Can Conservatism Be Cool?

May 4, 2024

HERE'S MY TAKE

As it turns out, conservatism can be “cool”—sort of. That’s my take on the debate at last week’s Civitas Society conference, “a society where ideas meet.” The Chatham House Rule prevents me from naming participants or attributing statements but the discussions that included several well-placed Conservative activists provided insight on how at least some in the conservative movement understand and explain the current popularity of the federal Conservatives.

First, though, let’s distinguish between small-c conservatism and the capital-C Conservative Party. The first is about turning ideas into policy; the second is about political power and possibilities. Polling support for the latter doesn’t automatically translate into a commitment to the former. Let’s also go beyond the easy stereotypes. Sure, the younger gay conservative on the panel talked about “staying chill” and being relevant. Others argued from first principles. They suggested the counter-cultural ideas with which they associated conservatism were like “old wine and old books—they get better with age.” Some of them wondered what the point of holding power was, if Conservatives weren’t going to use their power to advocate for conservatives ideas.

Questions of how conservatives should use political power, of course, lead to the typical debates among libertarians, classical liberals, Burkean conservatives, and plainly pragmatic folks who simply believe they’re better managers than “the other guys.” Of course, more philosophical types chimed in too. “Maybe,” one participant advocated, “we should think of the content of conservatism not about any checklist of specific policies but about a disposition regarding the balance between freedom and order.”

Conservatism is contextual. Are Doug Ford and Danielle Smith equally conservative, but simply expressing their conservatism within the confines of their provinces’ political cultures? Even on that, conservatives disagree. Sean Speer, a widely respected Conservative insider who worked in Prime Minister Harper’s office, concluded after Ontario’s last budget, the Ford government had failed to be conservative not only in what it had done but also in what it had failed to do. Ken Boesenkool, a lobbyist with Conservative insider credentials, opined in the Globe in defence of Ford’s conservatism. 

Policy and political nerds can spend an entire Saturday parsing the different strands of both the ideas and the politics of implementing ideas. And certainly, the balance between when to stand on principle (even if that means losing) and when to make pragmatic choices for incremental improvements (or preventing regression) is always relevant. Different people will make different choices and draw lines in different places, with their own context and conscience to guide.

Upon reflection, however, I do find it striking to evaluate the various arguments about just how “cool” it is to be conservative in Canada today. Recent polling shows the Conservative Party of Canada holding a healthy lead in every age demographic. It’s debatable as to how much of this is due to the perceptions of the leaders (with Prime Minister Trudeau scoring a net -32 impression and Conservative leader Poilievre scoring a net +3 impression), the ability to deal with the issues of the moment (affordability, crime, and government competence, for example), or whether this is a more fundamental cultural shift among Canadians.

I’m pretty skeptical about concluding that the changing political mood reflects much of a cultural shift on the part of the population, although there are qualifications and nuances. While there are a few exceptions, the “throw the bums out” sentiment that overtakes the voting population every decade or so seems to have set in. This mood afflicts governments of all stripes and competencies and it is rare for any political party to win four elections in a row. 

There are some interesting numbers beneath the headlines that suggest some shifting cultural sands. The attraction of Jordan Peterson and other similar figures, especially for younger men, speaks to a dissatisfaction with the prevailing status quo. Most would be surprised to learn that regular religious service attendance, on a per capita basis, is much higher for those under 30 than it is for baby boomers. In fact, the most religiously committed Canadians these days seem to be young men and older women (and there is some correlation between religious commitment and views on various public issues). 

Some of the extremes of progressive wokeness also seem to be sparking a backlash from certain segments of the populace. Take, for example, the policies conservative provincial governments have put forward to respect parents’ rights to be informed and involved with the “gender identity” issues of their minority-aged children. Whatever anyone thinks of those policies, support for them has been much broader than many would have expected.

But it would be a mistake to read these trends as evidence of a widespread positive conviction that conservatism is “cool” in Canada. Interpreting data is both an art and a science. I check several polls each week. Frankly, the Canadian public isn’t easy to pin down politically. My general assessment, however, is that Canadians divide into three groups: a core progressive-minded base of about 45%, a core conservative-minded base of around 35%, and a 20% swing group that could lean in either direction depending on the issue. Keep in mind that there are many issues which divide progressives as well as conservatives, resulting in some issues yielding closer to 80% support on one or the other side. If ideological orientation is what we are trying to discern, most issues can be explained within this framework.

The Civitas organisers used “cool” in the resolution framing the discussion and predictably there was disagreement about the usefulness of the term. Is it a synonym for popular? Popular with certain demographics? An attitude that correlates with being anti-establishment? If that is the case, has the establishment changed from the conservative institutions of the 1960s that the cool kids used to protest to institutions dominated by progressives who are now the cultural majority? So, would that mean the “conservative” counterculture, being numerically in the minority (debated by some), is now “cool” and “hip?”

