The Munk Debates Podcast - Be it resolved: Populism is the Future of Conservatism

Episode Date: August 3, 2022

At the beginning of the year, a group of Canadian truckers took their frustrations of government mandated vaccines to Ottawa, which quickly grew into what became known as the Freedom Convoy. For about a month, the convoy shut down the nation’s capital as thousands of people pushed for an end to covid restrictions and vaccine mandates for cross-border essential workers. This was just another example of a populist swell in Canada that has pushed Conservative party candidate Pierre Poilievre to the role of front-runner. Andrew Lawton extensively covered the truck convoy and reports in his new book The Freedom Convoy on a group of people who held dance parties and pig roasts. However, as Tasha Kheiriddin reports in her new book, The Right Path, many more moderate Tories and centre-right voters fear the Conservative Party is pandering to anti-immigration, anti-vaccine and anti-urban sentiments to gain these far-right votes. Is populism the future of Conservatism?  QUOTES:    Andrew Lawton: “The fact that [the vaccine mandate protests] have reshaped the conservative leadership race months after an election in which the leader would not even talk about that, is a very real example of how conservative politicians in this country realized this populist issue is a necessity for them to be relevant to the voters and to their own base.” Tasha Kheiriddin: “The future of conservatism lies in providing solutions to populist concerns without the rhetoric upheaval and yes, sometimes violence that accompanies populism. It is not simply about removing elites or institutions, but enabling people to rise to the full level of their abilities.”  The host of the Munk Debates is Rudyard Griffiths - @rudyardg.     Tweet your comments about this episode to @munkdebate or comment on our Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/munkdebates/   To sign up for a weekly email reminder for this podcast, send an email to [e-mail].     To support civil and substantive debate on the big questions of the day, consider becoming a Munk Member at https://munkdebates.com/membership Members receive access to our 10+ year library of great debates in HD video, a free Munk Debates book, newsletter and ticketing privileges at our live events. This podcast is a project of the Munk Debates, a Canadian charitable organization dedicated to fostering civil and substantive public dialogue - https://munkdebates.com/   Senior Producer: Kelly Linehan Editor: Adam Karch  Become a Munk Donor ($50 annually) to get 72-hour advanced access to the full length editions of Friday Focus and Munk Dialogues. Go to www.munkdebates.com to sign up. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

These statues have to come down. It's always been a pandemic of the unvaccinated. The problem now is it's a pandemic of the willfully unvaccinated. Falling birth rates are good. They're good for our planet. They're good for our societies. We're not responsible for the escalation with Russia. We're not the ones who invaded Ukraine.

I don't think it's fair to portray people of color as victims. It is a very dangerous time in American politics. Welcome to the Monk Debates. every episode we provide you with a civil and substantive debate on the big issue of the day to arm you, the listener, with enough information to make up your own mind. Today's debate, be it resolved. The future of conservatism is populism. Hello, I'm your moderator, Rudyard Griffiths. Well, throughout advanced democracies around the world, politics is undergoing a sea change. Long held notions about the role of government in our

trade and economic policy, foreign affairs and immigration are being challenged like never before by populist thinkers and movements. The socialist, globalists, Marxists, communists who are attacking our civilization, have no idea of the sleeping giant they have awoken. Even countries long thought to be immune to populism, such as Canada, are now starting to see the emergence of overtly populist parties and leaders, both outside and inside the political mainstream. Why am I running for Prime Minister to put you back in control of your life by making Canada the freest nation on earth? That is why we as a conservative team are going to continue

to fight tooth and nail to put a permanent end to the vaccine mandates, the vaccine has. Does the energy of populace ideas and politics, especially on the same, center right of the political spectrum, herald a new era of democratic discourse, or is populism a passing phenomenon with limited political appeal and therefore destined to remain at the fringes of our democracy and government? In an advanced Western democracy, the peaceful movement of patriotic truckers, workers and families protesting for their most basic rights and liberties has been violently put down. On this installment of the Monk debates,

we take up these questions by debating the motion, be it resolved, the future of conservatism is populism. Arguing for the motion is Andrew Lawton, an acclaimed broadcaster and columnist who extensively covered on the ground Canada's trucker protests of the past year

in his new book, The Freedom Convoy. Arguing against the motion is Tasha Carradon, bestselling author and national political columnist for post media in Canada. Her new book is The Right Path, an exploration of the state and future of Canadian conservative ideas and politics. Tasha, Andrew, great to have you on the Monk Debate podcast today. Great to be here. Yes, thanks for having us.

