Until the last few years, I have always viewed the Conservative Party of Canada as a viable political choice. Not my choice, to be sure, but a choice—not a threat. Well, not anymore.
I’ve spent the past 2 years writing about my antipathy towards the modern-day Conservatives. I’ve done it since Pierre Poilievre became visible as a wannabe leader. I’ve done it because I watched his boorish style, his lack of platform, his nastiness, his disdain for the press and his resemblance to Trump evolve.
I truly feel most Canadians will suffer under a Poilievre-led Conservative government.
Evil doesn’t always arrive in dramatic fashion with violence, chaos, or fire. More often, evil comes dressed in a suit, smiling for the camera, repeating slogans designed to sound like hope.
In 2025, we need to understand evil in political terms—not as a religious concept involving a “devil”, but as a pattern of behaviour rooted in deception, cruelty, and self-interest. This kind of evil prioritizes profit over people. It seeks to divide, manipulate, and extract as much of our money, labour and attention as possible from us while giving little or nothing back.
At the root of political evil are two forces – always: power and money. They’re not separate—they feed each other. Power gives access to wealth, and wealth buys more power. This cycle drives much of what’s wrong in our politics today. Evil policies aren’t made with the public in mind—they’re made to protect influence and money, reward supporters, and maintain control.
Power and money can be effective tools for accomplishing good. With them we can educate, feed, and shelter people, protect the environment and build strong communities that lift everyone up—not just the privileged few.
However, when power and money become the goal instead of the tool, something shifts, and we must take heed. When leaders stop asking what’s right for their citizens and start asking what’s better for their own interests, they stop being “leaders” and become predators.
Predators need your cooperation and will say whatever they need to win it. They divide people to stay on top. They build political, legal and corporate systems that benefit the wealthy few and sell empty promises of “freedom” to the masses.
What’s wrong with them isn’t just selfishness—it’s an emptiness that can never be filled. Compassion is foreign to them. Empathy is a weakness. They measure success not by how many lives they’ve improved but by how many people they’ve defeated. They surround themselves with enablers and silence anyone who challenges them. They don’t want to serve—they want to rule. And when someone like them gains power, their lunacy poisons the whole system.
Enter Donald Trump, Pierre Poilievre—and others like them.
These men are not anomalies. They are symptoms of economic and political immorality that worships wealth, rewards greed, treats ethics as optional, and elevates those willing to lie, divide, and exploit. They thrive not in spite of their cruelty but because of it. We used to say that men like these had “sold their souls to the devil”.
Trump rose to power on a platform of mockery and cruelty. He called immigrants rapists, ridiculed veterans, bragged about sexual assault, and still won millions of votes. He didn’t just lie—he reshaped the truth itself into something optional. He turned democracy into theatre, and millions bought a ticket. He’s not an outsider fighting the system—he is the system, amplified and stripped of shame.
Similarly, Pierre Poilievre brands himself as a “common-sense” everyman while defending policies that benefit the wealthy. Like Trump, he attacks journalists, public institutions, and anyone who opposes corporate interests. He fuels anger, stokes division, and offers no meaningful solutions—just slogans. Like Trump, he knows that fear is easier to sell than hope and that cruelty gets more attention than compassion.
Both men pretend to be champions of freedom, but the only freedom they protect is the freedom of the powerful to exploit and act without limits.
Both brand themselves as “common sense” men. Regular guys, just like you and me. Men who wear rolled-up sleeves, eat fast food and act like they’re just as fed up with the system as everyone else. But it’s all performance.
Trump, a billionaire with a golden toilet, convinced millions that he was an outsider. Poilievre, a career politician who has spent all of his adult life in Parliament, casts himself as a political rebel. If you take a moment to think this through, it’s almost laughable.
Like Trump, Poilievre has mastered the use of “enemies”—not real ones like oil executives, tax-dodging billionaires, or corporate landlords, but shadowy made-up ones. He speaks with disdain about “woke elites,” “gatekeepers,” and “the media,” knowing these terms are vague enough to mean whatever his audience wants them to mean, but always these enemies are pointing attention away from himself and those truly in power.
Both men understand that people are exhausted—by rising costs, damaged systems, and feeling ignored by those in charge. So they channel that exhaustion into anger and direct it at the most vulnerable: immigrants, trans people, public servants, educators, the poor, and anyone who dares to speak up for equity or compassion. They promise to tear down institutions but never mention the ones that guard wealth and privilege. They speak endlessly of “freedom” but never defend the things that actually make us free—like housing, healthcare, education, or clean air.
We are witnessing the politics of cruelty become mainstream, and it’s frightening. We are watching people cheer for their own disempowerment because it’s packaged as “freedom” and blamed on someone else. We are following the rise of a movement that doesn’t want to fix what’s broken—it wants to break what still works because what still works stands in the way of more profit, more control, and fewer limits on those at the top.
We’ve seen this before. We know where it leads.
Canada is not immune. Our systems are not unshakable. And if we ignore the warnings—if we convince ourselves that it can’t happen here—we will live to regret it.
Evil doesn’t always look like a monster. Sometimes it looks like a man in a blue suit, speaking calmly into a microphone, telling you he’s just like you.
He isn’t.
And if we give him power, we won’t be able to claim we didn’t see it coming.
