Heres why no Western conservative can replicate Donald Trump
The current US president is a unique product of Americas political disfunction, and attempts to mimic him are foolish
Australia's Labor government was returned to office at last Saturday's federal election in a landslide win.
Labor now holds 90 seats in the House of Representatives to the opposition's 40, inflicting a devastating defeat on the conservatives. The opposition leader, Peter Dutton, a keen admirer of Donald Trump, lost his seat.
The conservative opposition in Australia has now been reduced to political irrelevancy in its present form, and - consumed by bitter infighting and recriminations - is destined to disappear as a major political force in the next few years.
Earlier last week the centrist Liberal party in Canada won a federal election, defeating the Conservative party, which had been 25 points ahead in the polls earlier in the year. The Canadian Conservative party leader, Pierre Poilievre - once touted as "Canada's Donald Trump" - also lost his seat.
Last Thursday, in UK local council elections, the British Conservative party suffered a catastrophic defeat at the hands of Nigel Farage's populist Reform party - losing control of a raft of local councils and mayoralties.
Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative leader, is an enthusiastic fan of Donald Trump. She once praised him for being "a force for good in the world" and demanded that the Labour Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary apologise to Trump for daring to have criticised him.
Badenoch is certain to face a leadership challenge in the near future and will be deposed as the conservative leader. The UK Conservative party, just like the conservative coalition in Australia, is destined for political oblivion. So dire is the party's predicament that Robert Jenrick, Badenoch's likely replacement as leader, recently called for it to form a coalition with the Reform party.
These three election results make clear that conservative parties in the West that seek to imitate Trump derive no benefit from doing so - and that mimicking Trump only hastens their imminent political demise.
It is true that Canada is a special case. Trump's absurd threat to make Canada America's "51st state" - a ham-fisted attack on Canadian sovereignty - together with his recent imposition of crippling tariffs made a Liberal election victory virtually inevitable. Canadians have always been particularly sensitive to threats of domination from America.
It is also true that Trump's misguided tariff policy - that threatened the globalist economic order, until the global financial system swiftly compelled him to reverse it - caused his popularity within almost all Western nations, such as it was, to decline overnight.
Why then have conservative leaders in the West nevertheless continued to flirt with Trumpism despite the negative electoral consequences for them?
Conservative leaders clearly believe that by imitating Trump they can duplicate his political "success."
That belief, however, is delusional in the extreme - because the circumstances that created a creature like Trump are qualitatively different from the situation in which conservative leaders in the West are constrained to function.
No mainstream politician in the West could behave as Trump does and seriously expect to be elected prime minister. Nor could a prime minister who refused to accept the result of an election, fomented a violent attack on a sitting parliament, flagrantly disregarded the rule of law, or jailed judges that handed down decisions adverse to him hope to remain in office.
Trump is not a politician at all - despite twice being elected president. Trump is a grotesque populist disrupter, a bizarre product of America's unique political system and its debauched popular celebrity culture.
Conservative leaders ignore the fact that Trump is a president - not a prime minister. Trump does not sit in Congress, and he is not accountable to parliament in the same way that a prime minister or leader of the opposition is.
Furthermore, as president, Trump has executive powers far beyond those exercised by any prime minister. Since being elected last year, Trump has governed by means of executive orders - a quasi-dictatorial political device that has no counterpart in most Western democracies.
Conservative leaders also fail to appreciate the fact that Trump has taken over the Republican party and purged it of ideological divisions.
The Republican party - like all traditional conservative parties - had, prior to Trump's capture of it, always been made up of ideologically opposed factions. When Trump took over the party in 2016 he drove out all the old Reagan and Bush conservatives and brutally imposed ideological unity on the party - hence the sad fate of Liz Cheney and other remnants of the older Republican elites.
Trump has transformed the Republican party into his own personal fiefdom - and this allows him to behave in the disruptive and crude manner in which he has during both of his crisis-ridden presidencies.
No other traditional conservative party in the West is as ideologically unified as Trump's Republican party. In fact, they are all bitterly and deeply ideologically divided. That is why no conservative leader can adopt a fully-fledged Trump agenda - because it would alienate a significant portion of their own parties.
Conservative leaders also fail to appreciate that Trump's Republican party is no longer a conservative party at all - it is a populist party committed to a populist agenda.
Conservative leaders, for all of the above reasons, are in a very different position from Trump.
Nevertheless, they seek to emulate Trump because they are desperate to differentiate themselves from their social democratic political opponents with which - as many voters well know - they are actually in basic ideological and policy agreement.
They also hope that flirting with Trump will help them to ward off the increasingly potent threat from emerging populist parties to their right and shore up their waning electoral support.
