Pierre Poilievre acts as if there’s power in being unlikeable. It’s not a good look

Conservatives appear to be trying everything this fall to turn their poll lead into eventual election victory, with the exception of one force in politics — likeability.
Nothing in Pierre Poilievre’s repertoire in the Commons the past two weeks has been aimed at making people like him, beyond those who already do. He insults, he taunts, he name-calls, he sneers — all the things that parents tell their children not to do if they want to make and keep friends.
It may be making his base happy, but it is doing nothing to present a positive picture of what he would be like in power. One could argue, in fact, that it’s doing the opposite.
His troops behind him in the chamber cheer him on and seem only too happy to jump into the mud along with their leader. Case in point — the heckling of Justin Trudeau that brought the House to a halt on Wednesday, when MPs bellowed about his alleged too-close relationship with Canada’s consul-general to New York, Tom Clark. 
“We’re used to casual homophobic comments from the other side of the House,” Trudeau said, subsequently describing the heckling as “crap.” One Conservative MP — Garnett Genuis — rejected those allegations as false and defamatory, stating he was merely criticizing what he considers extravagant public spending.
This came on the same day that Poilievre announced he would be blacklisting CTV News for what he saw as a “malicious” editing job on some of his recent remarks, implying he was trying to bring down the government over dental care instead of the carbon levy.
It’s not the first or last time Poilievre has lashed out at the media, which he seems to regard as overly friendly to Trudeau and the Liberals. Everyone is a sellout in Poilievre’s dystopian view of Ottawa — whether it’s the New Democrats, the Bloc Québécois, the Commons Speaker or the independent parliamentary press gallery.
It’s probably time to pause here and let fans of Poilievre vent that columns such as this are evidence that the media is against him.
Now that that’s out of the way, let’s examine what exactly the strategy is behind all the uncivil disagreement, if there is one.
Poilievre seems pretty certain that the next election will give him a majority, and not require that he work with any other parties in the House. He’s burning his bridges with the Bloc and the NDP, if any such bridges ever existed.
It’s worth remembering, that’s not how Stephen Harper went from opposition to government in the 2000s. He worked with the Bloc and NDP to help bring down Paul Martin’s Liberal government in 2005. Harper even got them to co-sign a letter to the governor general at the time, asking that Harper be given a chance to form government if Martin lost the confidence of the House.
Perhaps Poilievre thinks he’s in a stronger position than Harper was two decades ago. But back in the election campaign of 2005-06, Harper made a misstep when he tried to reassure voters that a Conservative government would be held in check by a Liberal-appointed bureaucracy and judiciary — an early preview of “deep-state” thinking.
It made Harper look paranoid. Poilievre has no fear of fanning that impression, regularly saying out loud that anyone who has a negative view of him must be a deep-state Trudeau Liberal.
On social media, Poilievre’s chief adviser Jenni Byrne occasionally weighs in to say who’s authorized to speak on behalf of the Conservatives, and more to the point, who isn’t.
They’re making a list, and checking it twice.
About a month or so ago, I started to notice increasing mention of Poilievre’s lack of likeability in the political commentary, even among those who are not fans of the Trudeau Liberals. “If Pierre Poilievre weren’t so unpleasant, he might get more of a hearing for his agenda,” read the headline on an Andrew Coyne column in the Globe and Mail in late August.
I’ve heard this privately from some Conservatives too, who roll their eyes at what they see as unnecessary vindictiveness from a party that continues to bounce along at the top of the polls. Is this sore-winner syndrome? And what will that look like if they really do end up winners after the next election? More enemies’ lists? More paranoia about the media and the bureaucracy?
My colleague Althia Raj wrote that Poilievre didn’t have a good week when Parliament resumed this month, failing to win in a Manitoba byelection and falling short in a bid to rally opposition leaders to bring down the government. He tried to pull that off with taunts and name-calling. Amazing that didn’t work.
Perhaps Poilievre is operating on the principle that nice guys finish last. He may be correct; politics does require a ruthless streak. Or he may have concluded that it’s better to be feared than liked.
But if it’s true that Canadians have tired of the current prime minister and are looking for someone new to like, Poilievre isn’t auditioning for that role.