About the Author
I
What you describe is the Liberal government we are currently suffering under. I guess you’ve turned a deaf ear to the groanings of our citizens. The hopelessness of our young people and the daily struggles of families to have a home and still eat. I saw a senior buying a can of dog food. He saw me coming down the grocery aisle in his direction and he held up the can and said it made good sandwiches. I was shocked and I asked if he was serious. He said “yes” and I watched as he paid and left the store with his lunch in his hand. This is what the LIBERAL government has reduced us to. Now they, and sounds like you, want us to buy into the BS again and hand the reins of Canada to a rich, elitist BANKER with virtually no political experience who has been endorsed by Trump. Yes, Trump felt he would fare better with a “Liberal.” He also said the Conservative guy is, and I quote,
“no friend of mine”.
It appears he would rather Carney. Why? Could it be because Carney moved his investment company and 4000 jobs to Trump Town (NYC)?
But you think Poilievre is the evil one? Hahaha.
I guess you’ve never heard of reverse pshychology?
As for your guy, I think he was pulling your leg. Wet dog food is expensive. For half the price, you could get a huge can of beans or a pack of hot dogs, much higher in protein. For the same price, you could get a box of protein bars. I call bullshit.
Excellent article! We need this kind of “calling it as it is journalism” to keep us on our toes in the coming election, especially in light of the huge misinformation campaigns out there.
This is a legitimate opinion piece and if it invites well thought out and respectful rebuttal we should all be thankful that this is democracy at work.
It’s been puzzling to me how so many people could be supporting a mean spirited, divisive, career politician like PP who has no solutions for dealing with many of our legitimate social difficulties but whips up emotions with put downs and easy slogans.
Thanks Susan, I think what we see is a very well funded and co-ordinated campaign of mis/disinformation with the result being that people don’t know what’s going on. Part of the point of disinformation is not just to lie, but to pump so much “info” out there that people are exhausted and bewildered. Take care – Louise
Hello Anne,
I’ve never turned a deaf ear to the groanings of our citizens. Our cost of living crisis is a global phenomenon and that has less to do with the Liberal party and more to do with corporate greed. I’m completely aware of how much “quality of life” corporate greed has stolen from Canadians (and indeed, citizens globally). If it was up to me, I would install a socialist system (NDP and GREEN Parties) that outlawed billionaires, taxed the rich according to their wealth, fixed all tax loopholes and spread the wealth and opportunity to all Canadians. Yes, Carney is a banker – with enormous experience – as compared to Poilievre who is a lifelong back-bencher career politician.
If you spent a bit of time looking at Trump’s stance on Poilievre, you will see that he (and all of his supporters) has endorsed Poilievre many times and has said that they are more aligned than he would have been with Trudeau (or any liberal). Trump is changing his public stance because he knows it will hurt Poilievre.
As for Brookfield – read more: https://r.pebmac.ca/https://r.pebmac.ca/https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/business/politics/2025/02/26/brookfields-move-from-toronto-becomes-flashpoint-for-carney-in-political-race/
Brookfield Asset Management’s decision to shift its head office from Toronto to New York did not result in the loss of 4,000 Canadian jobs. The move was mostly an administrative change aimed at enhancing the company’s inclusion in the U.S. stock market. Its Canadian operations were largely unaffected by this relocation. So I don’t know where you read this bit about 4,000 jobs lost but it’s not true.
So do I think Carney is “evil”? No. He’s a capitalist as is Pierre Poilievre. The difference is that Libs support a social safety net and the Cons don’t.
If you are a Trump supporter, by all means: vote Conservative.
It’s always the same garbage with you Louise. I wholeheartedly agree with Anne.
Everything you mention in your “article” is exactly what the liberals have done to
our country and to our citizens except the rich and privileged. I don’t have to read
you column, but every once and a while I have to just to see what new piece of
twisted logic you will come up with. You are like an accident. We just have to look.
I thought the Seeker had turned down the rhetoric on your type of “journalism”
but apparently not.
To the Man Who Can’t Look Away
You say you can’t stand my writing, but you keep coming back for more. According to you, I’m like an accident—“too awful to ignore.” Honestly, it’s fascinating how someone so deeply offended by my words continues to make a point of reading them. If I’m such a disaster, what does that make someone who can’t stop showing up to watch?
You accuse me of Liberal bias, but let me clarify something you seem unwilling—or unable—to grasp: I critique systems that benefit the rich and powerful at the expense of everyday people. That includes policies put forward by both the Conservatives and the Liberals. I’m calling out a political and economic structure (rampant capitalism) that fails most of us, regardless of the branding. The main difference is that the Liberals support a public safety net while the Conservatives do not. The Liberals also acknowledge global warming (but so far have not done enough) while the Conservatives would like to sweep it under the rug as it interferes with actual and potential profits. These and many other differences are why I spend so much more time on the Conservatives.
Your hero, Pierre Poilievre, is not some working-class champion. He’s a nasty career politician who packages populist soundbites as solutions while standing on the same foundation of privilege and corporate favouritism as the rest of them. If you’re angry at inequality, fine—but maybe aim your anger at the system, not at the people calling it out.
And as for your condescending remarks about The Seeker publishing me—let me explain something: they don’t run my columns because they agree with every word. They publish me because I speak plainly, ask hard questions, and don’t shy away from uncomfortable truths. That kind of journalism clearly rattles you.
You’re entitled to disagree with me. You’re even entitled to dislike me. But lets stop pretending your insults are meaningful contributions. If you really had something to say, you’d say it without the cheap shots.
Until then, thanks for the clicks.
Louise