This misguided gambit, however, has recently become a losing game for conservative leaders because disaffected voters in the West understandably now seek a genuine ideological alternative to both major parties. These voters - they make up 30% of the electorate and their numbers are increasing - don't want Trump lite, they want the real thing.
Peter Dutton, like Badenoch and Poilievre, has foolishly flirted with Trumpism since becoming the conservative opposition leader three years ago - and his demise neatly illustrates the futility of a conservative leader attempting to turn himself into a Trump clone.
Dutton - urged on by right-wing commentators employed by the Murdoch press, Sky News and the Spectator, as well as his close friend and outspoken Trump enthusiast billionaire Gina Rinehart - eagerly welcomed Trump's election as president last year.
So deranged are Rinehart and segments of the Murdoch media that - even after Saturday's catastrophic election loss - they are still urging what is left of the conservative coalition to become more Trump-like.
Earlier this year, Dutton acquiesced to calls by Trump's lickspittle supporters in his own party and the Murdoch media to recall Australia's ambassador to the US, former Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, because he had the audacity to criticise Trump during his first presidency.
Dutton enthusiastically mimicked Trump's "toughness" towards China and his support for the Netanyahu regime's atrocities in Gaza. When Trump announced his ludicrous and inhumane plan to turn Gaza into a Middle Eastern version of the Riviera, Dutton sycophantically hailed him as "a big thinker" and "shrewd."
Then, just as the election campaign began, Trump imposed his draconian tariffs, thereby endangering the entire globalist economic order, and the Australian stock market crashed.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese rightly protested and criticised Trump for this - but all Dutton did was to suggest that Albanese's attempt to protect Australia's economic interests and was not "tough" enough.
Interestingly, the populist Nigel Farage, who is a close personal friend of Trump and who has campaigned for him, was far more critical of Trump on the tariff issue than Dutton was. Farage even compared Trump to Liz Truss - surely the ultimate political insult. Farage, unlike Dutton, knows that the only way to deal effectively with Trump is to stand up to him. The newly elected Canadian prime minister, Mark Carney, did precisely this at his meeting with Trump this week.
Trump has never been popular with mainstream voters in Australia, and his popularity plummeted after the tariff debacle.
Dutton, however, persisted with his ill-advised Trump flirtation, foolishly following the advice of conservative commentators who urged him to become even more Trump-like. One commentator penned an article early last week stating that Trump had not caused the Conservative party to lose the Canadian election. Perhaps Dutton believed such nonsense.
Dutton staunchly defended one of his shadow cabinet - to whom he had allocated the DOGE-like task of weeding out public service inefficiency - when she was photographed wearing a MAGA cap during the final stages of the election campaign.
And early last week Dutton urged voters to pay no attention to the ABC and The Guardian - which he described, in Trumpian terms, as "the hate media."
Then - just two days before election day - it was revealed that Trump's campaign co-manager, Chris LaCivita, had made a secret trip to Australia two weeks previously to give Dutton election advice. This suggests that Dutton's infatuation with Trump may have been much more intense than previously thought - and the fact that Dutton kept the visit secret speaks for itself.
Dutton could mimic Trump all he liked, but the one thing that he could not do, as a conservative party leader, was adopt a fully-fledged Trumpian agenda that distinguished him from the Labor government. Thus he alienated mainstream voters - while at the same time being unable to attract the votes of those disaffected voters who were seeking a genuine populist alternative to both major parties.
These voters reacted by overwhelmingly voting for the safe and unthreatening Albanese government - that had never cravenly ceded Australia's autonomy to Trump as had Dutton - in unprecedented and unexpected numbers.
And, on Monday, to add insult to injury, in an interview Donald Trump said "I am very friendly with Albanese. I have no idea who the other fellow who ran against him is." In similar fashion, Trump treated Mark Carney with respect when he met with him this week at the White House. Trump may use sycophants, but he only respects winners.
Dutton did not lose last week's election just because of his imprudent mimicking of Donald Trump - but his aping of Trump was indicative of a fundamental lack of political judgment that led to his calamitous electoral defeat.
Donald Trump has exerted a toxic influence on conservative politicians in the West for almost a decade, and will no doubt continue to do so - because conservatism's pathetic and increasingly desperate embrace of Trump is a symptom of its political irrelevance and its ideological bankruptcy.
