A friend recently posted a question on Twitter and it really got me thinking...
I think they find comfort in absolutes. Kenney once described himself as a moral absolutist. It ties in, as some people have mentioned here, with authoritarianism and religion. Some people like to have clear simple rules. Ambiguity is uncomfortable.
This both fosters and reinforces a rigidity of thought patterns. If this is "good" then anything that is not-this must be "bad". To accept anything that is outside of the thing they have been told is "good", is to risk a slide into "bad"...
They want to see themselves as good, so accepting any variation on their definition of good, offends their sense of self. And as more things become accepted by the wider society, the more insular they become in their thinking. The more "bad enemies" they see.
Being based in religion to some extent, the "good" is that which can be found in scripture, from many religions. Women are subservient to men, therefore, powerful women are "bad". Marriage is between a man and a woman, therefore, LGBTQ+ people are "bad".
People who follow other religions are almost necessarily bad, because they are different. And somehow the prosperity gospel gets wound in there as well, where the rich are good, therefore, the poor are bad. And so much else follows...
Anyone or anything that makes them uncomfortable; immigrants, soup kitchens, safe injection sites, video games, loud music, foreign food, anything alien to them, is bad. And not just, "I don't enjoy this so I will ignore it/not participate" bad...
No, there seems to be a drive to stamp out anything that falls into the "bad" category. Whether is be social programs, public education, public health care, LGBTQ2+ people and relationships, women in positions of power, immigration...
They can't just let people be, doing their own things. There seems to be a powerful drive to eradicate anything that vexes them. It's very hard to understand how they can feel what everyone else is doing is somehow their business, or how they seem to need to control others.
And I am not even sure that all the conservative political people actually believe what they say. It may be, for some of them, that their research has shown that some regular people believe it and feel strongly about it. Does Poillievre believe all the stuff he says?
Or does he just say it because he knows the CPC base believes it and will give more money and votes because they are hearing what they want to hear? Is he a zealot? Or a con-man? Hard to know, really. Same goes for most of them. There's money to be had being a stooge for the 1%. The people who are deeply conservative, who will run for election based on this philosophical stance, and the people who vote for them...? It could be argued that their fondness for stereotypes, easy to remember and repeat slogans, and rigid adherence to a simplistic view of the world, is intellectual laziness. But it may be more complex than that. Let us explore some areas in which the conservative view is clearly unambiguous despite the nuances non-conservatives perceive. Criminal Justice This authoritarian, "good versus bad" worldview can be seen in the CPC's changes to the Criminal Code, where they imposed mandatory minimum sentences during Harper's tenure as PM. They like rigid rules and harsh penalties. They do not allow for extenuating circumstances. Mandatory minimums removed judicial discretion from judges. Judges have always had the power to examine all the factors in a case and apply the law fairly and justly. This is because society recognised that there is little justice in fining or imprisoning someone who was just trying to survive. Likewise, mental health issues, a history of abuse, and so on, are recognized to be extenuating circumstances and affect the way the judge may determine the best, most just outcome. They used to execute children for theft in the 18th Century. Over the next 200 years, the public became more and more uncomfortable with the execution of young people and the numbers sent to the gallows diminished. Indeed, the prison and judicial systems in Canada and the UK have undergone dramatic changes in the past 200 years. An extremely interesting and enlightening account of the evolution of judicial thinking and justice practices can be found here. For more than two centuries the trajectory has been to employ a more humanist and rehabilitation-focused approach to those found guilty of crimes. The CPC have indicated in every way, from mandatory minimum sentencing to cutting funding for educational and rehabilitation programs, to cutting back on the quality of food in penitentiaries, that they hold a very regressive view. One based on this authoritarian, rigid dichotomy of good and bad. Indeed, Stephen Harper verbalized this unwillingness to look at root causes or contributing factors when he responded to Justin Trudeau's suggestion that we need to examine the root causes of terrorism and radicalization by saying "now is not the time to commit sociology". As we are seeing now in the current discourse over a military-style rifle ban, pro-gun advocates are quick to divide the gun-owning population into "law-abiding gun-owners" and "criminals", as though there can be no passage between these two states. This implies that no one who owns a gun will ever go and do something illegal with it, including failing to store it properly, or firing it where they should not, or aiming it at a person, or actually shooting someone. This also implies that criminality is inherent in an individual, and that anyone who commits a crime should, forever after, bear that single label to define them. Wealth Inequality The CPC has