Like The Hub?
Join our community.

Karamveer Lalh: Politicians should keep the common good in mind—even in the middle of a campaign


Last week was a big one in the world of political campaigning in Canada. Ontario’s 29-day provincial campaign ended with an expanded majority government for the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party. The membership sales cut-off in the Conservative Party of Canada’s leadership marked a key milestone on the path to voting on September 10.A whole new campaign is about to start in the Conservative leadership race

These two electoral events have caused me to reflect on some of the fundamental questions about politics: what is the purpose of our system of representative democracy in the modern era? Why have recent political campaigns tended to succumb to a lowest-common-denominator transactionalism? How can we raise the quality of political ideas and debate? And how can we reorient politics to the common good?

One of my enduring, if perhaps naïve, opinions about politics is that most politicians are genuinely interested in the pursuit of bettering our society. There are moments when this belief is shaken, but in general, our politicians tend to show the appropriate levels of grace and solemnity once the dust settles over a campaign.

Campaigns themselves are a different matter. It goes without saying that they are nasty affairs with little if any genuine debate.A ‘policy-free conversation’: The Hub Roundtable breaks down the first CPC leadership debate Democracy is the combined expression of the will of millions of people, most of whom have no higher-level training in economics, law, and foreign policy. In a representative democracy, there is some level of understanding that the politicians that we elect would take the time and care necessary to achieve a base level of competence in these disciplines, to at the very least give meaningful effect to the gestalt will of their constituents.

A keen observer will note that politicians say little of anything even there. Politically, we have entered an entirely post-rational era of discourse: style over substance, messaging directed at only key demographics, and interviews designed to produce memeable soundbites contribute to the uglification of our campaign culture. Candidates are then judged based on equally superficial standards: does she get people like me? Would I have a beer with him? Do they have an attractive family?

I am a former staffer, so I believe that campaigns are run this way because these strategies work. In our high information society, political campaigns must compete with other forms of information that voters access. This information includes movies, social networking, music, news, and sports. Political campaigns accordingly must compete against other forms of “entertainment” to become salient in the limited attention spans of the average voter. Everyone says they hate “negative campaigning,” yet political parties use it every election. They would not if it did not work.Why negative campaigning works—and how to fight it

I am certainly not the first person to make this polemical observation, and almost everyone agrees that degenerating a substantive and deliberative political culture into a post-rational one is something to avoid.

That said, I think many of us have supported candidates where we disagreed with how they were campaigning but justified that support after the fact on utilitarian grounds like: “Yeah, I know this is bad, but the other guy is worse, so this is for the greater good,” or deontological grounds like “everyone does it, and I think we will suffer greater losses if we don’t.” Neither one of these rationales should satisfy someone striving to be moral in their politics.

We have seen plenty of examples of populist demagoguery descend into political movements where basic small l-liberal concepts like “personal responsibility” and “human dignity” are unreasonably infringed in the name of political expedience. The marginalized and minority groups are often the people who bear the brunt of the negative consequences of political expediency.Civil liberties are more vulnerable now that the Emergencies Act has been invoked

I think that certain political staffers and politicians—of all political stripes in this country—believe that they can tame this demagoguery to their own ends. That they can simply valorize the identity of a few target demographics, wink at a few conspiracy theories here and there, and then jump off the train before it reaches its logical destination. If this is a workable hypothesis, it requires the political faction making that decision to always be in control of the proverbial train. This is a valid choice but also a choice that carries an inherent risk. These political rationales are made using consequentialist reasoning. That is to say, “even if there are bad outcomes along the way, the end result will be worth it.”

Politicians and staffers should consider that their actions in the interim do have real effects today, not just in aggregate at the end of a campaign. Every conspiracy theory you wink and nod at might give the marginal additional consent necessary for a bad actor to take out his or her anger against an undeserving victim. Staffers, politicians, and influencers should consider whether their tacit or explicit endorsement of these campaign tactics is moral.

I want to clarify that the purpose of politics in a representative democracy is to accurately bring forward the voters’ views to government and have the will of the voters’ shape state policy. It is correct and noble for politicians to recognize and channel the anger of those voters and turn it into actionable policy. It is how our democracy is supposed to function. However, political actors should then not lose sight of the fact that they are there to serve the common good. The duty to act in the service of the common good does not vanish just because one is in the middle of a campaign.

Malcolm Jolley: Chianti Classico producers continue to offer some of the best buys around


Most of the wine in the world is made where most of the people of the world do not live, therefore nearly all wine marketing involves travel.

The travel could be just down the road from a rural vineyard to a city wine shop, or halfway across the world to an export market. For a while, the pandemic stopped all of it, but now it’s starting again to the general relief and joy of the world wine trade, and the journalists who cover them.