(RT.com)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Montreal Gazette
26 minutes ago
- Montreal Gazette
Hanes: It seems the courts can only do so much to protect English institutions from overreach
By Shock waves rippled across the globe last month when U.S. President Donald Trump slapped a ban on international students at Harvard University, part of his escalating war against America's oldest institution of higher learning. Harvard fought back and the courts granted a reprieve to 6,700 international students attending one of the world's most prestigious universities, including 700 Canadians. But it's clear Trump has it out for Harvard in particular as he seeks to remould American universities to prevent them from spreading supposedly 'woke,' leftist ideology and challenging his administration's undercutting of democracy. He has withdrawn billions in grants and research funding, arrested international students or revoked their visas, threatened universities' tax status, and interfered with diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. It's a terrifying blow to academic freedom — an attack intended to weaken a powerful institution, driven by political motives and petty resentments. Closer to home, it's hard not to notice parallels with how Premier François Legault has been treating Quebec's English universities. His efforts to hobble them started well before Trump returned to office and his methods are more subtle. But some of the consequences are similar. In 2023, his government without warning announced the doubling of tuition for out-of-province students, a move disproportionately affecting McGill, Concordia and Bishop's universities. While the amount was eventually lowered to 33 per cent and Bishop's got a partial exemption, English schools were later told they had to ensure 80 per cent of their graduates attain an intermediate level of French to graduate. The government also said it would claw back a portion of international student tuition from English universities and redistribute it to francophone institutions. The stated objective of these punitive measures was to protect French. Government ministers blamed English-speaking university students from other provinces for anglicizing downtown Montreal while also lamenting they leave Quebec after they come here to study, instead of integrating and paying taxes. The fee increase seemed intended to make students from the rest of Canada feel unwelcome — and knock the English schools, McGill in particular, down a few pegs. Business leaders, most French university rectors, Montreal Mayor Valérie Plante, academics, student groups and an advisory committee reporting to Higher Education Minister Pascale Déry all denounced the tuition hike, warning it would hurt the economy, academia, scientific research and the vitality of the higher education ecosystem. It went ahead anyway. McGill and Concordia launched a legal challenge while their revenues, recruitment and reputations suffered. In April, Quebec Superior Court overturned the tuition fee increase and the onerous French requirements for out-of-province students, calling them 'unreasonable.' This week, Déry's office announced the Quebec government won't appeal the judgment that used words like 'unfounded,' 'fuzzy,' 'erroneous' and 'incoherence' to describe the factual basis (or lack thereof) justifying the manoeuvres. Yet instead of emerging chastened, the Legault government has been emboldened. Déry's office confirmed she intends to double down on the tuition increase while also emphasizing that Quebec is under no obligation to guarantee students from outside the province access to its universities. Time will tell what the latter chilling statement really means. But in the current context, it sounds ominous for McGill and Concordia. What looked like a partial win may end up amounting to pyrrhic victory. Or maybe more like Groundhog Day. The Legault government may simply plan to go back to the drawing board to figure out how to do what it intended in the first place, this time in a way that passes legal muster. It's making a generous interpretation of the judgment — taking it as constructive criticism rather than a stern rebuke. Quebec Superior Court Justice Éric Dufour struck down the tuition hike and French requirements, but he mainly found fault with 'poverty of evidence' and contradictory arguments for failing the test of 'reasonableness.' 'It's true that discretionary power warrants a lot of room to manoeuvre and that the court must grant the minister all the latitude to act. Restraint is required when it comes to decisions based on political choices,' Dufour wrote. 'But as important as discretion is, the minister must nevertheless demonstrate that it's being exercised in a reasonable manner, that's to say in this instance, with respect to existent and founded facts.' It's a ruling largely based on administrative principles. The judge steered clear of bigger questions pertaining to rights that were raised in the case because the technical flaws made them moot to the ultimate outcome. These include McGill's argument that the tuition hike for students from other provinces violated its equality rights on the basis of language. Since the judge left these matters unanswered, perhaps this will give the universities recourse in the future. Because the fight seems destined to continue with a government that has a track record of trying to diminish English institutions, be they school boards, colleges, hospitals or universities. The battle may even ramp up if the government looks to meddle in the composition of the student bodies. All Quebec universities are reeling from a drop in enrolment from international students because of changes to both federal and provincial policy. Their higher tuition helps make up for government underfunding and is essential to conducting scientific research. The crackdown on international students may be part of a Canada-wide plan to rein in the surging number of temporary immigrants, which has contributed to the housing crisis. But in Quebec, it's also part of a broader effort to reduce immigration for the purposes of protecting the French language and culture. Legault has made it no secret that he considers anglophone students from the rest of Canada a threat to French, too. The use of the word 'access' by Déry's office with regards to students from other provinces suggests a toughening of Quebec's stand and a sharpening of previous complaints about Quebecers having to 'subsidize' the education of young people from the rest of Canada. This portends ill for McGill and Concordia's efforts to attract the best and the brightest, since many of their students come from elsewhere in the country. It appears the courts can only do so much to protect English institutions from political leaders who read encouragement into rulings that should leave them embarrassed, and who have no qualms about trampling constitutional rights to achieve their aims, invoking the notwithstanding clause to shield laws that otherwise would be struck down. It gives new meaning to the slogan on the novelty T-shirts often sold near the Roddick Gates during frosh week: 'Harvard: America's McGill.'
