Why the world is turning to the right - from the viewpoint of someone who switched lanes

The near future belongs to the right. How did we get here?

For better or for worse, the majority of democracies in the world require only a plurality of the electorate to vote for a given party in order to form government. Sometimes that results in winning an outright majority of seats as Boris Johnson’s UK Conservatives achieved in 2019 (FPTP system), and other times it means forming a coalition to build a functional majority as New Zealand’s Conservative leader Christopher Luxon did following the 2023 election (MMP system).

This means that, with few exceptions, governments are formed and leaders are elected without the majority of the popular vote. In fact, the Canadian Conservatives have won the popular vote in Canada every single election since 2006, with the notable exception of Justin Trudeau’s landslide victory in 2015, but did not form government in 2019 or 2021. More Canadians voted for Conservatives than any other party in the last two elections, but the Liberals continued to govern with a reduced majority and then with the support of the 3rd place NDP since 2021. That’s just the way our system works, and I am not advocating for electoral reform in this column, but I wanted to start with a lay of the land here in Canada where more Canadians voted for someone other than the current government.

Given this built-in resentment, one would assume a leader and cabinet would govern with restraint by espousing values and bringing forward policies that most can agree upon - both in order to make for an easier legislative session and to improve electoral chances in the next election. Unlike our neighbours to the South, most Canadians do not declare their Party allegiance officially in one way or another and are liable to change their vote depending on the specific circumstances or performance of the current government. As we like to say in Canada, we don’t vote governments in, we vote them out.

We have not seen this restraint in Canada. Neither in the rhetoric nor the policy. And before I get “both-sidesed” on this point, I will remind you, Dear Reader, that it is the job of His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition to oppose. It is their job to hold the government of the day to account for missteps, real or contrived. It is their job to erode confidence in the governing party in order to increase their chances of winning the next election in the hopes of forming a majority to steer the ship in the direction they feel is best for the country. If the government holds up to the criticism, Canadians largely chalk this dance up to positioning and the government lives to fight another day. If the government folds in the face of criticism, it falls and will take its turn as opposition. Some governments don’t need much help sinking - as seems to be the case with Justin Trudeau’s Liberals.

So why did Americans vote Donald Trump back in earlier this week? And how is Pierre Poilievre on track to a massive majority in Canada? And why was the massively popular Jacinda Ardern tanking in the polls by the time she resigned?

Contrary to what we might read on social media, it is not because of misogyny, or transphobia or racism or whatever other ugly epithet some may wish to use to describe their neighbours for disagreeing with them. This overly-simplistic view will consign the current popular brand of progressivism to the dustbin of history if it prevails. And as well-meaning as it is, I’d be okay with that because of how equally destructive it has been. But I’d rather not tear our countries apart by deepening the divide. Instead, I will seek to foster an understanding of why everyday people are becoming more conservative in their thinking and would rather be lead by someone they don’t entirely agree with than someone with ideas they have grown to resent on a deeply personal level.

Overly-progressive policies have left many in the middle class feeling alienated, poorer, and unrepresented by government. While many of these polices are very well-meaning, they have seriously deleterious effects over time.

When government intervenes in a market, some people win and some people lose. Many were ecstatic when the Liberals announced that they would be instituting 10 dollar a day daycare in Canada. I was one of them. At the time, we were paying over $2000 a month to have both our kids in daycare. The savings would have been life-changing, which is exactly as it is being billed to this day. The problem is, it’s not $10 a day daycare, it’s $25 a day, and spots are extremely limited. New spots that have been created are largely ineligible due to the program’s preference for not-for-profits and neighbourhoods scoring high on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion scales. This means that the middle class neighbourhoods with two working parents who are largely paying for the program with their taxes are now paying full price for their own kids while subsidizing others. There was no means testing to enter the program, either. There are thousands of families with two high-income earners receiving subsidized daycare in our country while middle-income earners are paying close to or more than a second monthly mortgage payment for the privilege to make ends meet. Many like myself wish that income taxes were simply reduced by a predetermined amount based on the number of children you have to help with the cost of daycare or in the form an enhanced Canada Child Benefit so that we could choose where to send our kids and not be left paying for the care of other families and bloated government salaries to manage a program while continuing to pay the full cost. This was supposed to help everyone - especially working mothers. For those who have been left out, the Liberals can count them as votes lost.

In a bid to force social media giants to “pay their fair share” the Liberals brought in legislation (Bill C-18) making Meta and others pay for news content posted to their platforms. The increased exposure was already raking in massive ad revenue for these news organizations, so there was no logical reason to do this. The only result was the prevention of regular users from sharing articles that interested them and making it more difficult for Canadians to get news in a convenient place where they were already browsing as Meta and others responded by making news unshareable in Canada. "The fact that these internet giants would rather cut off Canadians' access to local news than pay their fair share is a real problem, and now they're resorting to bullying tactics to try and get their way. It's not going to work," Trudeau said. Well, it worked. And now Canadians are less-informed and more polarized than ever. Bad policy yields bad results. Where Canadians used to engage and debate (sometimes respectfully) in the comments section, is left a retrenchment into disconnected echo-chambers where those with opposing views will rarely be exposed to new or different viewpoints and small publications are receiving less revenue, leading to the further erosion of the Fourth Estate. It was an anti-democratic move in the name of progressivism.

