Winning elections isn't just about implementing manifesto promises, it's ultimately about governing. Conservatives need to craft a distinct governing philosophy, not just party and policy manifestos.
Really enjoyed this piece! I think as aspect of the political/governmental reform and philosophy of government that underpins it will need to be a more forward leaning attitude that can both coherently explain what the intended outcomes are, and is not afraid to acknowledge failure and take responisbility. I think most people are willing to forgive governmental/programmatic failure provided it is acknowledged, explained, and then not done again, but political parties seem to be terrified of any slip up at all. Which seems to be why centralization is not just an executive pursuit but also supported by many of their MPs and members.
The sort of reform or philosophy of goverannce talked about here would also require (I think) a seriously upgraded civic mindedness and awareness of how Cdn poltiics and government work. I don't know if you have thoughts on what could be done to improve that, in terms of engaging broader swathes of Canadians and maintaining their engagement?
Perhaps a redidication towards the Cdn motto of Peace, Order and Good Governance would focus Conservative philosophy development away from American influences, and back to older Cdn traditions...
100% to all this. Like basically every big challenge, there isn't one easy fix or solution, and on the point about civic mindedness especially I think we face real challenges. Part of it I think has to be a new commitment to proper governance and promoting self-government specifically through a renewed effort to instil this through public education. Formative institutions and associations aren't just private ones, after families the second most important formative institutions are probably public schools, and I think this is an area where the abandonment of moral education as a cause we're willing to expend capital on is damaging. Rebuilding civic mindedness requires education that both teaches children about Canadian history, and inculcates civic values more broadly, but that means being willing to fight and stand up for curriculums that do that. This will be touched on in next weeks newsletter a bit
I am reminded of my own history schooling here that basically jumped from the Plains of Abraham and War of 1812 to the 20th century and WWI with little study of the formation and buttressing of the early Cdn Confederation. Anything more required independent reading or other self-starting study. And a single civics course in high school, as currently the case in Ontario, hardly seems appropriate or sufficient. I wonder if it would be possible to mandate additional civics courses in college and university? Not sure if that's helpful on its own, but could be of use...
Definitely interested in reading more on this for sure!
Canada's Odyssey by Peter H. Russell was a huge help to me in this regard. My experience in the public school system was largely the same, and it wasn't until I picked this book up that I was really aware of how ignorant I actually was. It may be a bit much to ask grade school students to read, but it really does condense Canada's constitutional development into an approachable and frankly enthralling read. I highly recommend giving it a read, but more importantly passing it on to anyone who wants an accessible education in how their country's government works.
History and civic education are in my view inseparable, and attempts to just do a plain history that isn't consciously understood as civic education inevitably results in poor education and a useless curriculum. The goal in my mind of history education in public schools, starting from early education all the way through high school should be to gradually build this education. We're often much too hesitant to push for this kind of education because it has some substance to it, but the reality I think is that it's not a choice between whether we have substantive or "just the facts" education, it's about whose substance and narrative gets taught and that's where the fight should be. Leaving students ignorant of their own history isn't a neutral choice, it creates a vacuum that gets filled with ideology in post secondary institutions a lot of the time, and the only people who escape it are often curious students who accidentally stumble upon books like Canada' Odyssey.
Great post Ben. I've been thinking a lot about this.
One aspect that I think Cons need to be incorporating is something I'd call 'pragmatic conservatism'. This requires a ideologically free examination of the outcome of various programs. If the outcome is successful an aligns with a government goal, then it should continue or even be expanded.
As an example, Conservatives hate on the Safe Consumption sites in the downtown eastside of Vancouver. They (understandably) don't like the idea of the government condoning, or tacitly encouraging hard drug use, which is against the criminal code. The problem is that these services have been examined numerous times academically and have been shown to decrease overdoses and save lives.
In such a case, it isn't sufficient to say that the government shouldn't be involved in safe consumption on the typical grounds. They need to argue that the statistical outcome (fewer deaths) is not a policy goal. This forces us to accept traditionally non-conservative interventions based on actual outcomes rather than on whether or not the state intervention feels icky.
If we accept that the administrative state isn't going anywhere, then Conservativism needs to adopt a pragmatic lens, determining what interventions are worthwhile by scrutinizing their outcomes, not on a dogmatic resistance to the state. I guess I'd call that Pragmatic Conservatism?
Hmm, yes and no. I'm sceptical that there can be such a thing as "ideologically free" examination of these things, it smells too much of a dangerous technocratic worldview that is far too dominant in modern public policy and governance. Ideology might not be the right word, but there is no escaping some sort of normative judgement in evaluating government programs, because the question of efficacy inevitably turns around what constitutes a good outcome, and there's no getting around values questions there. So with safe injection sites for example, decreasing overdoses and saving lives are good thingas, but these aren't ideologically free ways of evaluating their effectiveness and there are other values at play that might influence how you evaluate the efficacy of programs.