conveyed their outlook on the rich and the poor through this same lens. They don't talk about Canadians as "citizens", or even "voters". They consistently call their audience "tax-payers", thus implying that the only Canadians who count for anything are those who earn enough to pay taxes. Jason Kenney, once elected Premier of Alberta, proceeded to institute two tiered minimum wages. One for most people, and a lower one for those of "lower human capital" - young people and people with disabilities. The concept that people have a definable level of "human capital" is offensive to many. This suggests a worldview that human beings are only worth what they can contribute to the economy. To take this a step further, we can look at the US, where conservative pundits are proclaiming that thousands of deaths are worth it if it helps the stock market rebound. And, after all, some of them add, it will be mostly deaths of the elderly and those in poor health, so it's not really a big deal. The conservative need for clear delineation between good and bad easily slots the poor into the bad category and the wealthy into the good category. The prosperity gospel, as this view has been called, says that God has favoured the wealthy, therefore they must be good. God has not favoured the poor, therefore they must be bad. There is a whole lot more about giving to the church as an investment to guarantee future prosperity, but for the purposes of defining public policy, this use of wealth as a measure of merit is clearly fraught with problems. If a government's public policy philosophy is predicated on the belief that the poor, the elderly, the disabled, the ill are all drains on society as opposed to contributing to the GDP, we are likely to see cuts to programs that support these groups. And we have seen that, are seeing that, through the Harper years and now, as Alberta cuts funding for AISH recipients, and Ontario cuts autism supports and ODSP. Long term care homes were allowed to run as for-profit entities, and we have been seeing the fallout of that as COVID-19 rages across the country. This disregard for people on the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum is evidenced by the kinds of baubles Harper and the CPC offered at election time. Boutique tax credits for things like kids' sports demonstrates an interest in those who can already afford to pay tax and afford to put their kids in sports or music lessons. And a marked disinterest in programs for those who do not earn enough to pay tax and can't even dream of putting their kids into activities. The poorest of the poor are left out of Conservative thinking. Because, as the prosperity gospel goes, they must be poor because they are bad, or lazy, or sinful, and therefore undeserving of assistance.
There is, of course, a political calculation involved as well. There is very little chance the poorest of the poor will vote, never mind vote conservative. And during Harper's tenure, Pierre Poilievre, a CPC MP, introduced Bill C-23, the "Fair Elections Act", which, in part was designed to discourage lower income Canadians from voting. By disenfranchising, defunding, and removing supports for the poor, the elderly and the disabled, Conservatives wash their hands of having any part in indulging people who do not have the "human capital" to make a meaningful contribution to the economy. Disabled veterans saw their supports cut under Harper, with the closure of nine Veterans' Affairs offices. The Harper Government even argued in court that Canada has no social contract with veterans and, therefore, no obligation to ensure that they are supported. Veterans are valuable to conservatives only to the extent that they can be used for photo opportunities to reinforce the conservative brand as tough and warlike. If they return from the front with physical or psychological injuries, they are no longer of value and the conservatives really don't want to have to deal with them. Their human capital, as the UCP leader would say, has been used up.
Racial Inequality The history of racism goes back to the very beginnings of Canada and before, with the arrival of Europeans on this continent. However, as with many other old ways of thinking, racially diversity and multiculturalism gradually became widespread across Canada. As early as the 1920s, the topic of a diverse Canada, a "mosaic" as opposed to the American "melting pot", was entering public discussion with the publication of Kate A. Foster's book, "Our Canadian Mosaic" (1926), followed by John Murray Gibson's "Canadian Mosaic: The Making of a Northern Nation" (1938). The 1960s were dominated by discussions of bilingualism and biculturalism as Quebec experienced the Quiet Revolution and issues of equality between French and English populations were wrestled with in politics, business, and society itself. In 1971, under Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau, Canada adopted a policy of multiculturalism, acknowledging that Canadians come from a wide variety of cultures and that all cultures have intrinsic value. Over the decades that followed, multiculturalism as an ideal has shaped Canada's immigration policies, opening the door for more non-European immigration and refugee resettlement, Canada's relationship with Indigenous Peoples who live within the country, and law-making prohibiting racial discrimination and hate-crimes. The CPC evolved out of the western-based Reform Party, via the Canadian Alliance. The Reform Party had fairly controversial views about race and immigration. Their policy platform opposed multiculturalism and immigration that might substantially change the complexion of Canadian society.