There’s no soft way to say this, but Canada has let in too many people since 2015. We need modest immigration, do not get me wrong, but the pace has been astronomical. The housing and affordability crisis is largely driven by this. We can blame COVID lockdowns and supply chain issues all we want, but when it comes to housing affordability, demand has been fuelled by massive immigration and supply cannot keep up. This is alienating an entire generation, and no amount of programming and announcements can change this until the housing sector catches up. What’s worse, homebuilders are demonized and derided at the local level by activists and bureaucrats keep piling on costs and policies, making some projects untenable and slowing the rate of building to a snail’s pace. There’s little wonder why Generation Z voters are attracted by relentless messaging by Conservatives to Axe the Tax, Build the Homes, and Stop the Crime.

On that last point, there is no denying the feeling that crime is on the rise. StatsCan data shows that it is nowhere near the rates of the 1990’s, but after a slight dip in 2020, it is rising again. Many blame government policy for the light treatment of violent offenders, and making people feel safe is one of the most important roles of government.

People are tired of being demonized for what they think and feel. Think immigration levels are too high? You must be a racist! Feel uncomfortable with your young children being exposed to suggestively-clad men dressed as women reading stories? You must be a homophobe! Hold a nuanced view of the war in the Middle East? You must be an Islamophobe! Think hard drug users should be offered treatment instead of free drugs? You must be heartless! Think that maybe young children should hold off on making life-changing decisions that may leave them sterilized in adult life? You must be a transphobe!

We need to be able to have these discussions maturely. I think most hold nuanced views on all of these topics and more, but at the risk of being labelled, many remain silent or grow resentful with the taste of blood in their mouths from gnawing at their tongues. Questions of morality, regardless of how charged they are, can and should be discussed openly without fear of being “cancelled” or ruining future prospects. When opinions are respected, even if not accepted, persuasion can occur. We can have tough discussions without being tough on one another. When someone has to bottle up their thoughts and feelings, they will eventually blow up.

Safe spaces and working hard not to inadvertently offend anyone has made our society soft.

---

“Nobody has the right to not be offended. That right doesn't exist in any declaration I have ever read.

If you are offended it is your problem, and frankly lots of things offend lots of people.

I can walk into a bookshop and point out a number of books that I find very unattractive in what they say. But it doesn't occur to me to burn the bookshop down. If you don't like a book, read another book. If you start reading a book and you decide you don't like it, nobody is telling you to finish it.

To read a 600-page novel and then say that it has deeply offended you: well, you have done a lot of work to be offended.”

―Salman Rushdie

---

For the most part, conservatives tolerate dissent. This is why conservative parties face so much internal division. There are classical liberals who disagree with social conservatives who disagree with libertarians who disagree with objectivists who disagree with everyone! But conservatives generally tolerate and respect opposing views. We believe in free speech and not compelling the speech of others. This is very attractive to people who have felt muzzled or judged by the progressive surge of the last two decades. And it is very attractive to people who are still trying to figure out how they think and do not want to be told what to think. This forces conservatives, when in government, to concentrate only on the fundamental things upon which we agree. Are there fringe ideas in the conservative movement that I find distasteful? Of course! But these views are so fringe and held by such a small minority, that they have no hope of ever surfacing as a passable piece of legislation. Using these views as a reason to demonize a clear majority of people is intellectually dishonest. And being able to have a conversation openly about an idea you abhor, while it might attract media attention and sensational headlines depending on the forum, is a sign of maturity and enlightenment.

People are tired of being talked-down-to. People know what is good for them. We want to make choices about our own lives. It seems that progressives like to cast conservatives as cavemen or wanting to return to some post-industrial 1950’s time where women stay in the home and men rule everything. This is not the case. Most just want to be left alone and to leave others alone. No one wants to hear about your kinks or other private pursuits. Go ahead and have fun! Many just want to keep private lives private and to respect that others can and should do what they want in their own private spaces. Not everything needs to go on social media. No one is better than anyone else. A rigger is equal to a professor. A doctor is equal to a grocery store clerk. Your profession or education doesn’t define you and it doesn’t make your opinion or feelings any more or less valid or influential.

---

“Yeah, well, thats just like your opinion, man.”

―The Dude (The Big Lebowski)

---

We need to stop talking at each other and start talking to each other. We need to spend some time thinking for ourselves. I’m in the habit of challenging myself by reading books I know I will disagree with, because they are written by people with different ideas, experiences and ways of thinking than me. Some make good points and make me question how I think and feel. I think I benefit from this. Progressives would benefit by doing the same. Don’t just listen to conservative voices that seek out a microphone at a Trump rally. Don’t just listen to protesting radicals at a march. These are not representative opinions. What makes good news isn’t necessarily the full picture. I think society benefits from a level of alternation in prevalence between worldviews. It evens out the rough points each side brings to the table over the long term. We should avoid our worst natures and the draw of tribalism. It feels great to always be surrounded by likeminded thinkers, but it gets boring. Not every issue requires a revolution or a fight to resolve.

The near future belongs to the right for some of the reasons I describe above, and because the pendulum has swung too far to the left. The further we get from the Average Joe in the centre, the more we alienate everyone else. Political movements that grow long in the tooth become hubristic and self-righteous. It’s going to happen again. And again. And again. Maybe this time, we can learn from it, make change at the margins and leave the radical stuff for radicals. Most mellow out with age anyway.