By Chad Dashly | The Current

Politics has always been a battle of ideas.

Increasingly, however, it is becoming a battle between personalities, platforms and competing political tribes.

One of the more revealing conservative disputes in Canada has recently unfolded not in a legislature, campaign war room or party convention hall, but online. British Columbia activist and commentator Anthony Russo continues to criticize veteran conservative strategist Kory Teneycke, turning what might appear to be a personal disagreement into a public debate about the future of the conservative movement.

On the surface, it looks like another social-media feud.

In reality, it reflects something much larger: a growing struggle between the conservative establishment and a new generation of online activists who believe the old political playbook is no longer working.

To understand the conflict, it helps to understand what each man represents.

Teneycke is not merely another political commentator. He is one of Canada’s most experienced conservative strategists. His career has included work with former prime minister Stephen Harper, a leading role in the creation of Sun News Network and involvement in Doug Ford’s successful Ontario campaigns.

He represents experience.

He represents pragmatism.

Most importantly, he represents the belief that politics is ultimately about winning elections and forming governments.

Russo comes from a different political world.

Like many emerging conservative voices, he built his profile outside traditional party organizations and political institutions. His influence has grown largely through online commentary and direct engagement with grassroots conservatives—many of whom have become deeply skeptical of party insiders, consultants and professional political operatives.

He represents authenticity to his supporters.

He represents frustration with the political establishment.

Most importantly, he represents the belief that conservative politics should put principles ahead of strategy.

Russo’s methods, however, do not enjoy universal support within the conservative movement. Some conservatives view his confrontational approach as unnecessarily divisive or outside the political mainstream. Others see that same willingness to challenge powerful insiders as precisely what makes independent voices valuable.

Neither man has held elected office, yet both seek to influence those who do.

That fact illustrates how Canadian politics has changed.

Political influence was once concentrated among elected officials, party executives, newspaper columnists and a relatively small group of strategists. Today, a commentator equipped with a smartphone and a social-media account can reach thousands of voters without receiving the approval of any traditional gatekeeper.

The old institutions no longer control the political conversation.

That makes voices such as Russo’s difficult to ignore—but influence and effectiveness are not necessarily the same thing.

The risk for grassroots influencers is that constant confrontation can eventually become counterproductive. When every disagreement is treated as a betrayal and every rival becomes an enemy, personality begins to overshadow principle. Audiences grow exhausted, alliances become impossible and the original message gets lost in the conflict.

Political movements driven entirely by outrage may attract attention, but attention alone does not build a governing coalition.

The risk for establishment strategists is different.

When experienced political professionals dismiss grassroots concerns, they reinforce the belief that ordinary members are valued only for their votes, donations and volunteer hours. Every condescending response can deepen the suspicion that insiders are more interested in protecting their status than advancing conservative principles.

That resentment is not unique to Canada. Similar tensions have reshaped conservative politics in the United States, the United Kingdom and across Europe.

Grassroots activists frequently underestimate how difficult it is to build a coalition capable of winning an election. The political graveyard is filled with passionate movements that lacked organization, discipline and a practical path to power.

Establishment strategists, meanwhile, often underestimate how quickly supporters can withdraw their trust. A campaign may have sophisticated advertising, professional staff and a carefully tested message, but none of those things can replace a political base that genuinely believes in the cause.

Neither side possesses everything a successful movement requires.

Activists create energy.

Strategists turn energy into organization.

Influencers can identify frustrations that established parties have ignored. Political professionals can translate those frustrations into policies, campaigns and electoral victories.

The problem begins when either group concludes that it can succeed without the other.

Conservatives who want to form governments need experienced operators such as Teneycke. Winning elections requires discipline, compromise, coalition-building and an understanding of how voters outside the party base think.

They also need independent voices willing to challenge complacency. Without grassroots pressure, political parties can become disconnected from the people they claim to represent.

Without professional competence, conservatives risk losing elections.

Without grassroots conviction, they risk losing the movement itself.

The central question, therefore, is not whether Russo is right about Teneycke or Teneycke is right about Russo.

It is whether Canada’s conservatives can bridge the widening divide between their online grassroots and their political establishment before that division becomes permanent.