Safe injection sites aren't something I have a fully formed opinion on, I'm not opposed to them but there are definitely issues I see with them and broader problems with harm reduction policies more broadly (a topic for another day) but my sense with people who don't like safe injection sites is that it isn't actually about state intervention, it's about something else. I would prefer an evaluation of the efficacy of these programs not just in terms of the lives they save, but also in longer term outcomes for users in these programs and that is how conservatives should evaluate them.
Pragmatic approaches to government is definitely something I would encourage conservatives to consider, and that's what I'm trying to make the case for here, but I would be careful to not confuse pragmatic with "non-ideological." The goal should be to have a broader governing philosophy that gives us a clear framework to evaluate government programs, the pragmatism comes after this in trying to reorient and pick which programs to change or reform them. We can't escape these normative questions and we'll be better off if we're more honest and open about them imo.
I think we are closer than you think. My preferred approach would be: use guiding ideology to set societal and policy objectives but remove ideology from examining what the best way to achieve those objectives are.
e.g. Obviously, the impact of a safe injection site has societal impacts beyond just saving lives. So guiding ideology has to set out and define what the combination/tradeoffs for objectives is. But once that is done, if the best solution to provide these outcomes is a system that makes traditional cons feel icky then too bad! Practically trumps ideology in that second step.
Yes I think you're right, and having that framework ahead of time is the best way to make sure you can then make decisions accordingly as opposed to being reactive and having to come up with a framework on the fly because all you have is a set of policy proposals from a platform, not a governing approach.
Really interesting points here. I'm not a conservative, but I've always found Red Toryism to be an interesting and, unfortunately, overlooked/ misunderstood ideological orientation. It's great that there's a contemporary voice trying to (re)articulate what this perspective means.
Great entry this week. One of the most significant barriers for a transition to a more limited government would seem to be the expansion of and concentration of authority in the PMO. Unfortunately this concentration has been building for some time, and as far as I can tell the only way that authority can be devolved back to cabinet is by the personal conviction of a Prime Minister. Unless we demand this sort of conviction during leadership races, I dont see this happening.
In reference to your other point about traditional civic and social networks, I am skeptical of our ability to re-energize these structures without first creating institutions which incentivize self-government. I have been troubled by the predictions de Tocqueville makes about the degradation of voluntary associations specifically because once they're gone, the mores which supported them are unfortunately quashed as well. From the perspective of government, it seems the the best avenue we have to revitalize the necessary mores for the return of voluntary associations is to follow the principle of subsidiarity and allow decisions to be made at as local a level as possible. Without expanding the "free schools" found in the township, I am not sure how we can turn the ship around.
On both these points you're correct, I think. On the first, the trend of centralizing power in the PMO is not unique to Canada, it's a trend across parliamentary and presidential democracies, the academic literature on this treats it as two related but distinct phenomena 1) the personalization of politics and 2) the presidentialization of politics. It suggests it is more than just structural problems with our own parliamentary system, it's a problem with democratic politics more broadly and thus it's a separate discussion how you reverse it, though I think there are structural changes that can be made.
On your second point, yes you're right and that is the point I'm trying to get at when I say we shouldn't just wax lyrical about civil society while it appears to be disintegrating and changing all around us, some of the work that has to be done here isn't so much about preservation but about building and supporting the create of new associational and format institutions and networks. It cannot be a top down thing, and yes subsidiarity is important, but one reason we should prioritize subsidiarity instead of just decentralization is that subsidiarity is about devolving power to the most appropriate place, which sometimes requires large collective action and state power, I think.
In addition to devolving power generally, it is important in these discussions that we remember where power can and should be devolved from. Admittedly I tend to see the most immediate need for subsidiarity at the Provincial level. Perhaps I am too literal in my faith in the power of townships Tocqueville identifies, but I really do think that re-examination of the health of local governance across Canada is the most important step in cultivating a philosophy of government that is limited in scope rather than scale. New Brunswick is a prime example of a province that has seen its willingness to accede to administrative centralization lead to a disintegration of local representative institutions. 90% of the territory and 30% of the population is administered by the Province as unincorporated Local Service Districts rather than representative local governments. These entities have the *opportunity* to select advisory committees at public meetings, but as de Tocqueville would anticipate, after half a century under this local governance structure, the mores which would prompt citizens to attend and engage in these public meetings have all but vanished. We cannot and should not expect collective action from Canadians if we have eliminated the very institutions which teach the utility and importance of said action as New Brunswick has done. While changes to the local governance regime in Canada would be implemented from the top down, they would serve to rebuild (or perhaps even build for the first time) the necessary mores for a country invested in self-government.
