Have Conservatives Joined the Big Government Camp?

Click “Listen Now” to hear the audio version of Insights.

HERE'S MY TAKE

Modern governments aren’t known for resolute decision-making followed by swift action. And when they do act that way, those who agree with the government’s decisions and actions tend to applaud; those who disagree tend to complain about authoritarianism. Observing three very different debates this week reminded me that what governments decide and do isn’t the only thing that matters. The principles guiding their actions matter. When we forget that, however, we all end up losing something in the process.

The three examples that caught my attention are unrelated, and it’s unlikely that many would agree with the government’s actions in all of them. However, agreement or disagreement seem to be a feature of partisan proclivities, if the public debate is any indication.

On August 5, the Nova Scotia government implemented a travel ban (including hiking, fishing, camping, and ATV use) in all of the province's forested areas to prevent forest fires, with violators to be fined $25,000. Within days, the province had issued at least six fines. While few argue against restrictions generally, the blanket ban also places limitations on private property use and loosely defines “wooded areas” (resulting in the closure of trail systems). This has prompted a vigorous debate about government overreach and constitutional violations.

On August 9, Hamilton Mayor Andrea Horwath ordered the removal of a roadside billboard on public property. The billboard advertised the website LetKidsBe.ca by the Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA) and bore the message: “Stop medical transitions for minors.” In banning the message, Mayor Horwath claimed that “hate-related incidents are on the rise in Hamilton” and that the city “will not stand by when confronted by hate.” The sign was up for only a few days before the mayor posted her decision on social media. A few days later, the billboard was removed.

On August 12, US President Donald Trump deployed 800 National Guard members to Washington, D.C. to take control of the city’s police force to address “a crime emergency” there. Few would argue that violent crime and homelessness are major issues in Washington, although depending on the measure used, other American cities may be worse. Mr. Trump cited a recent carjacking involving a political intern as an example of the problems of “crime, bloodshed, bedlam, and squalor.” Almost immediately, a very visible police presence appeared in Washington with reports of dozens of arrests daily.

These are three very different stories in three different jurisdictions. Yet in each of them, resolute decisions followed by swift action have led to intense public debate and legal action alleging government overreach.

Had I introduced each subject—protecting the public against wildfires, protecting marginalized communities against hatred, and protecting the public against violent crime—I suspect there would be broad agreement that each is an appropriate objective for governments. The disagreements regard the specific judgments in specific circumstances. But the responses are not just ordinary political debate. They’ve prompted lawsuits. Folks are hurling words like “freedom and rights,” “public safety,” and “government responsibility” as competing insults rather than complementary concepts.

In fairness, there are legitimate concerns about consistency (or a lack thereof) that lead some to conclude that a given government decision is authoritarian. Someone could ask:

• If free speech really threatens public safety in Hamilton, what about those who spout anti-semitic slurs daily on our streets?
• Why focus on the incidental threats of hunting and fishing in Nova Scotia, but exempt much of commercial forestry activities?
• Why is the US president stepping in now when there is significant activity already underway that has reduced Washington’s violent crime rate over the past year? 

These are all fair questions. And I’m sympathetic to arguments about government overreach in all three cases. But that is beside the point I am making here. Neither do I want to focus on technical legal questions involved. Some years from now, the courts will have their say on each of these issues.

Instead, I think it’s more important to note that in the debates on these issues, both the left and right disregard implicit understandings of how our democracy is put together. Space doesn’t allow for an extensive articulation of these principles but let me briefly list a few of what we have in mind:

• Federalism
  In both Canada and the United States, we have multiple levels of government, each responsible for different things, and multiple branches within government. Why? Our forefathers were convinced of the danger of putting too much power in any single place, conscious that “power corrupts.” Checks and balances and the division of powers are core to the democracy we inherited. History tells me that federalism is a political consequence of sixteenth-century Calvinists applying their concerns about total depravity to a political system.
  
  
• Subsidiarity
  This is the idea that decisions are best made at the most local level possible, closest to where the decisions will have effect. Local knowledge almost always results in better decision-making than central planning and allows for adaptation to best suit local circumstances. History tells me that this was an insight that Thomas Aquinas articulated and that it has been a prominent feature of Catholic social thought since then.
  
  
• Solidarity
  Since we live in society, we consider public questions in terms of the public good and not just our own self-interest. This includes respect for difference, showing civility, respect, and generosity towards our neighbours and fellow citizens. “Love your neighbour” and “love your enemy” are both biblical commands that our forebears sought to embed in our political systems.
  
  
• Legitimacy
  Governments gain their authority from a process that, in some form, reflects the “consent of the governed.” Legitimate authority is not taken but granted. Generations ago, there were debates about how to translate respect for every person as an image-bearer of God and the concept of the “priesthood of all believers” into political systems that broadened the franchise and resisted tyranny.

This isn’t a political theory or historical textbook, but I raise these principles because they were once part of our democratic DNA. However, they seem to be missing from our debates today. Without intending to be partisan, I would point out that experience has taught me that those on the political left tend to default to “big government” solutions to solve public problems, while those on the political right have traditionally been more sensitive toward ensuring freedom is protected and looking to those outside of government to act. Surprisingly, I see those on the right losing that sensitivity. They seem ready to do constitutional battle as if freedom is the only thing that matters (and to be clear, that is a valid and important battle), but freedom as we have inherited it is part of an ecosystem of principles that informed our democratic ideals.

Judging by the arguments I observed this week, those underlying principles hardly seem to be a consideration. Government is about solving problems. Those in power can use that power to achieve the solutions that seem best to them (or at least win them the public support they need to stay in power). Whether it is getting sports teams to change their names or choosing whom the Kennedy Center would honour with its annual entertainment awards (neither overly consequential, but both current news items), historically, there would be a debate about “big government” controlling every aspect of our lives. But today, those who historically have made such arguments seem silenced by the allure of using power to get their desired outcomes.