28 minutes ago
Carney facing some Liberal pushback over Modi's invitation to G7 summit
Prime Minister Mark Carney is facing some pushback from his caucus over Canada's decision to invite the Indian prime minister to the G7 meeting in Alberta next week, with one Sikh MP saying it's a bad idea. B.C. MP Sukh Dhaliwal told reporters he met with Carney early Wednesday to express what he says are constituents' frustrations with the decision to include Narendra Modi. Canadian police have alleged Indian agents were involved in the killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar (new window) , the Canadian Khalistani separatist who was gunned down in B.C. in 2023. Nijjar and others in that movement have been calling for an independent Sikh homeland in northern India called Khalistan, which Modi's government has vigorously opposed and denounced as a national security threat. The RCMP has clearly stated there's credible evidence Indian agents were involved in the assassination of a Canadian citizen on Canadian soil, Dhaliwal said of Nijjar. It's a bad idea to include Modi in this high-profile get-together, he said. WATCH | Modi coming is a 'bad idea,' Dhaliwal says: Début du widget Widget. Passer le widget ? Fin du widget Widget. Retourner au début du widget ? Liberal MP says Modi coming to Canada is 'a bad idea' Speaking to reporters in Ottawa, B.C. Liberal MP Sukh Dhaliwal said he met with Prime Minister Mark Carney Wednesday morning to express concerns he says his constituents have with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi being invited to the upcoming G7 summit in Alberta. Dhaliwal said Carney is alarmed by the Nijjar case and taking seriously what would be an egregious violation of Canadian sovereignty. Canada expelled some Indian diplomats (new window) after the allegations were made public. A police investigation into alleged Indian involvement is ongoing but the government has already said there are linkages between the four Indian nationals arrested and charged (new window) with Nijjar's murder and the Indian government. Dhaliwal said Carney is very strong on the issue and will represent Sikh concerns about Indian interference and transnational crime when speaking to Modi. I'm saying it's not a good idea, but now he's invited. We have to move forward, he said. 'Our government needs to take a firm stand' Another Liberal B.C. MP, Gurbux Saini, said his voters are concerned. What is happening is wrong and our government needs to take a firm stand, he said of India's alleged actions. Beyond the Nijjar killing, the Foreign Interference Commission's final report (new window) also identified India as a top meddler in Canadian affairs. The commission reviewed intelligence suggesting Indian-aligned proxies may have clandestinely provided financial support to various Canadian politicians to try and get more pro-Indian candidates elected. The report also found that India has used disinformation to further its goals in Canada. Liberal MP Karina Gould, a past cabinet minister and leadership contender, said human rights should be on the agenda when Carney meets with Modi and if another controversial G7 invitee, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (new window) , also decides to attend. Bin Salman has been tied to the killing of Saudi dissident and journalist Jamal Khashoggi. I understand why they were invited. Part of diplomacy is having these conversations — you don't shut the door to them, Gould said. But we're also standing up for values that are important to Canadians. WATCH | MPs asked about India, Saudi Arabia invites : Début du widget Widget. Passer le widget ? Fin du widget Widget. Retourner au début du widget ? Liberal MPs asked about Carney inviting India, Saudi Arabia to G7 in Canada Liberal MPs Yasir Naqvi, Ahmed Hussen, Rob Oliphant and Yvan Baker were asked Wednesday to share their thoughts on Prime Minister Mark Carney inviting Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia to attend the upcoming G7 summit in Alberta. The Modi invite is a sign Carney may be looking to reset relations with India after a particularly fractious period under the last Liberal government, said Fen Hampson, a professor of international affairs at Carleton University. It's sending a positive signal to the Indians that the Carney government wants to begin to turn the page on some of the frictions we saw during the Trudeau government and the difficulties they had with India, Hampson said in an interview with CBC News. And there are signs India may be open to a rapprochement because Modi accepted the invitation immediately, Hampson said, unlike Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum who took days to consider whether to go or not (new window) . India is the world's fifth-largest economy, a major regional actor in the Indo-Pacific and an increasingly important player on the global stage, and bringing Modi here for the G7 is a way for Carney to signal he's taking Canada's foreign policy in a different direction, Hampson said. The fact that this is a multilateral gathering that we're hosting does give the prime minister some cover when it comes to domestic critics who feel Modi shouldn't be invited. It would be very different if it was an invitation for a bilateral heads of government meeting in Ottawa. At least this