Really enjoyed this piece! I think as aspect of the political/governmental reform and philosophy of government that underpins it will need to be a more forward leaning attitude that can both coherently explain what the intended outcomes are, and is not afraid to acknowledge failure and take responisbility. I think most people are willing to forgive governmental/programmatic failure provided it is acknowledged, explained, and then not done again, but political parties seem to be terrified of any slip up at all. Which seems to be why centralization is not just an executive pursuit but also supported by many of their MPs and members.
The sort of reform or philosophy of goverannce talked about here would also require (I think) a seriously upgraded civic mindedness and awareness of how Cdn poltiics and government work. I don't know if you have thoughts on what could be done to improve that, in terms of engaging broader swathes of Canadians and maintaining their engagement?
Perhaps a redidication towards the Cdn motto of Peace, Order and Good Governance would focus Conservative philosophy development away from American influences, and back to older Cdn traditions...
100% to all this. Like basically every big challenge, there isn't one easy fix or solution, and on the point about civic mindedness especially I think we face real challenges. Part of it I think has to be a new commitment to proper governance and promoting self-government specifically through a renewed effort to instil this through public education. Formative institutions and associations aren't just private ones, after families the second most important formative institutions are probably public schools, and I think this is an area where the abandonment of moral education as a cause we're willing to expend capital on is damaging. Rebuilding civic mindedness requires education that both teaches children about Canadian history, and inculcates civic values more broadly, but that means being willing to fight and stand up for curriculums that do that. This will be touched on in next weeks newsletter a bit
I am reminded of my own history schooling here that basically jumped from the Plains of Abraham and War of 1812 to the 20th century and WWI with little study of the formation and buttressing of the early Cdn Confederation. Anything more required independent reading or other self-starting study. And a single civics course in high school, as currently the case in Ontario, hardly seems appropriate or sufficient. I wonder if it would be possible to mandate additional civics courses in college and university? Not sure if that's helpful on its own, but could be of use...
Definitely interested in reading more on this for sure!
Canada's Odyssey by Peter H. Russell was a huge help to me in this regard. My experience in the public school system was largely the same, and it wasn't until I picked this book up that I was really aware of how ignorant I actually was. It may be a bit much to ask grade school students to read, but it really does condense Canada's constitutional development into an approachable and frankly enthralling read. I highly recommend giving it a read, but more importantly passing it on to anyone who wants an accessible education in how their country's government works.
History and civic education are in my view inseparable, and attempts to just do a plain history that isn't consciously understood as civic education inevitably results in poor education and a useless curriculum. The goal in my mind of history education in public schools, starting from early education all the way through high school should be to gradually build this education. We're often much too hesitant to push for this kind of education because it has some substance to it, but the reality I think is that it's not a choice between whether we have substantive or "just the facts" education, it's about whose substance and narrative gets taught and that's where the fight should be. Leaving students ignorant of their own history isn't a neutral choice, it creates a vacuum that gets filled with ideology in post secondary institutions a lot of the time, and the only people who escape it are often curious students who accidentally stumble upon books like Canada' Odyssey.
Great post Ben. I've been thinking a lot about this.
One aspect that I think Cons need to be incorporating is something I'd call 'pragmatic conservatism'. This requires a ideologically free examination of the outcome of various programs. If the outcome is successful an aligns with a government goal, then it should continue or even be expanded.
As an example, Conservatives hate on the Safe Consumption sites in the downtown eastside of Vancouver. They (understandably) don't like the idea of the government condoning, or tacitly encouraging hard drug use, which is against the criminal code. The problem is that these services have been examined numerous times academically and have been shown to decrease overdoses and save lives.
In such a case, it isn't sufficient to say that the government shouldn't be involved in safe consumption on the typical grounds. They need to argue that the statistical outcome (fewer deaths) is not a policy goal. This forces us to accept traditionally non-conservative interventions based on actual outcomes rather than on whether or not the state intervention feels icky.
If we accept that the administrative state isn't going anywhere, then Conservativism needs to adopt a pragmatic lens, determining what interventions are worthwhile by scrutinizing their outcomes, not on a dogmatic resistance to the state. I guess I'd call that Pragmatic Conservatism?
Hmm, yes and no. I'm sceptical that there can be such a thing as "ideologically free" examination of these things, it smells too much of a dangerous technocratic worldview that is far too dominant in modern public policy and governance. Ideology might not be the right word, but there is no escaping some sort of normative judgement in evaluating government programs, because the question of efficacy inevitably turns around what constitutes a good outcome, and there's no getting around values questions there. So with safe injection sites for example, decreasing overdoses and saving lives are good thingas, but these aren't ideologically free ways of evaluating their effectiveness and there are other values at play that might influence how you evaluate the efficacy of programs.
