Mark Levin explains why we now live in ‘post-Constitutional’ society

September 19, 2013

Writer

On radio this morning, Glenn spoke to fellow conservative author and radio personality Mark Levin about his latest book, The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Public. Much like Glenn, Mark has been making the case that the principles and values that founded this nation have unraveled. In his new book, Mark provides a thorough look at the beliefs of the Founding Fathers and the language of the Constitution itself to put forth a plan to restore the American Republic.

Today’s radio interview marked the first time Glenn and Mark had ever spoken, and they quickly found that they agree on a lot of things – mainly, there is an ever-growing need to restore America.

“Tell me about the amendments because first of all, I don't think people understand what has been taken out of our Constitution and how much we have been changed in the last hundred years,” Glenn said. “People don't even understand the czars are not Constitutional and everything that has happened. You're calling for a Constitutional Convention.”

“We live in what I call a ‘post-Constitutional' period. And you're well familiar with Woodrow Wilson and the Progressive movement. We have to accept the fact that they won. They did win and this utopian statism and Constitutional Republicanism cannot coexist. And they don't coexist,” Mark explained. And the circle of liberty around every individual is shrinking and shrinking and shrinking… So if you believe in the Constitution, then you have to believe it's time to reestablish it.”

“And the Framers gave us one way to reestablish the Constitution, should the federal government become oppressive. And that's George Mason's own words from the Constitutional Convention,” he continued. “And two days before the end of at that Convention, in Philadelphia, he stood up and he said: ‘Look, what if Congress becomes oppressive? What if this new government becomes oppressive? Short of violence, what can the people do? Congress is not going to propose amendments to the states to fix themselves.’ And so, he insisted that the states have the power to get together and propose amendments to all the states – still requiring three-fourths ratification. And so, we can talk about the culture, and you do and I do, and we can talk about aspects like that. But when we're talking about the Constitution, people say, ‘I thought Levin he revered the Constitution, now you want to change it.’ No, I want to bring it back. And the book has some of my ideas.”

With that idea in mind, Glenn and Mark went on to discuss the practicality and ramifications of undertaking such a movement.

“Pat and I've been talking about the Constitutional Convention. We talked about it for years, and Pat said, ‘No, no, no,’” Glenn concluded. “I think there's something to this case. And I think Mark just made that case.”

Watch the entire interview below:

Read a rough transcript below:

GLENN: In this last week, we have seen in Texas, and in South Carolina, the Constitution being taught in textbooks in ways that you don't even recognize the Constitution anymore. Being taught in, in ways that make the Second Amendment really only four militias and if you're trying to stop the quartering the soldiers in your home, only at peace time it's really amazing what's going on and it is prompted me this week, to say to you that I don't, I don't think you are losing your country. I think you've lost your country. I think we've lost at least one generation, perhaps two. And if we don't start immediately restoring the information and putting things back we're not going to make it.

Mark Levin is a talk show host who has the number one non fiction book now for three straight weeks. And it is called The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic. Mark how are you sir?

MARK LEVIN: I'm good nice to meet you. How are you?

GLENN: Nice to meet you I was trying to, I asked this morning if we had ever met or even spoke to each other I don't think we ever have?

MARK LEVIN: We have never.

GLENN: Well, I'm glad to have you on the program.

MARK LEVIN: And I want your audience to know you sent me a very kind letter. And you're a patriot and you're fighting like hell and this is very, very important.

GLENN: Tell me about the amendments because you have at first of all, I don't think people understand what has been taken out of our constitution and how much we have been changed in the last, in the last hundred years people don't even understand the czars are not constitutional and everything that is, has happened. You're calling for a constitutional convention.

MARK LEVIN: We live what I call a post-constitutional period. And you're well familiar with Woodrow Wilson and the Progressive movement. We have to accept the fact that they

won. They did win and this utopian statism and constitutional Republicanism cannot coexist. And they don't coexist. And the circle of liberty around every individual is shrinking and shrinking and shrinking. People think I'm prone. I can go to of movies, I can go bowling I can get my IPhone. That's not what we're talking about. You're not free to pick your toilet. You're not free to pick your light bulb, yet you're free to pick your rulers. This doesn't make any sense. And we have this pubic by at this time all powerful central government the federal government that exists today is not in the Constitution. So I start with that premise. And I start with the premise that the Supreme Court is constantly rewriting Constitution as is the President and Congress and this massive fourth branch the Government. This administrative state that's not even in the Constitution. So if you believe in the Constitution, then you have to believe it's time to reestablish it.

And so, the framers gave us one way to reestablish the Constitution. Should the federal government become oppressive and that's George Mason's own words that the Constitutional convention. And two days before the end of at that convention, in Philadelphia, he stood up and he said, look, what if Congress becomes oppressive. What if this new government becomes oppressive. Short of violence, what can the people do? Congress is not going to propose amendments to the states to fix itself. And so, he insisted that the States have the power to get together and propose amendments to all the states. Still requiring three-fourths ratification. And so, we can talk about the culture and you do and I do and we can talk about aspects like that. But when we're talking about the Constitution, people say, I thought Levin he revered the Constitution, now you want to change it. No, I want to bring it back. And the book has some of my ideas.

