Pierre Poilievre has risen to the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada by lauding himself as a defender of the average Canadian. This supposed protector of the country’s working and middle classes has, however, routinely antagonized them and opposed their interests. Emily Leedham writes that his “recent rhetoric pandering to workers contradicts his long track record of attacking unions and dividing workers.” Poilievre, Leedham explains, has an extensive history of anti-union activity, blind nationalism, and fomenting conspiracy theories. The contradiction between his words and his actions is certainly not a new phenomenon in politics, but some wonder whether it is new to Canada. In his article “Does Canada Have its Trump?” Joel Mathis notes how Poilievre voted against same-sex marriage in Canada, but later spoke in favour of it. Poilievre’s contradiction is nothing new, and may be less unintentional than it seems. There is a long history of antagonism between the words and actions of fascist politicians, both those of our time and of the 20th century. Although Poilievre is not a fascist himself, his rhetoric remains closely aligned with the fascistic tradition of appealing to working class sensibilities while starkly opposing policies in line with proletarian interests.

Many have compared Pierre Poilievre to Donald Trump, as both are nationalist populists who seem to have garnered their greatest support among the working classes of their respective countries. There is an ongoing debate about the specifics of Trump’s ideology, of course, but William E. Connolly chooses to call him a “neo-fascist who pursues hyper-aggressive nationalism.” Connolly goes on to describe Trump as a “practitioner of a rhetorical style that regularly smears opponents to sustain the Big Lies he advances.” It is safe to say that Poilievre is not as outrageous as Trump or as domineering in his rhetorical style; but Trump is not the quintessential fascist, especially as there is no consensus as to his fascist tendencies. The debate over Trump’s ideology continues today, with J.R. McNeill saying that it bears some similarity, but is not identical, to those of the 20th century’s fascists. The same can be said of Poilievre, whose rhetoric is surprisingly similar, though also different, from that of Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini.

This may seem like a stretch, at first. However, to compare Poilievre to figures like Hitler and Mussolini and identify significant overlap in their rhetoric (and some of their policies) does not mean that they are the same. It does not mean, for example, that Poilievre intends to intern and impose genocide upon Canada’s Liberals, Indigenous peoples, and LGBTQ2S+ communities the way Hitler did to Europe’s Jews, communists, Roma, and others. But the similarities in their social and economic values, and in their rhetoric, certainly speaks to the character of the Conservative Party leader.

It has been well reported in Canada’s left-of-centre press that Poilievre has disingenuously been attempting to appeal to the country’s working class. One of his main rhetorical strategies is to lament Canada’s woes, propose half-baked solutions, and then act as though he has solved the problem. Inflation, one of the big issues facing Canadians today, has been a hot topic for the Conservative leader. During the inflationary crisis of the past year, Poilievre repeatedly spoke about how Canada ought to nail down this problem. He claimed to be speaking for the working and middle classes, which were suffering from this economic crisis; however, his solutions are anything but friendly to Canadian workers. Cuts to welfare and social services, though they might decrease inflation, would only shift the economic problems that Canadians have been facing to other areas. Although grocery prices might return to a lower baseline, vital public services would be fewer and more expensive.

Some have claimed that Poilievre’s rhetoric promotes an “anti-elite, anti-establishment angle.” This is as true of Poilievre as it was true of Hitler and Mussolini. The latter two fascists claimed to speak for the ordinary people of Germany and Italy, yet remained comfortably in bed with the bourgeoisies of their respective nations. We have all heard the (erroneous) cliché, “say what you will about Mussolini, but he made the trains run on time”—a phrase that remains popular in Italy today, according to Francesco Filippi, author of Mussolini Also Did a Lot of Good: The Spread of Historical Amnesia. In a similar vein, people may soon say of Poilievre, “say what you will, but he brought down inflation.” But at what cost? If health care is privatized, if the carbon tax is abolished, and if social services are defunded, then will the price of eggs truly make a difference to working Canadians? Poilievre claims to speak for the working class despite being in the pockets of the richest Canadians; as a result, his rhetoric contradicts his policies.

This contradiction is not accidental. Poilievre follows in a long right-wing tradition of intentionally appealing to the masses while actively working against them. The antagonism between his words and his actions is a purposeful lie. This is a political strategy traceable at least to Mussolini in the 1920s and adopted by Hitler later on. Hitler, of course, incorporated socialist rhetoric into the very name of his party: the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. Despite being the most rabid anti-communist, anti-Bolshevik, Russophobic figure in all of Europe, Hitler adopted proletarian language because it was popular among the masses. Despite standing against the interest of the masses, Hitler appealed to them with slogans and terms that aligned with those interests. Between the rhetorical styles of Hitler and Poilievre, there is little difference.