That will require humility from both sides.

Activists must recognize that compromise is not always surrender. Strategists must recognize that criticism is not always disloyalty. Both must understand that public feuds may generate engagement online while making cooperation—and electoral success—more difficult in the real world.

The future of Canadian conservatism will not be secured by consultants alone, nor will it be built entirely through social-media rebellion.

It will depend on whether experience and energy can coexist.

If they cannot, the people celebrating most enthusiastically will not be conservatives.

They will be their political opponents.

Editorial note: This article is presented as political commentary. It addresses the broader debate between grassroots activism and establishment strategy within Canadian conservatism and is not intended as a personal attack on either individual.

By Chad Dashly | The Current

Editorial note: Based on publicly available information, Kory Teneycke is one of the most influential conservative strategists in Canada. He served as communications director to former Prime Minister Stephen Harper, co-founded Rubicon Strategy, and managed multiple successful Ontario PC campaigns for Doug Ford. He has developed a reputation as a blunt, often controversial political operator who is willing to publicly criticize even members of his own political movement when he believes strategy is failing. (Wikipedia)

Anthony Russo appears to be a low level BC-based conservative activist, commentator, YouTuber and content creator with a growing presence on X and YouTube, where he focuses on grassroots conservative politics and leadership issues. (X (formerly Twitter))

For legal reasons, we cannot independently verify every allegation, criticism, or exchange between the two men, nor can we conclude that one person’s actions will definitely cause specific political consequences. This is an opinion discussing the broader political implications of a public feud between an establishment strategist and a grassroots activist.

By Chad Dashly | The Current

Politics has always been a battle of ideas.

Today, it is increasingly becoming a battle of tribes.

Over the past several weeks, one of the more interesting conservative skirmishes has not taken place in a legislature, a campaign war room, or a party convention hall. Instead, it has unfolded online, where BC activist and commentator Anthony Russo has repeatedly taken aim at veteran conservative strategist Kory Teneycke.

On the surface, it looks like a personality clash.

In reality, it represents something much bigger.

It is the latest chapter in a growing struggle between the conservative establishment and a newer generation of grassroots activists who believe the old playbook is broken.

To understand the conflict, you first need to understand the players.

Kory Teneycke is not simply another political commentator. He is one of the most successful conservative strategists in Canada. His fingerprints can be found on some of the biggest conservative victories of the last two decades. Whether serving Stephen Harper, helping build Sun News, or guiding Doug Ford’s Ontario campaigns, Teneycke has become part strategist, part operator, and part political celebrity.

He represents experience.

He represents pragmatism.

Most importantly, he represents the belief that politics is about winning.

Anthony Russo comes from a different world.

Like many younger conservative voices, he built his profile outside the traditional political establishment. His audience was not created through party organizations, consultants, or lobbyists. It was built online, directly with grassroots conservatives who increasingly distrust institutions, political insiders, and professional consultants.

He represents authenticity. But most conservatives don’t agree with his methods. he is a member of a fringe group.

He represents frustration.

Most importantly, he represents the belief that politics should be about principles first and strategy second.

Neither side is entirely right.

Neither side is entirely wrong.

Niether men have never been elected for public office.

The problem is that modern conservatism increasingly needs both.

Movements require activists.

Governments require professionals.

One brings raw energy. The other brings execution.

The tension emerges when either side starts believing it can succeed without the other.

Grassroots activists often underestimate how difficult it is to build winning coalitions. The political graveyard is filled with movements that had passion but lacked discipline.

At the same time, establishment strategists often underestimate how quickly grassroots supporters can withdraw trust when they believe insiders are protecting their own interests.

This dynamic has become increasingly visible across conservative politics in Canada, the United States, and Europe.

The old gatekeepers no longer control the conversation.

A smartphone and a social media account can build influence faster than a party executive committee.

That reality makes people like Anthony Russo impossible to ignore.

But influence and effectiveness are not always the same thing.

The risk for Russo is that constant attacks eventually become counterproductive. If every disagreement becomes a public war, people begin to focus on personalities rather than principles. The audience becomes exhausted. The message gets lost.

The risk for Teneycke is different.