GLENN: Hang on just a second. Are you talking about a constitutional convention because, I have heard people talk about a constitutional convention before.

MARK LEVIN: No.

GLENN: And that is a frightening prospect. You're talking about something entirely different.

MARK LEVIN: First of all, the Constitution doesn't talk about a constitutional convention. The article five talks about a convention of the states to propose amendments. There can't be a constitutional convention. The language that the framers in Philadelphia wrote, was two methods for amending the Constitution one led by Congress, the other led by the states. Either we believe in federalism or we don't. They did. It's the states legislatures in particular. Not the governor, not the Court, the states legislatures.

GLENN: Do we need, how many dates do we need and do they all have to show up can one state start it and say, this is what we, this is what we propose we do. And then they try to sell it to other states.

MARK LEVIN: That's the way it would work. I mean, they're not going to say, hey, guys let's have a convention and amend the Constitution. No, states are going to start, what used to happen is states would have meetings. That's what they meant by convention. And they would talk and they try and work out their differences and they come up with agreements. And then they would sends them back to the states for approval. The Constitutional convention, itself, in 1787, people wrongly state, you know they were there to amend the articles of confederation. Well I looked at the, at the commissions and that's what they recalled. That were given the delegates to the Constitutional convention and they were not there ten out of the 12 states to amend the Articles of Confederation. They were there to draft a constitution.

And so, people attack our constitution as some kind of bastardized process. There wasn't a bastardized process. And as you know Rhode Island didn't even send delegates to the convention. So, what we're talking about here, the language is limiting within article five. But we're talking about here I a convention of the states for proposing amendments and still requiring three-fourths of the states to ratify. What the --

GLENN: What's the most, where would you say you start?

MARK LEVIN: In terms of the amendment.

GLENN: That you could win? And that are you saying that you do all of them? Or are you saying we start with one and get that passed and then do another? How does this work, Mark?

MARK LEVIN: The way it works is, that the state Legislature would decide how many one, 10, three, subjects will be raised at this convention. The state legislatures picked the delegates, as many as they want. Each state gets a vote. We know this from past practice. One vote. Each state. At the, at this convention. And they can bring up multiple subjects. They can bring up one subject. The State legislatures can withdraw their delegates this their delegates are out of control and the states in the end, three-fourths of them have to decide if what comes out of this convention is acceptable or not.

GLENN: I see, I mean, the things that you spell out in the book, I happen to agree with. Term limits on Congress. Term limits the Supreme Court. The super majority can override the Supreme Court rulings. Make the U.S. senate a voice for the States again. Amen. However, you and I both know, the game that we have all been duped to some level or another, the people we thought were on our side, are not really on our side. The GOP is a nightmare. And perhaps a bigger nightmare than the Democrats, because they are, their people are awake, their people that support them are saying, no, we are electing you to do these things. And then they go in and say they're going to do them but for instance, you know, the universal health care they voted 41 times against this they say. They're not going to defund it.

MARK LEVIN: No they're not. And that's why this is the recourse. Because it by passes Congress. It by passes the GOP establishment. It bypasses the Supreme Court, the President, the bureaucracy. This is completely bottom up. The people working with state delegates and state senators, it's states legislatures.

Let's me tell you this, Glenn. In this system doesn't work,we're done. That means it's over. Because the top down system, the Progressives placed in the Constitution, with a centralized authoritarian ubiquitous government. We can't get anywhere with that. We can argue, we can win an election here and there, we may get arrested for four years or eight years.

GLENN: No, if you think Mitt Romney, I was not for Mitt Romney. He was my last choice. And I'll never go down the GOP road again I'll never do it again I'm not going to listen to that argument ever, ever, ever again. And if you think that Mitt Romney would not have been going into Syria and making a similar case, I mean he was making it during the election.

GLENN: So what do we do about it?

MARK LEVIN: Well, you a, don't go down the party road and you don't listen to the GOP anymore. And I think one of the things we do, is we look at the framers. And the framers said, this sort of thing likely to happen. George Mason said it's going to happen. And he said there has to be a way out. And the way out that they provide us with, that's for some reason people fear the State legislatures. Look, I know there's dark blue states out there. There's all over the place. I don't believe in static economics and I don't believe in static politics. Things get worse and they are going to get bad. Because you can see what their fighting over. They're fighting over crumbs in Washington this government almost wrote the way it operates now, it keeps moving in one direction. At some point in some way they have spent a hundred years or more driving us over the cliff. We need to spend, 20, 25 years, some period of time, trying the process with the framers gave us. Use th Constitution to save the Constitution.

