February 22, 2025
Click “Listen Now” to hear the audio version of Insights.
HERE'S MY TAKE
Freedom. It’s a word I heard frequently at the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC) Conference this week in London. Free speech, free markets, free association, and whatever other freedoms you might name as a contrast to woke orthodoxy, cancel culture, or any other left-wing cause of our day – it was catnip for the more than 4,000 folks gathered from 96 countries. However, as I reflect on around 20 hours of platform presentations alongside at least two dozen substantial conversations with delegates from diverse backgrounds, I leave pondering at least three questions:
What time is it for Western populism?
The conference, co-chaired by Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson and British Baroness Philippa Stroud, aimed to gather the “populist wave” sweeping over the world with electoral consequences (which is at least part of what brought us US President Donald Trump). I attended the conference to understand our moment better and hear first-hand what was inspiring this crowd.
I left with a better understanding of some nuances but still struggle to make sense of this disparate movement. From the first session, speakers framed the narrative as a response to the decline of Western civilization. There was disagreement about Western civilization’s point in the cycle of history. Some speakers defined our times within a historical cycle of pioneering, establishing, and achieving success, followed by a growing reliance on affluence, ultimately leading to decline and decay. “However, that decay is not inevitable,” the audience heard. The solutions offered were sometimes contradictory. Makoto Fujimura appealed to the Japanese art practice of kintsugi—where shattered pottery is repaired by dusting gold into the cracks—not only fixing it, but creating something different and more beautiful. He aptly captured the aspirations of the “glass half full” types in the room.
While the hope of what freedom might deliver was present throughout, there was a subtext and celebration of disruption. If this room represented the “good guys,” speakers had no trouble pointing out the “bad guys.” Typically, they were the elites of the political, legal, media, and academic worlds. The World Economic Forum served as the most prominent symbol of those elites. Disrupting elite power structures and celebrating victories was a big part of the energy.
There were also voices at the ARC Conference reminding everyone that cultural change doesn’t follow a neat linear trajectory, that it’s not unusual to experience both disruption and rebuilding simultaneously, and that some disruption is destructive. New York Times columnist David Brooks used his speech to deliver that uncomfortable message. He described secular liberalism as having created an economic caste system where the best outcomes are reserved for the educated elite. At the same time, secular liberalism delivered a privatized morality, supplanting objective truth with “your truth” and “my truth.” And he called out its assault on institutions, pointing to President Trump as a leader in those assaults. Many in the audience booed; others acknowledged the challenge of being cautious about what you break if you hope to thrive in the future.
What’s the way forward?
“Faith, family, freedom, and education” was the most commonly heard formulation for the path to populist progress at the ARC Conference. While the speakers covered the gamut of perspectives, they seemed primarily Christian, Jewish, or atheist. Most also seemed to take as a given the Judeo-Christian framework as a historic building block for Western civilization and as a key to understanding our democratic inheritance. But acknowledging this past did not make for a clear way forward. Jordan Peterson relied heavily on biblical imagery in his opening and closing talks. They seemed to be adaptations of his most recent book, We Who Wrestle with God. While his talks included real insights and pragmatic wisdom throughout, I found his retelling of the various biblical stories somewhat incoherent. I'm not so sure that the story of Abraham is about God sending His people on an adventure and that self-sacrifice is the key virtue going forward. Neither am I convinced that Peterson’s reduction to symbols of various things that the Scriptures make real is helpful. “We need to get our story straight,” he told us, moving as we are from our present moment of “immature hedonists” to an adventure where we, like Abraham, are called by God to an adventure of “reciprocal voluntary self-sacrifice” which is “the chief cornerstone around which a flourishing civilization can be built.”
My distaste for homemade theology was offset by compelling speeches by author and social critic Os Guinness and Bishop Robert Barron (among others). They reminded the audience that the Christian faith is not, first of all, a tool for building civilizations and that cutting its flowers from its roots will, at best, only provide short-term blessings.
What’s freedom for?
Freedom’s purpose seems to be an unsettled question for ARC speakers. Some seemed to use freedom as a cudgel with which to win battles against the cultural elites who are the enemies of freedom. Others had a more positive (usually faith-inspired) vision.
British satirist and free speech champion Konstantin Kisin’s talk helped clarify the tension. He was one of the conference’s most articulate and humorous speakers, lampooning the excesses of cancel culture. His wit built towards a clarion call for vigilance and action. We had the opportunity to rediscover the dream of a culture in which “our children can be judged on the content of their character and not the colour of the square they post on Instagram.” But then he concluded by noting that since death is inevitable and we only have one life to live, we must live with “authenticity.” Kisin was ushered off with a standing ovation after posing his final question, “What do you have to lose?”
While others cheered, I pondered the emptiness of the question. Do we embrace freedom because we have nothing to lose? Is it just an end in itself? Fortunately, there were times during the conference when speakers expounded upon freedom as a tool for what it might help us gain. The inspiring examples of beauty, truth, and goodness are often realized through compelling stories of sacrificial love for God and neighbour, whether expressed individually or through institutions – these are the moments that inspired.
The recovery of Western civilization is not the same as ushering in the kingdom of God. My faith is in a God who has worked in every civilization throughout history and around the world today. I’m a fan of Western civilization, thankful for the freedom it provides, and would like to believe that, if called as my forebears were, it is even worth fighting and dying for. But as treasured as freedom is, it is not ultimate.
