Towards a working-class conservatism
Towards a working-class conservatism
What do you get when you cross JD Vance with Pierre Poilievre?
I want to address some of what’s in the air this month, as the Republicans gather in Milwaukee. I’m going to commit what, for some readers, will be the cardinal sin of taking conservatism seriously, and of taking some conservatives at their word when they describe their view of politics.
Much of what follows is simple observation. And most of today’s main characters are American. But I want to start with something Anthony Koch tweeted the other day. He was press spokesperson for Pierre Poilievre’s Conservative leadership campaign, and is off to play a similar role for the BC Conservatives in that province’s upcoming election. After Teamsters Union president Sean O’Brien spoke at the Republican convention in Milwaukee, Koch said this on the big X:
I’ve been more attuned to notice this sort of talk — the notion that conservatives aren’t particularly preoccupied with free trade and free markets, and that “competing economic visions” aren’t much of a basis for defining our politics — since Pierre Poilievre gave an extraordinary speech to construction unions two months ago, one that didn’t otherwise get much coverage.
“You represent the wage-earners and the future pensioners,” Poilievre told the union crowd, across from Ottawa in Gatineau. “Their wages and pensions have lost purchasing power. Meanwhile, big government and big business and big capital has gotten rich by the inflationary policies of government. It is a transfer of wealth from the have-nots to the have-yachts.”
As I hinted when I wrote about the speech at the time, at times Poilievre’s concern for labour over capital sounded positively Marxist. Of course there’s room for all kinds of interpretation of these general principles. But Poilievre has backed anti-scab legislation and demanded an end to the use of foreign workers at Windsor’s NextStar plant.
Now, at the Republican convention in Milwaukee, we saw Trump’s vice-presidential pick, J.D. Vance, proclaiming: “We’re done, ladies and gentlemen, catering to Wall Street. We’ll commit to the working man.” Why? Because “Wall Street barons crashed the economy.” America, Vance said, needs “a leader who’s not in the pocket of big business, but answers to the working man, union and nonunion alike. A leader who won’t sell out to multinational corporations, but will stand up for American companies and American industry.”
I mean, if Canada’s NDP had a leader who talked like this, they might be showing some life in the polls.
Look: not being in the business of manufacturing political leaders, I offer no warranty. I’m well aware that Vance has, to say the least, stood for different things at different times during his short life, and if today he represents some “we” that is “done catering to Wall Street,” he should perhaps be reminded that he’s on a ticket with a man who, in office, did more catering to Wall Street than Katz’s Deli.
But there is, in some corners of U.S. Republicanism, a distinct and increasingly bold working-class discourse that (a) upsets many older conservatives; (b) should worry liberals who like to win elections; (c ) may yet make a difference in real governing choices. And what’s more significant for our purposes, it also echos a lot of what we’re hearing from Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives.