In The Weekly Wrap Sean Speer, our editor-at-large, analyses for Hub subscribers the big stories shaping politics, policy, and the economy in the week that was.
The politics of weird
The weirdest political development this week was when American progressives started calling conservatives like vice-presidential candidate JD Vance “weird.” It’s a weird criticism from a political movement that itself is rather quite weird.
The inherent tendency of left-wing politics to set itself up in tension with society’s prevailing institutions, hierarchies, and norms means that it’s historically been a countercultural movement. Its own self-image is transgressive—which is to say, weird.
Conservatism, by contrast, as the contingent defender of long-standing ideas and institutions, has tended to be less radical and in turn less weird.
These differences are fundamental to the intellectual DNA of the two sides of our political debates. American political scientist Yuval Levin’s 2013 book, The Great Debate: Edmund Burke, Thomas Paine and the Birth of Right and Left, persuasively makes this case. Burke and Paine’s divergent responses to the French Revolution were symptomatic of these enduring dispositional differences.
Although it’s true that the recent dominance of left-wing voices in key institutions (such as governments or universities) has jumbled these categories a bit—one increasingly hears calls in conservative circles not merely to conserve these institutions but to remake them—, the notion that transgression has shifted from the Left to the Right is overstated.
Whatever one thought of the Freedom Convoy, it couldn’t possibly match the breadth or influence of progressive activists in our society. And even in those cases where conservatives have been inclined towards more radical means (think for instance of Florida’s higher education reforms), their ends are typically about restoring institutions to their mainstream missions. One side wants to redefine biology. The other wants students to learn a bit more about the redeeming parts of our history.
This isn’t to contest the notion that there are weird people on the Right. And it’s definitely gotten weirder in the Trump era. But its weirdness should be mostly understood as a reaction to growing weirdness on the Left. As I’ve written before, the past ten years or so have been marked by a dialogue between the excesses on both sides but with progressives far out in front on issues of culture, identity, and sexuality.
From weird to wacko
It’s been interesting to observe the American debate about weirdness from Canada where the argument has essentially been flipped. Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre has recently accused his progressive opponents, including the prime minister, of being “wackos.” His basic argument is that they’ve subjected Canada to a grand policy experiment with weird ideas and poor outcomes.
Drug decriminalization is probably the best (or worst) example. It started as a fringe position associated with a small number of ideological researchers and scholars until it became mainstream in the news media and public policy circles. The subsequent policy choices have predictably failed because they’ve been disconnected from a basic understanding of human nature—which is a long-hand description of weird or even wacko.
If one sought to assess Poilievre’s policy weirdness, what would he or she point to? Building enough homes to meet population growth? Bringing revenues and outlays into balance? Defending Canadian allies against terrorist attacks? Enforcing laws against lethal drug consumption? It’s hard to argue that these are the policy positions of a radical or reactionary politician. One may disagree with them of course but they’re far from weird.
Quite the contrary, in fact. I’d argue that they’re rooted in a set of assumptions about people and politics that are tried and true. They’ve worked over time precisely because they reckon with human nature and its inherent fallibility, unlike the utopianism that one can find on the Left. Conservatism’s advantage, in short, is its skepticism of new—and oft-weird—ideas in favour of those that have proven themselves.
Put simply: the most compelling case for conservatism isn’t about radicalism at all. It’s a rejection of weirdness in favour of convention. It’s a much-needed case for normality.
The basic parameters of such a conservative policy agenda are thus, by definition, rather conventional. Government policy shouldn’t cap oil and gas production because it’s a reflection of dogma over the interests of middle-class workers. It shouldn’t massively ramp up immigration because it exceeds our capacity to accommodate it and erodes the bargaining power of low-skilled workers. And it shouldn’t subordinate the role of individuals in favour of group identities based on immutable characteristics like skin pigmentation or sexual preferences because it’s necessarily divisive and anti-progress.
One could go on listing the bad ideas that we’ve seen from the Trudeau government, but readers presumably get the point. These policies have failed because they presumed to suspend arithmetic, reality, or human nature. That’s weird.
Conservatives shouldn’t therefore cede to the premise that they’re the ones who are weird. The policy record demonstrates that, if anyone is weird, it is progressives.
Canada’s Ashley Lawrence and Colombia’s Yirleidys Quejada Minota vie for the ball during a soccer match at the 2024 Summer Olympics, July 31, 2024 in Nice, France. Julio Cortez/AP Photo.