PAT: Mark, once of the arguments against the convention route has always been once you open it up you open it up to everything and they can change things like, maybe they make that, maybe they try to make the Second Amendment about militias only and not the rights of the individual. So, how do you, how do you address that concern, do you just believe that you wouldn't get 37 states to, to adopt that amendment?

MARK LEVIN: In advance, the states have to decide what the subject matter is, where they're going to go with it. I don't believe there's going to be two-thirds of the State that say, states legislatures that say let's abolish the second amount amendment. But if they do, it's over. In other words, where do we go? If that's the position of the federal government, and the position of a super majority of the State governments, it's over, isn't it?

PAT: Yeah, it would be.

MARK LEVIN: Bottom line is, if the people want to surrender to tyranny. It's over either way. If you want to surrender to tyranny, then it's tyranny they get.

GLENN: You're making a very good case here, Mark. I'm really at that points to where look if this is what you want, I'm never going to make a part of it. I'm not going do go, I won't play your game. I would go on my dying breath fight for freedom as I understand it and fighting for the Constitution of the United States of America. And I will instill it in my children. But if that's what you want to do, just let's be open and honest about it. That's what you want, that's what you're voting for, good. Go for it. Take it.

MARK LEVIN: But the thing is, the reason the left has never gone through this approach, never, and the reason they would fight this approach, is they are getting damn near everything they want tomorrow down. They've not going to wants to work bottom up. And let's keep something in mind. There are tens of millions of us who still love this country. Who still love the Constitution. Who still revere our heritage. And we're looking for ways to deal with this. And we can keep beating our heads against the wall, elect more Republicans. Well, we had six years of Bush in the House and senate and other than Obama, it was the profligate out of control periods in federal recent federal history. So we can do that. But.

GLENN: Look at all the people in the house. They have the chance to stop the universal health care. They have the chance to stop it right now. And they're not doing it. And those are Republicans.

MARK LEVIN: I'm with you, that's why I wrote this book. I'm with you.

GLENN: Yeah.

MARK LEVIN: What I'm saying is, look, here's the thing. People aren't perfect, our institutions aren't perfect. There's no absolute 100% foolproof system or proposal that can be made. Countries are not guaranteed perpetual existence. They are just not. When people say what can we do, what can we do. I rack my brain and I do what I usually do. I go back and look at our founding and I look at our history and even before then. And the framers, even though they set up this magnificent constitution, they were concerned that if would be breached. If you don't have people of virtue in these positions then you have what, over tyranny. So, this, this is the approach that they left us. I just thought it was time to remind people about it. To make the case for it. I mean -- I hear all the mights. I hear, you know, the convention can be hijacked. Hhjacked by whom. They're not going to get three-fourths of the states to abolish the Second Amendment. And as I said, if we do it's over we have to look somewhere else I guess, but that's not going to happen. Because the Legislatures decide who the delegates are. They can pull them back. And you'll always can have 13 states stop anything. Stop anything. If we can't find 13 states to stop something, do you know right now,13 states can't stop the Supreme Court. They can't stop Congress. They can't stop an imperial president. In other words, it's not like we have this magnificent constitution that's being complied with. We don't. It's not being complied with. So, what's the alternative? If somebody else has another plan, I would love to see it.

GLENN: Mark, I have to tell you, there's, I think people expect that everybody's going to come up with the answer and, and you know, people I get people yelling at me all the time. Why are you doing this, why are you doing that. Well, because I play my role in the -- I don't have all the answers. I have no idea. I'm not a constitutional scholar. I'm not a attorney. I know my role. And my role is to try to effect the culture. That's where I am headed and that I think is an important piece. But we all have to understand that we each play a different role. Each of us. And you know, just like the founders, I mean, I am always, I'm always amazed at how Thomas Payne and George Washington, got together and if it wasn't for those two men, each of them, coming with their own special talents, the American experiment would've never happened. Never happened.

And yet, they died hating each other. And one's an atheist and one reveres God. They couldn't be two more different. Men that there were there. And you look at Sam Adams and, I mean all of them. Each of us play a role and I have to thank you for playing your role. Really, really good case. Really good case. And maybe you're onto the answer. Somebody needs to figure out how to fix Washington. And I certainly don't know how the hell to do it because it's a mess. Good job.

MARK LEVIN: Well thanks, Glenn. I don't know that I have the answer. I'm just trying to remind people what the framers argued for and it's certainly worth taking a look I think God bless you and your staff there.

GLENN: Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Mark Levin, the Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic. I am so busy reading other books right now, on other topics, but I don't know if that wasn't a case to read this book, I don't know what is. Pat and I've been talking about the Constitutional convention. We talked about it for years and Pat said, no, no, no. I think there's something to this case. And I think, I think Mark just made that case. It's the Liberty Amendments. Restoring the American Republic available everywhere books are sold.

Silent genocide exposed: Are christians being wiped out in 2025?

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?

Should Starbase become its own city?

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.

Glenn's Show Prep