Understanding the fall of Justin Trudeau

Examining the underlying factors behind the resignation of the Prime Minister of Canada

There is a saying that all political careers end in tears. One might even add that celebration accompanies the end of all political careers. This is an exaggeration, but it seems to be even more true than one might believe. It is certainly true in the case of Justin Trudeau who announced last week that he intends to resign after ten years as Canada’s prime minister.

It is difficult to find opinions expressing sadness or regret about the end of Trudeau’s career. The only persons who seem to be truly saddened by this development are Trudeau himself, those who are personally close to him and a small number of ideologues who have become detached from reality.

“Justin Trudeau was once Canada’s golden boy – but he steps down with his popularity in shreds,” Sky News reported. The Telegraph reported Trudeau’s resignation as something that should be understood in light of five statistics, which can be summarised as follows:

1. Approval ratings

Trudeau’s approval ratings have dropped from 65% in September 2016 to 22% in December 2024.

2. The unemployment rate

Unemployment in Canada has been increasing steadily since 2022, with 6,8% of the population now being unemployed. Unemployment in Canada has increased by 22% since 2023.

3. The housing crisis

When Trudeau took office in November 2015, the average house in Canada cost CA$446 000. Nine years later, this figure stood at CA$732 000, after peaking at CA$ 834 000 in March 2022.

4. Liberals vs Conservatives in the polls

The most recent polling shows the Conservatives’ Pierre Poilievre at 44% in the polls, more than double that of Trudeau’s Liberals (at 20,1%).

5. Dealing with Trump

Only 14% of Canadians believe that Trudeau is the best equipped to deal with the American president-elect, Donald Trump, while 44% believe Poilievre is better equipped to do so.

These are damning statistics for any politician, let alone a prime minister. But let us not pretend they were conjured up from the ether. They reflect an ongoing trend – one that stretches back to before the Covid-19 years. These statistics should suffice to convince any politician to resign.

Yet, it would be superficial to claim that Trudeau has resigned because of these statistics, as politicians have a tendency to cling to power despite dismal performance and plummeting approval ratings.

And so, many analysts have come forward to explain the actual reason for Trudeau’s resignation. The actual reason, we are told, is that the Liberal Party is preparing for the next election, and they have reached the conclusion that having Trudeau as candidate is likely to be catastrophic. In other words, we are told that Trudeau’s resignation is a repetition of the axing of the American president, Joe Biden, as the Democratic candidate in the run-up to the election.

It is hard to find arguments against such a claim. Yet, I would argue that such a development is not the reason for his resignation, but it is instead merely a consequence of the more fundamental reason.

Click on the photo above to watch the video on my YouTube Channel.

The elites vs the people

In Regime Change, Patrick Deneen spends some time to explain the extent to which the rise of modern ideologies has led to an ever-increasing detachment between contemporary political elites and the people they are supposed to represent. Of course, the friction between what might be described as the “upper classes” and the “lower classes” (I do not prefer these terms, as they suggest that the former is more important than the latter) is by no means a new phenomenon.

This friction was already apparent in ancient Rome when the plebeians protested against a political system that prioritised the interests of the patricians. The patricians – Rome’s hereditary elites – controlled the political power, wealth and religious institutions, while the plebeians, constituting the majority of the population, were left to bear the burdens of military service, taxation and economic hardship without meaningful representation in decisions shaping Rome’s future. In response, the plebeians staged several secessio plebis (mass withdrawals from the city), which eventually pressured the patricians to create the office of the Tribune of the Plebs, granting the common people a political voice and the power to veto legislation that threatened their interests. Over time, this led to the development of Rome’s “mixed constitution,” a system designed to balance the power of the Senate, the assemblies and the magistrates, ensuring that the elites and the people could both keep each other in check. Though this structure evolved organically in Rome, it reflects the broader principle that also emerged in ancient Greece, especially articulated by Plato. It is the principle that a healthy republic must pursue harmony within the community. For Plato, harmony was the foundation of justice. Harmony did not imply forced agreement on every issue, but the achievement of a virtuous circle between different sections of the community through which each class and citizen can fulfil their unique roles and responsibilities while contributing to the common good.

Contemporary detachment

Yet, the ideologies that inspire contemporary political systems and our theories of the state are primarily underpinned by a rejection of our traditional outlook on communal life and politics. Not just that, they are underpinned by a fundamental rejection of our conception of reality. This is because today those in power have built their frame of reference on the notion that the road to “progress” runs through rejecting what we know and experience to be true, and by accepting an ideologically prescribed conception of reality.

As a result, we are required to reject reality in terms of how things are, reality in terms of what we learn from experience and reality about human nature.

Practically speaking, this implies that we are called on by those in power to reject basic facts about science and biology when those facts do not fit the political narrative. We are called on to reject what we already know to be true about the consequences of progressive economic policy. We are called on to reject our natural proclivity to value our cultural identities, to be able to defend ourselves and to be protected by borders. We are called on to reject our idea of identity, by accepting that there ought not to be barriers between communities and that where such barriers do exist they are, by definition, worthy of contempt.

And in as far as we do not accept this premise, we are scolded by those in power for being all kinds of atrocious things. And examples of this abound.

This is the notion that underpins Barack Obama’s denouncing the American people as far back as 2008, when he said that “… they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations”. It was evident in Hillary Clinton’s claim that people who criticised her political vision (by supporting Donald Trump) are a “basket of deplorables”. She went on to describe them as “racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, you name it”. It was evident in the remarks by the British Prime Minister, accusing the British people who protested against the murder of three school girls in Southport of “far-right thuggery,” calling them “mindless thugs”. It was also evident in the claims by Justin Trudeau that people who did not agree with his Covid-19 lockdown were “misogynists” and “racists” who should not be tolerated.

The underlying point here is that the political zeitgeist has become one characterised by extremely high levels of distrust between the people and those who are supposed to represent them. Ironically, this is achieved through political systems that claim to value representation of the people above all else. It is also ironical in the sense that these detached political elites are often ideologically invigorated by ideas that claim to support the working class. Yet, from their point of view, the single biggest barrier to progress has become “the people” who they claim to represent. When such political elites proclaim to promote the interests of the people, we should understand that they do so only on the condition that we, the people, join the political programme by rejecting basic facts about the nature of things. This is when the virtuous circle that Plato had in mind becomes a vicious circle. It is no wonder then that “populism” has become the political curse word they prefer to use.

We cannot understand the fall of Justin Trudeau without understanding that this is merely one manifestation of a backlash developing all over the world, but especially within the Western world.