Do Ideas Shape Politics?

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

HERE'S MY TAKE

Politicians and campaign staff are largely gone from Ottawa. This week, the wonks have taken their place. It’s the second consecutive year that the major “movement” conferences are happening in two different hotels on the same dates. At the Westin, the conservative Canada Strong and Free Network’s National Conference attracted 1,000 attendees. Meanwhile, at the Delta, several hundred progressives attended panels at the 2025 Progress Summit hosted by the left-wing Broadbent Institute. Given that Cardus is in the business of promoting ideas, we organized our own event—this year focused on the theme of institutions—to provide an opportunity to engage with many in Ottawa whom we ordinarily don’t get to meet in person.

In the midst of a campaign defined more by fear (an emotion) and leadership (mainly relationship) than by ideas, it’s worth reflecting for a moment on how we engage with ideas in public life today. Most agree that ideas can change the world. However, this does not mean that the best ideas always win. Reality often overshadows the idealism of our younger selves. As much as we might wish it were otherwise, the best arguments do not always prevail, and the truth does not always win. Political branding campaigns, charismatic personalities, and contemporary difficulties seem to play a more decisive role in political outcomes today than do ideas.

That doesn’t mean ideas aren’t relevant. Western systems of government, broadly considered “democratic liberalism,” reflect different foundational ideas compared to the authoritarian governments that dominate many non-Western countries. Within the West, at a 30,000-foot level, there are significant variations in how people answer core questions: What does it mean to be human? What is the good life to which we should aspire socially? How is order maintained and virtue promoted? What are the roles and limits of government in all of this? Many people do not take the time to articulate their answers carefully, but their implicit responses to these questions have practical and political consequences. The “30,000-foot differences” that these questions create divide us into different camps; that’s why conservatives and progressives attended different conferences this week, with virtually no overlap in attendance.

After attending over a dozen in-person sessions (as well as clips or summaries of at least as many others online), I’ve noted several “ideas” in my notebook. I will ponder them in the weeks and months ahead. These ideas need testing, and the provocative propositions I’ve encountered require research. I must do some digging to discover how extensively these ideas have been put into practice in the past and whether they produced all the positive outcomes their advocates seemed to predict. If not, why not? Was it the idea itself or how it was implemented? But I work for a think tank. Evaluating and testing ideas while translating them into actionable policy is central to our mission. But what does this mean for the ordinary citizen who realistically can’t engage ideas with that intensity?

Day-to-day politics and election campaigns operate at a different level. The ballot you will mark by April 28 will contain the names of people, not ideas. In the federal election campaign, the Liberals in particular seem to be trying to eliminate ideas from the calculus. They have abandoned many of the signature policies of their past decade of governance, adopted many Conservative policy proposals (with a few tweaks), and campaigned to neutralize any ideas debate. They want voters to vote on their feelings about which party leader—Liberal or Conservative—is best qualified to be the prime minister. More specifically, they want voters to mark ballots based on which party leader they feel will be best to renegotiate the Canada-US economic and security relationship that US President Trump has disrupted.

The polls suggest that a majority of Canadians view this election campaign as an extended job interview for prime minister. We’re mid-interview, and the debates coming this week are likely to present the most challenging interview questions. However, the interviewing committee seems increasingly inclined to believe it has found its preferred candidate. Just because the next government may be selected based on an assessment of skills (and temperament) rather than ideas, doesn’t mean it won’t be influenced by ideas. It only means that the existing core ideas shaping our governing policies will likely continue.

This week’s Cardus-Angus Reid Institute poll tells us that 63 percent of Canadians agree that “it’s impossible for ordinary people like me to have a real influence in the political process.” I wonder if their disappointment comes from expecting idea-change to happen through politics. Politics never unfolds in a vacuum devoid of ideas, but the political process isn’t the primary mechanism by which prevailing governing ideas are transformed. Election campaigns focus less on making decisions (though the X on a ballot requires a specific type of decision) and more on expressing our existing values and priorities. The ideas that shape our beliefs aren’t always those we can articulate, and we are rarely persuaded by politicians to adopt substantial new ideas. Politics serves as a means to collectively express our existing beliefs and core ideas. Elections are as much about expression as they are about persuasion, a reflection rather than a choice of values. That’s why other civil society institutions that shape us are so important, and a view of public life focusing solely on politics is so unsatisfactory.

If that is true, there are two consequences. The first is that election campaigns are much less decisive than we make them out to be. When asked about their political beliefs in terms of a progressive-conservative binary without reference to any political party or leader, 35 percent of Canadians select progressive, 25 percent choose conservative, while 38 percent say they’re in the mushy middle. An election campaign isn’t going to change anything here. Convincing our neighbours to adopt a different collective perspective is a long-term task. Paul Wells did a two-parter this week on his Substack entitled “What an election won’t fix.” He argued that citizens need to be more active between campaigns for meaningful change to happen. “We cannot spend the first two years of a new leader’s tenure defending that leader against all opponents. That’s how abscesses grow. We cannot greet a new leader with shitty little books about how evil they are. Our leaders are imperfect, but they try hard. We don’t help them when we make them soldiers in our own little morality plays.”

I read Wells’s articles on Thursday evening after listening to Professor Ian Brodie deliver his keynote address on rebuilding trust in government at Cardus Exchange 2025. He argued that in an era of increasing distrust in all of our institutions, including political ones, we need to recover the practice of humility. He cited three applications: a humility regarding our expectations of what governments can achieve to correct society; a humility on the part of governments in what they attempt, noting that doing fewer things, but doing them well, is better than trying everything and not succeeding; and a humility in our speech. Governing is a function of speech, according to Dr. Brodie. Laws and regulations take the form of words and the process of persuasion and choice in our political system depends on language.

As intriguing and important as it was to hear talks that quoted philosophers like Plato, Aristotle, Rousseau, and Burke this week, ideas take meaning when they are put into practice. Even so, whatever left-right ideological labels we choose for ourselves, we can’t really consider ideas absent the character (individual and collective) of the citizenry that is implementing them. I suggest that the results of the April 28 vote will not only tell us which leader and party we are selecting to lead Canada. They will also reveal the collective character of the electorate.

Maybe the question of responsible citizenship that might effect change is more than casting a ballot or even volunteering to knock on doors and to talk to your fellow citizens about the immediate political choice, important as those things are. Are we also seeking opportunities between campaigns to have civil discussions about ideas that matter? If politics is to be shaped by good ideas, it will be more a function of long-term, ideas-based conversations in Canada than an ideas week in Ottawa, although both are necessary. 

WHAT I’M READING

Those Befuddling Tariffs

Wednesday’s 90-day suspension of US President Trump’s global tariffs (with a few exceptions, including separate tariffs on China and Canada) seems to have been most directly caused by tumult in the bond market. As I’m writing, the EU has decided to delay the counter-tariffs while Prime Minister Carney has announced a Friday cabinet committee meeting to discuss Canada’s response. Given that US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer found out about his president’s decision (announced via social media) in real time while he was testifying to the House Ways and Means Committee, I don’t feel guilty about not finding a suitable link to credibly explain what’s happening.

Divided About Unity

I noted a few weeks back a growing intensity of discontent that I was anecdotally picking up from my interactions with Western Canadians, many of whom previously I would have identified as very pro-Canadian. That seems to track with the letter from Alberta Premier Danielle Smith to Quebec Premier François Legault proposing a coordinated approach for greater provincial autonomy within Canada. This has come alongside a Globe and Mail editorial by former Reform Party leader Preston Manning warning that the election of the Carney Liberals would be interpreted by some as “a vote for the break-up of Canada as we know it.” All of the federal party leaders have distanced themselves from these sentiments, which have certainly been the target of almost universal disdain from the mainstream commentariat. While the polls indicate that the prospect of separation seems extreme to all but a relatively small minority of Westerners, the percolation of this debate is something the next federal government won’t be able to ignore.

Five Factors Killing Marriage

The Federalist featured an essay by my colleagues entitled, “Here are the Top 5 Factors Damaging Society by Killing Marriage.” Second-wave feminism, divorce, cohabitation, the decline of Christianity, and prioritizing college and career each play their role in how recent generations have placed less value on marriage. The authors conclude, “What is certain is that we have altered critical aspects of the purpose of marriage, namely its longevity and connection to children. This has made marriage feel riskier. For the sake of coming generations, we need to initiate a conversation about the value and purpose of marriage.”

Rushing MAiD 

Dr. Ramona Coelho, in addition to serving as a family physician serving marginalized persons in London, Ontario, also is a member of Ontario’s MAiD Death Review Committee. In this piece published by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, she provides several alarming examples of “rushing to death.” Dr. Coelho takes issue with local medical culture, doctors not confirming consent to MAiD, and dealing with these cases as a matter of hypothetical policy rather than taking into account the real lived experience. As a result, medical professionals are dealing with a lot of guesswork and ethical dilemmas.

Shugart Lecture Series

I’m excited to draw to your attention a new lecture series launched to honour the late Senator Ian Shugart. I dedicated an Insights edition to Ian when he passed in October 2023, privileged as I was to have benefited from his work in both a professional and personal capacity. Ian embodied both the noun and the verb of public service in a manner that saw those across the political spectrum pay tribute to his integrity, which they knew was formed by his Christian faith. The first lecture in this series will take place on November 20, 2025, at the National Arts Centre in Ottawa with New York Times columnist Ross Douthat. He will undoubtedly provide a provocative discussion of his recent book, Believe: Why Everyone Should be Religious. Sign up here if you want to receive ticket information when it becomes available.

MEANINGFUL METRICS

The Value of Conversation

As part of Cardus’ 25th anniversary this year, Cardus commissioned the Angus Reid Institute (ARI) to conduct a poll of 5,000 Americans and 5,000 Canadians to allow us to do a deep analytical dive focused on how the religiosity (or lack thereof) of either country’s citizenry shapes their public life. We will be releasing analysis throughout the year, but on Thursday we provided a sneak peek of a few topical results. Interestingly, 72 percent of non-Conservative voters in Canada see the Conservative Party as a threat to Canada’s well-being. That compares to 62 percent of non-Liberal voters who say the same about the Liberal Party as a similar threat. In the United States, there is a greater concern about the Republican Party (75 percent) than there is about the Democratic Party (67 percent) among non-supporters of each. There is about a 10 percent difference between Canadians and Americans as to how they evaluate the value of conversation with those they disagree with. Canadians are more likely to find such conversations “interesting and informative” while Americans lean toward finding such conversations “stressful and frustrating.” “Regardless of political affiliation, people report distrust of political parties and leaders,” reports ARI. “Most Canadians say they have little or no confidence in the federal government (54%), political leaders (68%) and political parties (71%); likewise Americans (69%, 74%, 76% respectively).”

TAKE IT TO-GO

Do Months Name or Measure?