"The Reform Party advocated an immigration policy based solely on the economic needs of Canada.[28] Reform's early policy proposals for immigration were seen as highly controversial in Canada including a policy pamphlet called Blue Sheet that was issued in mid-1991 stating that Reformers opposed "any immigration based on race or creed or designed to radically or suddenly alter the ethnic makeup of Canada".[29] The statement was considered too controversial and subsequent Reform Party policy documents did not declare any similar concern for a radical alteration of the ethnic make-up of Canada.[30] However this controversy and others raised the question over whether Reform was intolerant to non-white people and whether the party harboured racist members.[30] Subsequent repeated accounts of xenophobic and racist statements by individual Reform party supporters and members spread this concern, though the party itself continuously denied that it supported such views.[25]
The Reform Party declared its opposition to existing government-funded and sponsored bilingualism and multiculturalism.[30] Reformers claimed that efforts to create a bilingual country had not worked and that language policy should be a provincial issue. Reformers criticized government-sponsored multiculturalism for creating a "hyphenated Canadian" identity, rather than a single Canadian identity.[31] " (from Wikipedia)
The CPC has not left these ideas behind. The Harper Government brought in legislation to compel First Nations to complete more financial disclosure documents to Ottawa under the First Nations Financial Transparency Act, and put some band councils under third-party management. This actions were designed to reinforce the myth that band chiefs were mismanaging band money, that First Nations leaders were corrupt, and that First Nations people could not be trusted to administer their own communities. Such negative stereotyping was useful to the Harper Government. They were engaged in various land disputes with First Nations communities, they were being sued for failures to properly fund education and health in Indigenous communities, and they were at odds with Indigenous groups over approvals for natural resource extraction projects.
Therefore, in order to swing public support solidly to the government side in these disagreements, the Harper Government sought to vilify First Nations people, and negate any sympathy the Canadian public at large may have for their perspective.
Therefore, in order to swing public support solidly to the government side in these disagreements, the Harper Government sought to vilify First Nations people, and negate any sympathy the Canadian public at large may have for their perspective.
The "black versus white" dichotomy lends itself easily and obviously to negative relationships with other cultures. The Harper Government exhibited a strong proclivity to using racial signalling to secure the support of xenophobic Canadians. They slowed and, for a time, halted Canada's acceptance of Syrian refugees. They slowed overall acceptance of refugees. They created new legislation that would make it possible to strip someone of their Canadian citizenship if they were born elsewhere, thus creating a two-tier citizenship model, with some Canadians being more "Canadian" than others.
Stephen Harper invoked the ideology of "Old Stock Canadians" while introducing legislation to reduce the eligibility of refugees to receive medical care and benefits.
The Harper Government also made it clear to some refugees, particularly Roma from Eastern Europe, that they were not welcome in Canada. Harper also made a special effort to vilify Muslims in Canada. Although Muslim is a religious affiliation, many Muslims in Canada are also people of colour.
In 2015 the Harper Government launched a campaign against Muslim women wearing head or face coverings. This was followed in the 2015 election by the CPC's campaign promise to create a Zero Tolerances For Barbaric Cultural Practices Act, complete with a Barbaric Cultural Practices Tip Line. This was a bridge too far for most Canadians and the CPC was resolutely turfed from government.
The Harper Government also made it clear to some refugees, particularly Roma from Eastern Europe, that they were not welcome in Canada. Harper also made a special effort to vilify Muslims in Canada. Although Muslim is a religious affiliation, many Muslims in Canada are also people of colour.
In 2015 the Harper Government launched a campaign against Muslim women wearing head or face coverings. This was followed in the 2015 election by the CPC's campaign promise to create a Zero Tolerances For Barbaric Cultural Practices Act, complete with a Barbaric Cultural Practices Tip Line. This was a bridge too far for most Canadians and the CPC was resolutely turfed from government.
Following the change in government, the CPC appeared unaware that their ideology did not appeal to Canadians. They discussed how they needed to change their tone, rather than find a new song. And the racism and "othering" continued from the Opposition side of the house. Andrew Scheer, who succeeded Harper as leader of the CPC, has a notable history of racially-targeted behaviour.