The more establishment figures dismiss grassroots concerns, the more they reinforce the belief that ordinary members are not being heard.

History suggests that neither side ultimately wins these fights.

The winners are those who learn to work together.

Conservatives who want to form governments need the strategic expertise of people like Kory Teneycke.

They also need the passion and grassroots energy represented by voices like Anthony Russo.

Without the first, they lose elections.

Without the second, they lose movements.

The real question is not whether Russo is right about Teneycke.

Nor is it whether Teneycke is right about Russo.

The real question is whether conservatives can bridge the widening gap between the grassroots and the establishment before that divide becomes permanent.

Because if they cannot, the people celebrating the loudest won’t be conservatives at all.

It will be their political opponents.

Editorial note: This Opinion is written as a political opinion piece rather than a personal attack on either individual and focuses on the broader implications for conservative politics in Canada, and its future.

By Chad Dashly | The Current

Four weeks ago, BC Conservatives made their choice.

After months of debates, membership drives, endorsements, social media skirmishes, fundraising pitches, and enough internal drama to fuel a reality television series, members elected Kerry-Lynne Findlay as leader of the BC Conservative Party.

The question now isn’t who won.

It’s what happens next.

Leadership races are about ambition. Governing parties are about discipline. Opposition parties hoping to become governments need both.

The BC Conservatives find themselves in an unusual position. For the first time in decades, they are no longer simply a protest movement, a coalition of frustrated voters, or a vehicle for dissatisfaction with the NDP. They are now the Official Opposition and a legitimate contender for government.

That changes everything.

The leadership race exposed both the strengths and weaknesses of the party. On one hand, thousands of new members joined. Volunteers worked tirelessly. Candidates travelled every corner of British Columbia. The race demonstrated that the party has energy, ideas, and grassroots support.

On the other hand, it also revealed divisions that cannot be ignored.

Supporters of Caroline Elliott, Peter Milobar, Yuri Fulmer, Iain Black, Harman Bhangu and others all entered the race with different visions for the future. Some wanted a more populist movement. Others wanted a government-in-waiting. Some emphasized grassroots activism while others focused on economic competence.

Now those factions must become one team.

Because David Eby is not going to defeat himself.

The NDP remains vulnerable on issues that matter to British Columbians: affordability, housing, healthcare access, public safety, addiction, and economic competitiveness. Families continue to struggle with rising costs. Businesses face mounting regulatory burdens. Resource communities worry about their future.

Yet vulnerability does not automatically translate into defeat.

The greatest danger facing the BC Conservatives today is believing that public frustration with the government is enough.

It isn’t.

Voters eventually ask a simple question:

“If not them, then who?”

And increasingly they follow that question with another:

“Can they actually govern?”

That is the challenge before Kerry-Lynne Findlay.

Her immediate task is not ideological. It is organizational.

She must unify the caucus.

She must build a professional campaign structure.

She must recruit credible candidates.

She must expand the donor base.

And perhaps most importantly, she must convince British Columbians that the Conservatives are more than a movement—they are a government-in-waiting.

That means fewer internal battles and more external focus.

British Columbians don’t spend much time thinking about party constitutions, executive elections, nomination disputes, or leadership rivalries. Political insiders obsess over these things. Voters do not.

Voters care about emergency rooms.

They care about housing costs.

They care about whether their children can afford to stay in British Columbia.

They care about crime, taxes, and economic opportunity.

The party that addresses those concerns most effectively will win the next election.

The good news for Conservatives is that they have time.

The next provincial election is not tomorrow.

There is an opportunity to heal divisions, refine policy, strengthen local riding associations, and present a united vision.

The bad news is that time moves quickly in politics.

The honeymoon period following a leadership victory rarely lasts long.

Sooner or later, the media, political opponents, and voters begin asking tougher questions.

What is the plan?

Who is on the team?

How will it be paid for?

What would a Conservative government actually look like?

Those answers must come sooner rather than later.

Four weeks after the leadership race, the BC Conservatives stand at a crossroads.

One path leads toward unity, professionalism, and electoral credibility.

The other leads toward factionalism, score-settling, and missed opportunity.

The choice belongs to the party.

The opportunity belongs to British Columbia.

And the clock is already ticking.