What’s going on with right wing conservatives is not pretty.  It’s downright ugly.  It’s bad for political discourse and it is of no help to governance.

What leads a political movement to promote conspiracy theories, engage in uncivil disobedience, and offer simplistic populist solutions to complex problems?

I invite you to assess the following.

Let’s start with the thought that small ‘c’ conservatives – in many democracies – have felt embattled for decades.  Consider what conservatives stand for. Traditional small ‘c’ conservative values emphasized the importance of:

• family
• community
• defined moral principles
• defined gender roles
• generally accepted sexual mores
• religious adherence
• financial prudence.

Every one of those core conservative values has been challenged significantly in the decades since WW2.  Cultural changes so great are unprecedented and destabilizing.

Nonetheless, a majority of people, in Canada at least, accept that most such changes are justifiable, applying economic, moral and spiritual reasoning.  For example, although far fewer Canadians practice organized religions than 50 years ago, Canadians are largely tolerant of religions and religious practices (though rather less so in Québec).  Again, with respect to gender expression and sexual orientation, our laws and policies – developed by our representatives, passed by our parliaments and endorsed by our courts – assert full tolerance for gender self-identity as well as for sexual orientation.  So a case can be made that these changes are consistent with our intellectual and moral development as a polity. 

But many conservatives feel uncomfortable with such large and rapid changes to our society and culture – even those who understand the reasoning behind the changes.  They are entitled to have their thoughts and to make their arguments, but society has moved on.  Resistance often appears futile, so it builds frustration.

Andrew Coyne has observed:

• Liberals have for some time controlled the commanding heights of the culture – in academe, in government, in the media and the professions – to an extent that was bound to breed resentment, even if they had made some effort to hide their disdain for the hicks below. This resentment has, perhaps inevitably, become attached, not just to the keepers at the gates of knowledge, but to knowledge itself.

And there is a legitimate challenge to be made.  The societal intellectual consensus on ‘progress’ has brought us declining climate and environmental quality, heavy drug addiction among the young, high indebtedness, deteriorating living standards, much uncertainty about the future of work, chaotic sexual mores and gender identification, alienation of many young people  – and on and on.  Who is accountable for these hardships?  Surely accountability should be assigned to those who have been the dominant power and voice for these social and cultural changes.

Adding to the frustration of conservatives is the political, cultural and media power of left wing social and cultural policies.  Consider:

• Denigration of historical figures.  Regardless of the good they accomplished, politicians like MacDonald and Churchill are condemned for actions and attitudes judged racist by our standards, but not the standards of the historical period.
• Secularization of religious holidays.  This can be as mild as the loss of most Christian meaning in the commercialization festival of called Christmas or as harsh as the denial of religious expression in Québec.
• State intervention in the gender development of children.  Many schoolboards do not inform parents if their child wishes to express a different gender at school.
• Diktats on the use of language.  Government mandated requirements to use a person’s pronouns of choice.  Censorship or bowdlerisation of significant literary texts.
• Replacement of the merit principle, in work and in academe, with objectives of diversity, equity and inclusion.

This is not to validate or refute such developments, but to point out that these can be seen as antithetical to conservative principles.

Some conservatives believe that actually they make up a silent majority of Canadians who wonder whether such large social and cultural changes have caused our problems today.  But the “commanding heights of culture” either shuts off their voice or brands them as extremist.

Let’s consider the ‘trenches of culture’ to be in combat with the commanding heights.  The trenches are prepared to get down and dirty.  Social media and the diversity of news/video networks provide excellent platforms.  If the conservative argument is that the current societal consensus doesn’t make much sense either, why not propose something different?

One tactic for conservatives is that narrative is more important than evidence.  There should be some evidence – even tangential – but the narrative is primary.  An explanation that resonates is needed – and ideally it holds someone or something in power responsible.  Proffered solutions do not need to be logical or supported by evidence.  They don’t need to be good.  They just need to look good.

“Canada is broken” is, however, an explanation that does look good. The narrative is of grievances: complaints about crime and punishment, bureaucratic ineptitude, high inflation, and beyond.  There’s enough there to make a case.

“Creeping socialism” is another good looking explanation.  The cultural frustrations presented above are seen as evidence that the state is intervening in our lives to mould us in a different image.  Room for discussion?

And discussion there should be.  Thoughtful folk can engage in a civil discussion about the substance of policy issues.  The alternative is endless public disputation about who holds the cultural high ground.

A discussion could only be productive if there were some ground rules, such as:

• The discussion is about political philosophy, not large ‘P’ Politics.
• One can recognize the differences in policy positions without condemnation of the other side.
• There is validity in searching for reasonable accommodations.
• All wish to understand the implications of proffered ‘solutions’.

Principle only takes one so far in politics.  Pragmatism, not preaching, is what builds consensus.

In the street fight of contemporary politics, few will hear the voices engaged in such a discussion.  But perhaps there are some of goodwill to begin the discussion.