Perhaps we are at a cultural tipping point which amounts to more than just the regular swing of the political pendulum. The '60s were two generations ago, and the younger crowd today, following time-tested trends of “youth counter-cultural rebellion,” are now pushing back on some of the majority progressive cultural extremes, placing themselves in a camp that looks and feels a bit more conservative. But most of them have not been schooled in conservative thought nor are they all that sure what it is all about. Counter-culture is best at attacking and destroying, not building. On most issues, conservative ideology requires building and preserving.

All of this has two implications. First, the present polling success for the federal Conservatives isn’t as secure as some think it is. Given the history of “kick the bums out” politics, there are good reasons to believe the sentiment might last until the next election in 2025, but it’s hardly a sure thing. The second implication is even more challenging, especially for the small-c conservatives, who rely on and believe in institutions. A counterculture of opposition must be developed into a movement for positive and constructive cultural reform.

Is conservatism (whether capitalised or not) cool? I’m not sure exactly what that means but there is a sense in which the polls—not just in terms of political party support, but also on a wide issue set—suggest the answer is “sort of.” Conservatism is not cool in the sense of having won over Canadian culture, but it is cool as a reason to reject some of the progressive cultural assumptions that clearly are not working. Still, that very coolness may be a problem, especially for conservatives, who desire something other than just holding power.

WHAT I’M READING

The Conservative Case for the CBC

Jen Gerson warns Conservatives that while “defund the CBC” may make compelling political rhetoric (and there are plenty of good reasons to change things from the way they are), eliminating the CBC and the capacity that a national broadcaster has to help create a national narrative may have consequences that many Conservatives would regret.

Trumpite Evangelicalism or Bidenist Capitalism?

This title of Carl Truman's First Things piece caught my attention. His story about Trump’s blasphemy of selling Bibles to support his political campaign being matched by Biden’s highlighting Easter Sunday as “trans visibility day” merits a read and some reflection. Rather than try to answer the question, Truman observes that the choice between “a party whose leader confuses the biblical canon with the writings of Jefferson or a party that is legislating the very abolition of man and gloats about it” is a telling barometer of where the US is at as a republic.

What is a Nation?

From that same issue of First Things, Peter Leithart clarifies some essential points for those trying to make sense of “Christian nationalism” in his article  exploring the challenges of defining a “nation.”

Protestants for the Common Good

The book is on my yet-to-read list, but I thought this excerpt from Social Conservatism for the Common Good makes an interesting case that Protestants would do well to develop a more coherent sense of the common good.

MEANINGFUL METRICS

Canadian Cultural Mindsets

In follow-up to my take above, I thought it useful to draw attention to the extensive "Canada and the Culture Wars" survey conducted by the Angus Reid Institute released between July and October 2023.

The survey parsed the responses to 21 questions to segment the population into five distinct groups based on the intensity of their views. The five fill a continuum from modern progressive to traditionally conservative. The intensity of the views they hold (often expressed in frustration) factors into the five categories.

There are definite age and gender differences with younger women being most likely to lean to the progressive side, while men between 35 and 54 are likely to lean conservative.

TAKE IT TO-GO

Green With Envy

The word of the week seems to be “wacko.” On Tuesday, the leader of the opposition was ejected by the speaker from the House of Commons for his use of the term. Not to make light of serious matters, but I’ll skip serious political analysis and jump instead to the wordplay implications. 

I took out my Google shovel to find out if any of this was groundbreaking. No less an authority than the Oxford English Dictionary suggests that the word “wacko” was first used in the 1970s. Its usage seems relatively rare, although there is a politician south of the border who has changed that. A search of Hansard finds its first use in Canada’s 37^th Parliament in 2002. “Wacko” has been used at least once in every Parliament since then by MPs from various parties, although never with the frequency seen or heard this past week. 

Applying “wacko” to a person is definitely an insult and not polite at all. If that is the point critics are whacking at, I get it. But Oxford isn’t the only standard to consider. Miriam Webster uses investments, UAB football, and even references a citation to the use of “wacko” in print as far back as 1936 (so take that, Oxford!). 

Sometimes my wordplay is described as “wacko” and going too far. Manufacturing a debate about online etymology sources might be considered as wacko as some of the use of “wacko” in Parliament. One of the critics described this week’s parliamentary proceedings as a real zoo. With a few koalafications, I would agree.

Admittedly, before politicians can get their perspectives heard, they need to get the listeners’ attention. Well, this wacko controversy did achieve that. So you can say it was not completely irrelephant. It did quickly become that, however. Those on the inside accused their opponents of bald-faced lion, and most of the public found it un-bear-able. Maybe a related word, “wackadoodle,” would serve as a more accurate description of this week in Canadian politics.

What word will dominate next week? Who knows? We’ll be watching like a hawk and you can expect Insights to be back in your inbox next Saturday morning, complete with next week’s take.