"Othering" people carries a huge risk. So why is this political party still doing it?

Beware wannabe leaders who seek to turn the concept of ‘us’ into their power.

Justin Trudeau’s uncharacteristically subdued exit as Prime Minister of Canada on Friday stood in stark contrast to his gratuitously ostentatious entry to the role almost a decade ago. Leaving with little fanfare or written plaudits - for those of us who’ve observed Trudeau closely throughout his tenure - his departure felt eerily muted. Photographer Adam Scotti’s final photo carousel of Trudeau’s tenure, particularly the nearly greyscale image of him staring into an empty cupboard, perfectly encapsulated the odd feel of the juxtaposition between the finish of his political career from it’s start.

But while last week saw few articles that dissected Trudeau’s impact on Canada and its political discourse, one aspect of that legacy has already been embraced by his successor, Mark Carney. On Friday, his first day as Prime Minister, Carney publicly adopted one of Trudeau's signature tactics: the use of "othering" as a core political tactic.

Trudeau will undoubtedly be remembered by political analysts for making "scapegoating" the cornerstone of his political communications strategy. A closer look at his speeches and responses over the years reveals that he rarely - if ever - failed to attribute blame for the issue of the day to some other group, whether to deflect attention from his own failures or rally support for the Liberal Party. This strategy didn’t simply attack an opponent’s personal flaws or policies. Rather, it was about casting entire groups of people as morally deficient for daring to question whatever status quo that the Liberals sought to enforce. This approach mirrors Hillary Clinton’s infamous "Basket of Deplorables" comment, which she attributed to having a role in her 2016 defeat.

So it came as a surprise when Mark Carney, who by all accounts should be trying to distance himself from his role in the Trudeau administration, not only adopted this style of divisive rhetoric but leaned into it on his first day in office. His maiden speech featured the looming threat of a new, faceless foe - "negativity" in Canadian politics. The thinly veiled implication, of course, was that anyone questioning the Liberal Party’s vision was somehow an enemy of optimism or traitor to the Canadian cause.

As Carney delivered this remark in a tone reminiscent of Trudeau’s trademark condescending style, it was as if he had been possessed by his predecessor’s ghost. Later that day, Carney's cabinet was trotted out to echo the same message across social media, further cementing his willingness to embrace team Trudeau’s stinking bag of political tricks.

There’s no mystery as to why the Trudeau-cum-Carney team chose to employ this othering strategy in Carney’s maiden speech—it’s been their go-to move for years. Examples abound. In 2018, Trudeau called a woman racist after she questioned his policy on illegal immigration at Roxham Road in Quebec, and allowed Canada’s political left to label similar well-justified concerns as far-right extremism. During the 2021 general election, Trudeau called vaccine-hesitant individuals extremists, misogynists, and racists. Critics of the Liberal carbon tax were often labeled by the party as climate deniers. Similarly, the Liberals frequently used the term harmful misinformation peddlers to describe groups of people who blew the whistle on their scandals. They did this to individuals too - when former Liberal Justice Minister Jody Wilson Raybould spoke out about the SNC Lavalin scandal, the Liberals launched a brutal whisper campaign to undermine her credibility by attempting to falsely frame her out as a difficult to work with poop disturber who was more focused on herself as opposed to the nation’s well being.

Rooted in social identity theory, the Liberal’s scapegoating approach has bought them some modicum of ill-begotten political gains. The Liberals used this tactic to attempt to cultivate a sense of belonging among their partisans, convincing them that no matter how badly the party screwed up, there was virtue in supporting the "Liberal team" and opposing whatever "out-group" the party defined. For a time, this sense of identity politics helped the Liberals maintain power and avoid serious scrutiny, while simultaneously contributing to a rise in political polarization in Canada.

But the Liberal othering strategy (thankfully) appears to be losing its effectiveness. The cancel culture movement, which acted as an accelerant to the Liberals’ scapegoating ways is now on the decline. Canadians are also living with the real-world, hard to deny, consequences of a decade of failed Liberal policies: tangible problems like an inadequate energy and military infrastructure, a failed immigration system, a fentanyl crisis, and a costly housing shortage. The Liberals’ repeated ethical lapses have eroded public trust, and recent polling indicates widespread dissatisfaction with their leadership. Said differently, it’s much harder for the Liberals to hide from their record by deflecting the blame onto concocted motivations of some other group of Canadians.

Moreover, the perception that the Liberal government prefers to silence criticism rather than offer concrete solutions to the problems it created has further alienated voters. Many Canadians are frustrated by the paternalistic attitude that has long accompanied the Liberal’s othering strategy. Canadians who question failed Liberal policies like the mass issuance of international student visas during a housing crisis or the legalization of hard drugs while fentanyl deaths were on the rise expect their leaders to offer real solutions to these problems, as opposed to having their concerns be simply dismissed as racist or uncaring. The Liberal’s refusal to engage with legitimate concerns is a core part of what has contributed to the party’s loss of favor among the general public in recent years. And when voters feel unheard, they are likely to create their own "in-group"—one that positions itself in opposition to the Liberal “out-group” as a badge of honor.

Carney is an extremely wealthy corporate man who has never once been accused of being in touch with the average pleb. So it was an especially dumb move for him to imply in his maiden speech that any well-deserved criticisms of the Liberal party’s record are “negative”. That he did so while while simultaneously failing to offer any real empathy for the plight of Canadians who are literally paying for the cost of the poor decisions of the Liberal government (which he played a significant role in), and worse, failed to even acknowledging that those problems exist, reinforced an emerging narrative that he is Trudeau 2.0. Given his financial station, sanctimonious proclamations from Carney that anyone who dares to question his lack of plan, or - gasp - suggest an alternative approach, are “negative” will probably translate as more infuriating to the average Canadian than Trudeau’s admonitions ever did.

But perhaps the greatest reason why the Liberal’s “othering” approach is not long for this world is that Canada now finds itself at a serious crossroads. Facing several major crises, Canada’s people must find unity in a shared sense of purpose, and its Prime Minister has a key role to play in making that happen. Many Canadians will instinctively sense that continued Liberal “othering” is antithetical to this outcome and vehemently reject it. So the Liberals will likely find it increasingly difficult to avoid accountability for their decade of failed policies by simply resorting to scapegoating whichever group of Canadians they deem politically convenient to off - including opposition parties.

But Carney’s first speech as Prime Minister suggests that - to Canada’s detriment - he is reluctant to break from the puerile mold set by his predecessor. His maiden speech lacked any real vision for a new path forward, relying instead on the same tired scapegoating tactics that defined Trudeau’s tenure.

Given the Liberals’ apparent unwillingness to divorce themselves from this approach, those hoping for meaningful change from their recent change in hood ornament should temper their expectations.

(Do better, Mark.)