Race and racism are based on the notion of "us" and "them", and also on an historic and institutional pattern that benefits some and disadvantages others. In North American, it is "whiteness" that defines the privileges bestowed upon some through racist policies and attitudes. There is a vast body of research literature on the concept of whiteness, on racism and prejudice, and means to counter it. One aspect that seems to have had less exploration, possibly because it is a more uncomfortable discussion, is the notion that some people have an inclination to see the world in black and white, and ascribe positive and negative connotations to the "us" versus "them".
A Dichotomous World-View and Political Expediency
Race and racism are based on the notion of "us" and "them", and also on an historic and institutional pattern that benefits some and disadvantages others. In North American, it is "whiteness" that defines the privileges bestowed upon some through racist policies and attitudes. There is a vast body of research literature on the concept of whiteness, on racism and prejudice, and means to counter it. One aspect that seems to have had less exploration, possibly because it is a more uncomfortable discussion, is the notion that some people have an inclination to see the world in black and white, and ascribe positive and negative connotations to the "us" versus "them".
A Dichotomous World-View and Political Expediency
There is no doubt that modern conservativism in Canada indulges heavily in a world-view that divides everything into one of two extremes. Good vs Bad, Rich vs Poor, Strong versus Weak, White versus Not-White, Old Stock versus New Comer (or possibly "illegal")... There is also no doubt that conservative politicians in Canada are very fond of hyperbole, and frequently express things in extreme terms, pushing this polarity and absolutism to its furthest ends.
Having a population segment that is very comfortable with non-ambiguous messages, clear and inflexible rules, harsh and immutable punishments, and no contemplation of nuance or circumstances, is a bit of a gift to a political party whose ideology aligns well with stark contrasts and emotionally evocative messaging. It seems that as long as the CPC and the various provincial conservative parties can frame an issue in terms of "us/good" versus "them/evil", they can count on a swell of support from their base.
This support appears to be fairly resolute and unchanging. Between 28% and 33% of Canadians will vote conservative every single time, without question and without objective consideration of any of the issues. So, the strategy seems to be to keep that devoted base stirred up, angry, defensive, and motivated and hope that those who prefer a progressive government will either stay home from the polls, or split the vote on the left to allow the conservatives to win.
Whether dividing people in this manner is ethical or moral does not appear to be a consideration. It is expedient, it works. The CPC and other conservative parties at the provincial level are laser-focused on gaining power, above all other considerations. So why would they abandon a proven approach? Instead of self-reflection on whether their communications strategy is in the public good or not, they are relentless in reinforcing the dichotomous world-view among their supporters.
It is hard to say whether the tendency to categorize people and issues into an either/or statement comes with a particular personality type, or experience and upbringing, or both. There is certainly evidence that people can change and come to see the world in a more nuanced way. But conservative politicians have no incentive to try to educate their followers on the intricacies and complexities of most public policy issues. Indeed, it is far more effective, politically, to keep things to quick, snappy, heuristic cues that emphasize the threat of the other, whomever or whatever that other might be.
Having a population segment that is very comfortable with non-ambiguous messages, clear and inflexible rules, harsh and immutable punishments, and no contemplation of nuance or circumstances, is a bit of a gift to a political party whose ideology aligns well with stark contrasts and emotionally evocative messaging. It seems that as long as the CPC and the various provincial conservative parties can frame an issue in terms of "us/good" versus "them/evil", they can count on a swell of support from their base.
This support appears to be fairly resolute and unchanging. Between 28% and 33% of Canadians will vote conservative every single time, without question and without objective consideration of any of the issues. So, the strategy seems to be to keep that devoted base stirred up, angry, defensive, and motivated and hope that those who prefer a progressive government will either stay home from the polls, or split the vote on the left to allow the conservatives to win.
Whether dividing people in this manner is ethical or moral does not appear to be a consideration. It is expedient, it works. The CPC and other conservative parties at the provincial level are laser-focused on gaining power, above all other considerations. So why would they abandon a proven approach? Instead of self-reflection on whether their communications strategy is in the public good or not, they are relentless in reinforcing the dichotomous world-view among their supporters.
It is hard to say whether the tendency to categorize people and issues into an either/or statement comes with a particular personality type, or experience and upbringing, or both. There is certainly evidence that people can change and come to see the world in a more nuanced way. But conservative politicians have no incentive to try to educate their followers on the intricacies and complexities of most public policy issues. Indeed, it is far more effective, politically, to keep things to quick, snappy, heuristic cues that emphasize the threat of the other, whomever or whatever that other might be.