Let’s not forget that balancing several principles is part of the democratic legacy we inherited. By all means, let’s work together to ensure the fires don’t burn down our cities, that our free speech doesn’t provoke hate, and that we keep criminals at bay. But let’s do it in a way that respects and does not burn, damage, or kill the balancing of democratic impulses which brought us the freedom and order, that I fear we are too easily taking for granted. Our liberal democracy has a mixed parentage. I’m not blindly defending it as sacrosanct. However, if we are to see the wisdom of Christian social thought applied to the public square for the advancement of the common good, we need to remind ourselves that there are several principles that, held in balance, have contributed to our legacy of order and freedom.

WHAT I’M READING

MAID Made Ordinary

This Atlantic essay on Canada’s euthanasia regime is filled with stories of real euthanasia situations. They show the intensity of the efforts to make euthanasia live up to its promise of “autonomy, choice, and control,” which, it is claimed, are the values the Supreme Court of Canada prioritized when it struck down the criminal ban on euthanasia in 2015. Noting that the prevailing definition of “incurable” is a medical condition that “could not be cured by means acceptable to the patient,” The Atlantic reports Canada has created an effective government-funded and delivered suicide program for any who want it. The article includes a chilling account of one 44-year-old who chose euthanasia because of an inability to access necessary care. “It was not a genetic disease that took me out, it was a system,” the person is reported to have said before being euthanized. 

Defying the Norm

Figuring out how to engage as a male in a world where masculinity is treated with suspicion can be a challenge, at least according to Peter Copeland in the Toronto Star last week. (Full disclosure: Peter is a Cardus NextGen alumnus and friend.) The political left “can rightly claim credit for having cultivated a more emotionally intelligent society,” Peter writes. “But progressivism has also led to helicopter parenting, safetyism, and cancel culture, as well as ever more infantilized boys.” Acknowledging that many men are reacting to this, including some who turn to extremes, Peter suggests that young men are in an especially difficult spot. “They yearn for responsibility, for meaning, for belonging,” he writes. “And progressives would do well to recognize this because it comes from a masculinity that all men can aspire to—one that embodies strength and service and that society sorely needs.”

Anger Management over the 49th Parallel

Christopher Sands is one of the most knowledgeable and often-quoted commentators on Canada-US relations. His Substack this week is on the increasingly intense rhetoric surrounding this issue. He makes the valid point that eventually, it is not the issues themselves that are in dispute, but rather the heightened nationalist reaction to them. This reaction becomes a problem of its own and complicates, if not prevents, the resolution of broader questions. It’s a historical take that provides perspective on the bi-national interdependence and the “cringey” nationalism that has emerged. “The United States and Canada remain neighbors and a relationship between them is inevitable,” writes Sands. “Figuring out a way forward that is mutually acceptable and beneficial is the essential work we must now undertake now that the cringing is done.”

MEANINGFUL METRICS

The Bible Through a Global Lens

Reviewing the Patmos World Bible Attitudes Survey reminded me of how the relationship between Canadians and the Bible compares to those who live in other countries. The 2022 Cardus report "The Bible and Us" found that 65 percent of Canadian self-identified Christians (who also report regular religious activity) had a physical copy of the Bible in their home, but only 37 percent read it “at least once a month.” There are stark denominational differences, with 60 percent of Evangelicals, 19 percent of Mainline Protestants, and 15 percent of Roman Catholics indicating regular personal reading of Scripture. These findings are consistent with the Patmos report clustering Canada with other anglosphere countries that have “a secular context with low levels of interest in learning more about the Bible, and a declining Christian population.” It does note that throughout these countries, however, young people (especially those aged 18 to 24) show higher levels of interest in the Bible compared to older generations. Interestingly, this seems to be true not only of young people who self-identify as Christians, but also of nonreligious individuals.

TAKE IT TO-GO

Know When to Hold ‘Em

“You’ve got to know when to hold ‘em

Know when to fold ‘em

Know when to walk away

And know when to run.” 

The echoes of "The Gambler" strummed through my mind as I read Monday’s Globe and Mail front page story on the “em dash.” It argued that artificial intelligence is changing the punctuation patterns in contemporary writing—apparently making dashes more common—and making it a no-brainer that I link lyrics to the song Kenny Rogers made famous:

“Every gambler knows that the secret to survivin’

Is knowin’ what to throw away

And knowin’ what to keep”

The em dash is a writer’s cheating tool. It’s a way to show off a dashing display of grammatical drama—a willingness to break the rules of flow, but with permission—and I’ll admit to finding it a helpful tool when needing to cover a flow of thought that wasn’t quite as logical and coherent as I’d like. I figured I should fact-check the Globe’s claim that AI is to blame. “Artificial Intelligence provider,” I asked. “Give me a snappy media-friendly ode to the em dash.” The offered answer was meagre: “The em dash—equal parts mischief and grace—bridging thoughts between clarity and chaos.”

Kenny Rogers assured me that “every hand’s a winner,” but I’ll leave you to do the counting—I’m throwing in my chips for this week. I’ll admit my citing a country singer was bit more pedestrian than the Globe’s elegant references to Virginia Woolf but evoking a musty saloon complete with cigarettes and whiskey—picture it filled with Kenny Rogers lookalikes sporting beards and cowboy hats—should be proof that em dashes notwithstanding, this came from human experience and imagination and not the “grammatically pristine, structurally ‘correct’ text” that AI delivers. We’ll leave it at that—being human we need to scan the news horizons for another week before dealing another round of Insights next Saturday morning.

Until then.