Many at the podium, as well as folks in private conversation, confused the value of freedom. I am an advocate for political freedom and a public square that celebrates and promotes it, even as my spiritual comfort is that I am not my own but belong to my faithful saviour Jesus Christ. It’s not a journey of self-sacrifice but rather divine deliverance so that I can live life with the freedom to fulfill my created purpose as an image-bearer of the Creator himself. The purpose of freedom is to discover the beauty, goodness, and truth in the world God created and to enjoy it in the context of love and relationships.
Will the fight for Western civilization and freedom succeed? The ARC movement started with an October 2023 conference and 1,500 attendees. This past week, a sold-out gathering of 4,100 people rallied, building momentum for an organization with ambitious plans to network populists into a global movement.
But if the cause is more than replacing the existing elites with new ones, the movement will need to coalesce around something more coherent than what was offered this week. The hard work of clearly articulating what freedom is for is essential if we are to create something beautiful from the shattered Western civilization and not just dust off remnants that belong in history books and museums. It’s clearly still a work in progress.
The Captain and Compass Search
The present uncertainty regarding Canadian domestic and trade affairs will not be resolved until after the federal election. Until then, this Insights section will provide a brief punditry take on “the week that was.”
Message consistency is a key part of successful political campaigns, something Liberal leadership candidate Mark Carney experienced first-hand this week when he told English audiences that he would use “emergency powers” to force the building of energy infrastructure while assuring French audiences that he would not impose anything on Quebec against its will. On the Conservative side, there’s some debate as to whether Pierre Pollievre’s major rally speech last Saturday was a pivot or a doubling-down on his core messages. Building a trusted brand is essential for any successful campaign to become prime minister. Only rarely is a brand shaped by single memorable events. Usually, it’s the cumulative impact of the steady drip of news stories, the details of which are usually forgotten, which influence how voters who don’t follow politics closely end up casting their ballots.
Three numbers caught my eye this week. Mark Carney is raising more money than all other candidates for the Liberal leadership combined. It’s another indication that he is likely to win the vote scheduled for March 9. However, as I’ve hinted in this space before, the eligibility of 400,000 people to vote in this race continues to raise questions. Given that the Liberal membership list at the start of the race was estimated to be less than 100,000, it seems rather unusual to have more than 300,000 new membership sign-ups in the very short eligibility period available in January. While there has been very little reporting that might explain this, I did notice that candidate Ruby Dhalla is facing questions from her party about $21,000 of the donations she’s received. I have no evidence or knowledge, but I wonder whether this might be related to some of the networks Dhalla seems to have access to. Could they provide a Liberal leadership ballot box surprise?
The final numbers that caught my eye came from this week’s Angus Reid Institute poll. Since December, the federal Liberals have gained 21 percent support, while Conservative support dropped 5 percent and the NDP dropped 11 percent. Now, the NDP holds just 10 percent support nationally. If this trend continues, the NDP will lose many seats, and its decision not to force an election last fall will go down as one of the most significant political miscalculations in Canadian political history.
WHAT I’M READING
The Political AI Agenda
Prime Minister Trudeau addressed a major artificial intelligence (AI) conference this week, arguing that equality and democratic values are essential if we are to keep AI from becoming a control tool of the elites. He noted he would add this to the agenda for the G7 meeting Canada is hosting in June. Don Lenihan provides some perspective on the implications.
Generational Clash
This published excerpt from Jean Twenge’s recent book, Generations: The Real Differences Between Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, Boomers, and Silents—and What They Mean for America’s Future, adds to the already-generous literature on the different attitudes that exist regarding various demographic cohorts. Twenge’s frame, however, isn’t just exploring differences but also clashes, laying out some of the implications of themes that suggest conflicts that might be around the corner.
Elon Musk and Family Values
There was lots of online debate regarding Elon Musk bringing his four-year-old son X Æ A-Xii to a White House media conference and what the lad may or may not have said to the president. This commentary about Musk’s parenting priorities brought to mind a Forbes piece from a few years back, which provides background to some of his views on surrogacy and IVF and a very different conception of reproduction that will concern most of those who consider themselves to be family values advocates.
MEANINGFUL METRICS
Can We Measure Happiness?
Happiness is declining. Having listened to Harvard Happiness Guru Arthur Brooks this week, this decline has been steady at least since the 1990s. Brooks has done a fair bit of work on the science of happiness and suggests (with research stats to support his claims) that individual happiness is 50 percent genetics, 25 percent circumstances, and 25 percent the result of individual behaviours. “Faith, family, friendship, and work” are the four major factors that shape the final quarter. In combination, Brooks says they provide the most significant variable when it comes to the metrics of happiness that polls like the one released this week provide.
TAKE IT TO-GO
Raindrops in London
I intended to leave you with a picture of the London fog, but I mist. London lived up to its grey reputation, but only once did I need my umbrella in the five days I was there. I learned that even when the London rains may not be everything they are reputed to be, the London reigns continue unabated.
I managed to take a guided tour of the British Parliament buildings, where the guide insightfully used architecture and history to provide a tutorial on the development of Westminster democracy. I don’t want to muddy the many lessons this history has provided, including in Canada, where I was blessed to be born, so I will resist the temptation to use the experience to precipitate a deluge of puns. Without any dad jokes to distract (and there are many to be made as one observes the various royal painting collections) let me unequivocally recommend you add this tour to your to-do list should you have the opportunity.
Here’s hoping you have a great week. I hope to be back in your inbox next Saturday morning.
Until then.