and that government should almost always get out of the way, they’re not naïve about the world we live in today. Free market realism is savvy to the national security risk posed by China, it’s savvy to the manner in which some markets have been excessively financialized (and the extent to which our housing market is a speculative bubble built not on real value but on short supply and easy money), it’s savvy to the sometimes corrosive effect of new technologies, it’s savvy to the dominance of elite cultural preferences in corporate headquarters, the media, and post-secondary education. And finally, it’s savvy to the fact that Canadian business executives and investors will necessarily represent narrow views and ideal public policy, and that governments should hear from workers and consumers too if they want to make decisions that lead to a thriving, competitive, free market economy that rewards entrepreneurialism, creates jobs, and keeps prices low for consumers. Poilievre isn’t the only politician articulating a politically practical free market-oriented program. Indeed, some American conservative politicians and think tanks are experimenting with their own version of neopopulism and putting forward similar ideas. But unlike in Canada, American conservative intellectuals are either too removed from influencing practical politics (because of Trump’s anti-intellectual grip on the Republic party) or tied up in Trump’s own political program and therefore less interested in respecting the core free market principles that are crucial to avoiding an American version of Laurentian capitalism and its attendant risks like soft corruption and a rigged economy. American Conservatives may be ready for free market realism when the Republican Party moves on from Trump. Indeed, British Tories, poised to lose government badly and launch into a leadership campaign, may be ready for it even sooner. In the meantime, initiatives like American Compass’ Rebuilding American Capitalism and U.K. think tank Onward’s Future of Conservatism project are leading the way to try to transform Trump’s simplistic neopopulism into something more sophisticated. But for now, Poilievre’s Conservatives are the ones who get to try to step beyond neopopulism, bringing free market economics and political realism together into a potent electoral proposition. If he’s successful, perhaps when American Republicans are ready to move beyond neopopulism and properly attempt a durable synthesis of free market principles and common sense, they’ll look northward for inspiration about how to do it.