One group of wine traders on the move is the vignaioli of Chianti Classico, the DOCG appellation“The acronym DOCG means Denominazione di Origine Controllata e Garantita (Controlled and Guaranteed Designation of Origin in English) and identifies the highest level of protection in the Italian wine classification. It is often accompanied or replaced by the European acronym DOP, which means Denominazione di Origine Protetta (Protected Designation of Origin in English). Wines with the DOCG appellation are subject to stricter production rules and have much more restrictive production regulations comparing to those ones with the DOC and IGT appellation.” in the heart of Tuscany whose wines are recognizable by the emblem of the black rooster. In March of this year, after a two-year absence, the consortium of producers held Chianti Classico Collection 2022Chianti Classico Collection 2022 – Download the Catalogue once again in Florence. That wine show serves as an “ante prima,” or preview, of the wines that will be released into the market that year.

For those who can’t make it to the tastings, seminars, and symposia, delegations of producers are sent far and wide to the metropolises of key export markets. This week they visited one I live in, Toronto, to participate in a trade show and tasting, meet with their importers and customers, and apprise members of the media of what’s new. I attended to see and taste what has been going on in Chianti Classico since I wrote about the wines last year at The Hub.As wine pivots away from restaurants, Chianti Classico is having a moment

What’s new in Chianti Classico during and since the pandemic is the introduction of 11 official Unità Geografiche Aggiuntive, or UGAs. Wine journalists who earned a C in first-year Italian can just muddle through a translation of the term as “Additional Geographical Units.” The consortium has sub-divided the Chianti Classico region, first mapped out in 1716 by Cosimo III, the de Medici Grand Duke of Tuscany, in the way that many other wine regions sub-divide into villages or communes. They are distinguished by particular features or terroir, like soil type, altitude, or the prevailing weather.

The eleven UGAs, introduced to the world last year are: Castellina, Castelnuovo Berardenga, Gaiole, Greve, Lamole, Montefioralle, Panzano, Radda, San Casciano, San Donato in Poggio (including the territories of Barberino Tavarnelle and Poggibonsi), and Vagliagli. There is a kind of wine collector, and indeed wine writer, who revels in the wine world’s infinite levels of acquirable detailed knowledge and has, by now, memorized the 11 UGAs. I am not one of them.

I had to look them up on the Consorzio website before enumerating them here, despite having been lectured on them in detail the day before at a seminar led by the Canadian wine writers Michael Godel and John Szabo MS, and 11 Chianti Classico producers representing each UGA.

The Consorzio seems to have sensed that the widespread application of the UGA on Chianti Classico labels might engender panic among memory-challenged winos because they have limited UGA classification to the very highest tier of their production: Gran Selezione. The Gran Selezione tier of wines, introduced in 2014, was the last change the Consorzio made to the rules of production before the UGAs.

It makes sense to label them for their particular sub-region because a) these wines can only be made from grapes from a specific vineyard, b) the grapes must be 100 percent Sangiovese, and c) the rules for making the wines are strict enough that they are more or less vinified in the same way.

The big change the Consorzio made before introducing the Gran Selezione level of wines was in 2005 when it was declared that all Chianti Classico wines starting in 2006 must be made of at least 80 percent Sangiovese. Any grapes used to blend into the wine must be from a list of approved red grapes, traditionally grown in Tuscany, such as Canaiolo or Colorino. The point being, as Michael Godel put it: “In Chianti Classico, what matters most is Sangiovese, because it is the noble grape that expresses its territory the most”. It makes sense that the Consorzio would introduce the UGAs to show off this particular talent.

The Gran Selezione’s released in the market this year are from 2016 and three that were on hand at the seminar certainly showed differently. The Dievole Gran Selezione Cigna di Sessina 2016 from the Vagliagli UGA showed bright red fruit, was fresh and alive with acid that brought water to the mouth and wanted food badly. On the other hand, the Castello di Verrazzano Gran Selezione Sassello 2016 from the Montefioralle UGA was brooding with dark red fruit going into black, and firm tannins rising above evident acidity and seemed to want time put down. The Il Molino di Grace Gran Selezione Il Margine 2016 from Panzano UGA was somewhere in between: in resonant balance with good weight on the mid-palate and fruit running dark cherry into blackberry. Three very different wines, though also recognizably siblings from the same Sangiovese family.

We tasted eight other Chianti Classico’s during the seminar, each from the other Unità Geografiche Aggiuntive. We tasted examples of the Annata, or “regular,” wines from 2018, 2019, and 2020. And we tasted examples of the Riserva wines from 2018. Again the diversity of styles was pronounced. What was also interesting was the differentiation in price, largely between well-known and established houses whose wines retailed between $50 and $100, and less well-known upstarts whose wines cost between $20 and $30. The fancy wines delivered on their brand promise, and the others could not be beaten for their quality to price ratio.

The 200 odd Chianti Classico producers, whatever they put on their labels, and however they classify their wines, are still delivering some of the best buys and most pleasurable food wines around. The topics discussed here are explained in much greater detail at the Chianti Classico website at

And more information on the wines described can be found at, and, respectively.