Although Hitler appealed to the German working class in his speeches, both before and after taking power, the Nazis’ labour policies were backbreaking. This has been noted in practically all left-wing literature since the Second World War dealing with the domestic policy of the Third Reich. Union busting, pay cuts, and even forced labour were all common under the Nazi regime. In practice, clearly Hitler was no “man of the people” and was not favourable toward the working class, despite what he claimed in his speeches. Ishay Landa has argued that fascism, contrary to popular belief, is not and has never been an “ideology of the masses.” The lie that existed between the words and the actions of the 20th century’s fascists was what allowed them to come to power. Co-option of socialist rhetoric and subsequent destruction of the livelihoods of the working class is a baseline fascist tactic.

Their use of socialist rhetoric and appeals to the working class were, of course, how fascist dictators won popularity before their autocratic rise to absolute power. Appealing to the woes of the nation is sure to generate votes; Poilievre, lacking the responsibility to make real change while his party occupies the parliamentary opposition benches, often speaks to these woes, despite the fact that he has no intention of fixing them, should he be elected. For example, he often rails against the high cost of housing in Canada. Although they blame the prime minister and promise a reversal of Canada’s untenable course, the Conservatives have failed to put forward a meaningful plan to fix the problem. Their party website claims that their approach will “increase homebuilding” and reward big cities that choose to do so, but more housing does not mean cheaper housing. According to recent data, Canada has about 1.3 million vacant homes and about 35,000 homeless individuals (according to a high-end estimate). One can be quite sure that Poilievre has no intention of housing any homeless or struggling Canadians in the many empty dwellings—but he sure will talk about the issue.

Sometimes, when speaking about issues such as inflation, Poilievre seems to understand that his proposed solutions are obvious shams. In such cases, he leans heavily on attacking his opponents rather than proposing deceptive solutions (yet another fascist-style tactic). Poilievre has rallied endlessly against Trudeau’s approach to inflation and other issues. And even as the prime minister is certainly deserving of criticism, Poilievre consistently takes the wrong approach. He recently tweeted criticism of Trudeau’s COVID-19 stimulus cheque policy, the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB), claiming these payments caused rampant inflation. Given that Poilievre’s proposed solutions to inflation are fictitious, he focuses his criticisms instead on his opponents and their policies, rather than developing real alternatives. Should unemployed Canadians not have been supported during the pandemic lockdowns? The convergence of Poilievre’s COVID denialism and anti-Liberal rhetoric creates an impasse of unanswerable questions. His talking points are as nonsensical as his policy is bare.

Hitler was notable for his dismissal of the intelligentsia and German academics; Poilievre seems to do the same, both with academics and scientists. He has been heavily criticized for supporting a small minority of Canadian conspiracy theorists who spout denialist lies about COVID-19 and vaccine effects. Although only a small minority of Canadians believe such things, in defending conspiracies Poilievre constructs an image of himself as anti-establishment and pro-free speech. Rather than come across as deranged, Poilievre has been able to present himself as rational by employing fascistic rhetorical techniques.

It is worth repeating: I do not believe Pierre Poilievre is a fascist. He is certainly a capitalist. He holds an atypical (though increasingly common) mixture of neoliberal and populist beliefs, as did Trump and former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, most of which can be described as divisive. But Poilievre does not appear to hold most of the beliefs that would qualify someone as a fascist. Experts on fascism, such as Michael Joseph Roberto (author of The Coming of the American Behemoth) and Richard Wyn Jones (author of The Fascist Party in Wales?), argue that to be classified as a fascist, an organization or individual must sincerely hold at least some of the beliefs typical of 20th century Euro-fascism: racism, antisemitism, right-wing nationalism, misogyny, expansionism, and so on. Poilievre’s connection to fascism as explored here is a factor of his rhetoric, not his policies or beliefs (though he does share some beliefs in common with many fascists, such as his anti-drug approach).

Put simply, Poilievre talks like a fascist and uses this approach to attempt to garner broad-based working class support, as many fascist politicians have done in the past. His ability to communicate his message, and his adoption and subsequent distortion of socialist concepts are the same tactics as those used by the 20th century’s most notorious fascist leaders. Should Poilievre ascend to prime ministership of Canada, the country will probably not descend into fascism. But it does seem likely to me that it will result in a potentially large-scale dismantling of our social and welfare institutions, ultimately hurting the working class of this country a great deal, despite Poilievre’s seductive campaign trail promises.

Nolan Long is an undergraduate student in political studies at the University of Saskatchewan.