Sure, cheating is wrong—but not settling for respectability is good for Canadian sports
For most of my life, Canada’s summer Olympic team has generally found itself in the middle of the pack. There were various exceptions of course—think Mike Smith or Silken Laumann or Donovan Bailey—but the rule was generally one of mediocrity. It was reflected in our medal standing: we barely averaged 20th place in the Summer Olympics between 1988 and 2016.
As a young person, it often felt like part of the problem was that we were too satisfied with merely qualifying for the Olympics and lacked a real aspiration to win. We were inclined to the Canadian excesses of complacency and politeness.
That dynamic has changed in recent years. Our athletes had a respectable 11th-place finish in 2020 and are currently sitting in 9th position at this year’s games. We’re now one of the most competitive countries—particularly on an adjusted-for-population basis.
There are no doubt various factors behind this turnaround, including more and better targeted public resources. But one gets the sense that it’s bigger than just more funding. There’s been a mindset shift. Our athletes aren’t merely satisfied to be there. They want to win—and believe that they can.
The Canadian women’s soccer team’s complicated games are part of this story. Yes, of course, it was dumb to secretly record their opponents’ practices—especially since it’s not obvious that there’s a huge advantage compared to watching game film which ostensibly every team does.
But I must admit that there was something invigorating about this act of hyper-competitiveness, of a naked determination to win, of un-Canadian-ness. That the team has responded to the off-the-field controversy with such a gutsy and impressive performance on the field only reinforces that this is a group of winners.
One cannot say the same about their critics. The over-the-top reaction from the sports minister and pearl-clutching from sports journalists has been annoying yet predictable. It reflects the mediocrity mindset that used to hold Canadian sport back.
Saturday the women will play Germany with a trip to the semi-finals (and a possible medal) in the balance. Their competitive spirit—personified by leading scorer Vanessa Gilles—will be a huge advantage. Canadians will overwhelmingly be cheering them on.
People walk past the University of Toronto campus in Toronto, June 10, 2020. Nathan Denette/The Canadian Press.
Universities are too important to completely discard
Conservatives have long had a somewhat complicated relationship with universities. Contemporary conservatism is marked by foundational books like Bill Buckley’s God and Man at Yale or Alan Bloom’s The Closing of the American Mind.
But in recent years, they’ve grown even more skeptical of higher learning as its key institutions have become both more monolithically left-wing and ideologically radical.
As a conservative who’s spent a lot of time on university campuses as a graduate student and now as a long-time lecturer, I must admit that I’ve had a similar reaction to these developments, including, most recently, the rise of antisemitism in the aftermath of Hamas’ terrorist attacks against Israel in October 2024. I’ve even gone as far as to write in favour of reducing (or at least better targeting) public funding.
Although these impulses are broadly correct, conservatives must be careful that any post-secondary reforms don’t overshoot and undermine the parts of the university that are still producing value for our society. We cannot, in other words, cause radical elements to colour the totality of our understanding of what’s happening on campus. A lot of scholars—perhaps even most—are not only carrying out useful work but may be just as turned off by the left-wing radicalism of students and fellow faculty as the rest of us.
I’ve been reminded of this point over the past month or so as The Hub has worked in partnership with the University of Toronto to produce a six-part podcast profiling some of the university’s most interesting and successful scholars.
The series, From Campus to Canada, kicked off this week with a fun conversation with the brilliant psychology professor Paul Bloom. It’s poised to be one of our most popular episodes ever. Future episodes will cover topics as wide-ranging as Chinese political economy, innovative cancer treatments, and the production of “organs-on-a-chip” like hearts and kidneys using 3D printing.
These conversations document some of the important and even profound work being carried out on university campus. Notwithstanding their inherent problems, universities still play a key role in education, knowledge, and the creation of new ideas and technologies. If they disappeared tomorrow, there would be an economic and social cost.
This doesn’t necessarily negate the case for reform. In a world of fiscal scarcity, different policy ideas, including better targeting operational funds to higher-value programs or research funding to world-class projects or even moving to a model where universities are responsible for generating more own-source revenues through tuition and other means, probably ought to be on the table.
But as I’ve been reminded in recent weeks, we shouldn’t cause our rightful focus on the costs of universities to overshadow their benefits either. The overwhelming reaction to the first episode of our podcast series may be a sign that a lot of people—including conservatives—understand this point.
Sean Speer is The Hub's Editor-at-Large. He is also a university lecturer at the University of Toronto and Carleton University, as well…