Safe injection sites aren't something I have a fully formed opinion on, I'm not opposed to them but there are definitely issues I see with them and broader problems with harm reduction policies more broadly (a topic for another day) but my sense with people who don't like safe injection sites is that it isn't actually about state intervention, it's about something else. I would prefer an evaluation of the efficacy of these programs not just in terms of the lives they save, but also in longer term outcomes for users in these programs and that is how conservatives should evaluate them.
Pragmatic approaches to government is definitely something I would encourage conservatives to consider, and that's what I'm trying to make the case for here, but I would be careful to not confuse pragmatic with "non-ideological." The goal should be to have a broader governing philosophy that gives us a clear framework to evaluate government programs, the pragmatism comes after this in trying to reorient and pick which programs to change or reform them. We can't escape these normative questions and we'll be better off if we're more honest and open about them imo.
I think we are closer than you think. My preferred approach would be: use guiding ideology to set societal and policy objectives but remove ideology from examining what the best way to achieve those objectives are.
e.g. Obviously, the impact of a safe injection site has societal impacts beyond just saving lives. So guiding ideology has to set out and define what the combination/tradeoffs for objectives is. But once that is done, if the best solution to provide these outcomes is a system that makes traditional cons feel icky then too bad! Practically trumps ideology in that second step.
Yes I think you're right, and having that framework ahead of time is the best way to make sure you can then make decisions accordingly as opposed to being reactive and having to come up with a framework on the fly because all you have is a set of policy proposals from a platform, not a governing approach.
Really interesting points here. I'm not a conservative, but I've always found Red Toryism to be an interesting and, unfortunately, overlooked/ misunderstood ideological orientation. It's great that there's a contemporary voice trying to (re)articulate what this perspective means.
Great entry this week. One of the most significant barriers for a transition to a more limited government would seem to be the expansion of and concentration of authority in the PMO. Unfortunately this concentration has been building for some time, and as far as I can tell the only way that authority can be devolved back to cabinet is by the personal conviction of a Prime Minister. Unless we demand this sort of conviction during leadership races, I dont see this happening.
In reference to your other point about traditional civic and social networks, I am skeptical of our ability to re-energize these structures without first creating institutions which incentivize self-government. I have been troubled by the predictions de Tocqueville makes about the degradation of voluntary associations specifically because once they're gone, the mores which supported them are unfortunately quashed as well. From the perspective of government, it seems the the best avenue we have to revitalize the necessary mores for the return of voluntary associations is to follow the principle of subsidiarity and allow decisions to be made at as local a level as possible. Without expanding the "free schools" found in the township, I am not sure how we can turn the ship around.
On both these points you're correct, I think. On the first, the trend of centralizing power in the PMO is not unique to Canada, it's a trend across parliamentary and presidential democracies, the academic literature on this treats it as two related but distinct phenomena 1) the personalization of politics and 2) the presidentialization of politics. It suggests it is more than just structural problems with our own parliamentary system, it's a problem with democratic politics more broadly and thus it's a separate discussion how you reverse it, though I think there are structural changes that can be made.
On your second point, yes you're right and that is the point I'm trying to get at when I say we shouldn't just wax lyrical about civil society while it appears to be disintegrating and changing all around us, some of the work that has to be done here isn't so much about preservation but about building and supporting the create of new associational and format institutions and networks. It cannot be a top down thing, and yes subsidiarity is important, but one reason we should prioritize subsidiarity instead of just decentralization is that subsidiarity is about devolving power to the most appropriate place, which sometimes requires large collective action and state power, I think.
In addition to devolving power generally, it is important in these discussions that we remember where power can and should be devolved from. Admittedly I tend to see the most immediate need for subsidiarity at the Provincial level. Perhaps I am too literal in my faith in the power of townships Tocqueville identifies, but I really do think that re-examination of the health of local governance across Canada is the most important step in cultivating a philosophy of government that is limited in scope rather than scale. New Brunswick is a prime example of a province that has seen its willingness to accede to administrative centralization lead to a disintegration of local representative institutions. 90% of the territory and 30% of the population is administered by the Province as unincorporated Local Service Districts rather than representative local governments. These entities have the *opportunity* to select advisory committees at public meetings, but as de Tocqueville would anticipate, after half a century under this local governance structure, the mores which would prompt citizens to attend and engage in these public meetings have all but vanished. We cannot and should not expect collective action from Canadians if we have eliminated the very institutions which teach the utility and importance of said action as New Brunswick has done. While changes to the local governance regime in Canada would be implemented from the top down, they would serve to rebuild (or perhaps even build for the first time) the necessary mores for a country invested in self-government.