can be done under the cloak of the G7, he said. The push to diversify the economy is why other Liberal MPs were deferential to Carney and his decision to include Modi. Canada is facing an economic crisis with U.S. relations at a low point, International Trade Minister Maninder Sidhu said, and Canada needs to collaborate and work out some of the issues with India. I think the G7 is an important avenue for the prime minister to discuss some economic collaboration, Sidhu said. MP Yasir Naqvi, the parliamentary secretary to Sidhu, said there's no excuse for the very serious allegations around extrajudicial killings, but the Carney and Modi face-to-face is a chance for Canada to demand India's co-operation with the ongoing Canadian police investigation and to engage on the larger issue. This only happens if there's a relationship between our governments, Naqvi said. WATCH | Conservative leader on Modi's invitation: Début du widget Widget. Passer le widget ? Fin du widget Widget. Retourner au début du widget ? Poilievre says Modi's G7 invitation was 'necessary' 5 days agoDuration0:55'We need to work with India,' Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, said when asked if it's appropriate for the Indian prime minister to come to Canada, as his government's role in a B.C. killing is investigated. And, as Carney looks to lessen Canada's dependence on the U.S., there are opportunities for Canadian businesses in India, Naqvi said. Canada is trying to open the door on relationships and say, 'We need to diversify our trade vastly,' added MP Rob Oliphant, the parliamentary secretary to the minister of foreign affairs. The message to the world is Canada is a vibrant trading partner. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre said earlier this week that India is one of the biggest and fastest-growing economies in the world. India is a promising potential market for Canadian liquefied natural gas and nuclear power technology, among other products, Poilievre said, and that sort of trade depends on improving relations. We need to work with India … on trade and security, he said. The invitation is necessary. WATCH | NDP MP slams invitations : Début du widget Widget. Passer le widget ? Fin du widget Widget. Retourner au début du widget ? Modi's invitation to Canada 'deeply alarming,' says NDP MP NDP MP Heather McPherson joined colleagues on Parliament Hill to object to some of the foreign leaders invited to the G7 summit in Alberta, including Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, over his country's alleged links to the 2023 killing of B.C. Sikh leader Hardeep Singh Nijjar. Meanwhile, NDP MP Heather McPherson said Modi's inclusion is deeply alarming. This government has consistently and very clearly chosen profits and the economy over human rights, over people, she said. Profit over people. That's their mantra. John Paul Tasker (new window) · CBC News
Winnipeg Free Press
29 minutes ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
City of Burnaby, B.C., to apologize to Chinese-Canadians for past discrimination
BURNABY – A formal apology is being planned by the City of Burnaby, B.C., for its role in discrimination toward people of Chinese descent who lived and worked in the city between 1892 and 1947. The city says in a news release that the decision was made after a community consultation process that included surveys, dialogue sessions, focus groups and individual interviews. A report by the Community Heritage Commission, which advises council on the city's heritage program, says discriminatory bylaws, trades licenses, and labour regulations were enacted against the Chinese population during that time. The city says the findings 'underscored the importance of the city acknowledging the hardships faced by early Chinese settlers and the lasting impact of historical discrimination.' It noted that more than one-third of Burnaby's current residents are of Chinese descent, including new immigrants as well as fourth- or fifth-generation Chinese Canadians who have deep roots there. The city has scheduled an event for the formal apology on Nov. 15, joining the provincial and federal governments and two other B.C. cities — Vancouver and New Westminster — that have already apologized for discriminatory practices against the community. The Prime Minister of Canada formally apologized in the House of Commons in 2006 for policies including charging a head tax for the Chinese to immigrate. The B.C. government apologized in 2015 for 160 historically racist laws, regulations, and policies that were imposed by past provincial governments that discriminated against people of Chinese descent. The City of New Westminster issued its formal apology in 2010 and the City of Vancouver said it was sorry in April 2018. Burnaby's news release says that in addition to making its own formal apology, it is also committed to increasing the visibility of Chinese-Canadian history, facilitating cultural activities and reducing barriers for inclusion. 'While we cannot right the historic wrongs that were committed in Burnaby, this process has outlined a path toward ensuring Burnaby is a place that is inclusive and welcoming to everyone,' Burnaby Mayor Mike Hurley said in the release issued Wednesday. This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 11, 2025.
