One side of Prime Minister Mark Carney that has become prominent in his year in office is the pragmatic face of a former central banker.Takashi Aoyama/Reuters
David Polansky is a writer and political theorist living in Toronto.
Nathaniel Hawthorne once wrote: “No man for any considerable period can wear one face to himself, and another to the multitude, without finally getting bewildered as to which may be the true.”
He was speaking of the citizen in relation to his community, but the situation for political leaders is rather different. They are compelled to wear more than one face when addressing the multitude – especially in democracies, which are made up of different constituencies with differing interests. Things get more complicated, however, when two different public faces are in tension with one another, as has been the case for Mark Carney since he assumed the premiership of Canada a year ago this week.
Throughout that time, Mr. Carney’s authority has rested upon two not-entirely-compatible political appeals. The first is essentially technocratic: As an accomplished central banker for not one but two different countries, he can provide much-needed expertise in complex economic matters at an increasingly uncertain time.
But the other is populist – particularly drawing on anger at the United States in response to U.S. President Donald Trump’s “51st state” rhetoric, as well as the imposition of tariffs on its long-standing trading partner. And this appeal is more surprising, not just because of Mr. Carney’s own relatively sober demeanour (in contrast with, say, Ontario Premier Doug Ford), but also because of how it was preceded by years of vocal concern over the rise of populism, particularly among Western democracies.
Carney’s “elbows up” campaign slogan became a rallying cry when protests sprung up in March, 2025, over Donald Trump’s threats to Canadian sovereignty.Justin Tang/The Canadian Press
The truth is that both of these tendencies could already be seen in the initial wave of excitement that carried him into office. Those who began to notice increasingly dismal economic indicators were grateful to have an experienced hand on the tiller. At the same time, those who observed Mr. Trump’s provocations with mounting fear and anger saw in Mr. Carney a champion against American threats, hence the success of “elbow’s up.”
Which way Canadians lean here functions as a kind of tacit referendum on how they view the country’s greatest challenges. Insofar as they believe the most significant ones to be self-inflicted, particularly over the past 10 years, they will be more impressed by the technocratic Carney who offers policy fixes; while Canadians who see Donald Trump – and perhaps the United States in general – as the greater concern will incline toward the populist/nationalist version of the PM.
Data Dive with Nik Nanos: The current Canada-U.S. relationship is built on contradictions
This is not to say that the two approaches are always mutually exclusive. For example, Mr. Carney’s bold talk of Canada being an “energy superpower” (which it is, at least latently) has strong nationalist overtones while still being directed toward the practical goal of economic growth for the benefit of the country.
But when it comes to something like trade negotiations, Canadians have a material interest in a favourable deal that may be at cross-purposes with the emotional satisfaction of telling the United States to stuff it. And yet we can see how the technocratic and populist tendencies map to a split over the significance of ending the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, with business leaders and policy-makers expressing serious concerns, while a much larger swathe of the population is unbothered.
The difficulty is that a trade deal with the United States on less auspicious terms than Canada has enjoyed in the past might still be more advantageous overall than whatever aggregated deals Mr. Carney is able to make with various other trading partners around the world – even if this proves initially unpopular. The obnoxiousness of the present administration on the tariff question may simply be balanced out by the inherent benefits of maintaining trade with a country with the United States’ proximity, sizable domestic market, and economic growth. When it comes to these and other issues, populist passions clash with technocratic pragmatism.
Carney addresses the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Switzerland, in January.Denis Balibouse/Reuters
Foreign policy raises similar questions. Mr. Carney’s much-praised address delivered at the (decidedly non-populist) World Economic Forum managed to have it both ways: a populist could enjoy his critical comments on U.S. primacy and signals that Canada would distance itself from America, while technocratic insiders with policy degrees might appreciate the cool language of flexible realism.
But one can already see some of the tensions in how this might play out when it came to real-world events. The government’s initial cautious statement of support for the U.S. attacks on Iran resulted in dismay from those who hoped for a more robust response. And this was followed by one that more sharply distinguished Canada’s position from the United States’. The disparity between the two is partly a matter of language and tone, but much more a product of ambiguity of purpose.
As these and other policy issues indicate, the real issue is not so much rhetorical as political. A capable statesman can manage different audiences, particularly when aided by a friendly media. But not all preferences are mutually compatible, and decisions have to be made.
When Charles de Gaulle landed in Algiers, during the height of the tensions in French Algeria, he famously announced to a mixed crowd: “Je vous ai compris!” to their great collective delight. Despite their opposed aims, both Algerians and European settlers felt that he was somehow speaking to them.
And yet in the end it was quite starkly revealed what it was he understood: that France had to withdraw from Algeria to stave off a political crisis. At the moment of decision, he was obliged to make hard choices.
Ultimately such choices – more than rhetoric and public image – are the real essence of politics.