Well, super timely debate. Our motion today, the future of conservatism is populism, is not only a I think an issue, a quandary that, you know, people around the world are thinking about. But here specifically in Canada, we're in the middle of a conservative leadership race, some new energy and ideas coming from a seemingly populist perspective in informing that contest and potentially taking Canadian democracy and politics in a new direction. So the opportunity to kind of think some big thoughts with both of you. about the future of conservatism and populism in a Canadian context is a privilege indeed. So here's what we're going to do. We're going to put a couple minutes on the show clock for opening remarks, two minutes each.

Andrew, you're speaking in favor of our motion. So as per debate convention, kick off this conversation for us. When you talk about the future of conservatism being populism, I think it's important to first dispense with the baggage that the word populism carries. Oftentimes it's used as a majority. People say, oh, this is populist rhetoric, or oh, it's a populist policy. If you break it down to its fundamentals, populism is in political terms, policies and a political approach that goes after ordinary citizens, the needs of people, the desires of people, the wants of people, but fundamentally what it is that people expect of their systems and of their institutions. And I think the reason we see the rise in populism, not

just in Canada, but around the world, is because so many of these systems and institutions have failed. And people are no longer bogged down in the conventional liberal versus conservative, this idea, I think false idea of political spectrums as being linear entities. So I believe that the future of conservatism is populism because it's the only way conservative cannot just remain politically viable, but also remain relevant to the people that conservatism and political parties and governments are supposed to serve. It is about people being able to work, live their lives, enjoy their freedoms. It's not just about where conservatives tend to resort to just being a slightly better accountant,

but not distinct or discernibly different from the parties they want to replace. So I believe that this is the direction things are headed, and I would also argue the directions things should be headed in. Thanks, Andrew, for that opening statement. Tasha, your turn now to set out your key arguments and ideas in our debate today. That topic, the resolution, the future of conservatism is populism. You're opposed to the motion. Let's have your opening statement.

Thank you, Roger. And, Andrew, I take your point that populism is about ordinary citizens, but conservatism is too. And the future conservatism, the reason I think it is not populism is first because you have to understand the past. of conservatism to understand its future. And there's some misapprehensions. Conservatism was actually created and founded as a reaction to populism. In 1789, we want to go all the way back to British philosopher Edmund Burke. He decried the terror of the French Revolution, which was possibly the most populist uprising in history because people literally cut off the heads of the elites. Now, Burke was appalled by the excess of the revolution. Conservatism for him was founded instead

on the principle of moderation and incremental change. And he valued law and order and believed liberty has to be coupled with restraint. Unfortunately, history has taught us that at its worst, populism knows no such restraint. It's turned conservatism to very dark ends we've seen at the worst rise of Nazi Germany, Franco, Spain, Mussolini's Italy. And even today, you know, we bear witness to chaos in places like Brazil with Bolsonaro, Donald Trump's Republican Party. And, you know, just this week, actually, the fall from grace of Britain's conservative Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Now, I give it to you. Populism channels the anger people feel when they can't get ahead. They do everything right and they're still blocked in their ambitions for themselves and their families.

And conservative politicians must not dismiss those emotions, but they can't let themselves be carried away by them. The future of conservatism lies in providing solutions to populist concerns without the rhetoric, upheaval. And yes, sometimes violence that accompanies populism. It's about connecting with voters on conservative principles such as local governance, the importance of family and faith, the advancement of free enterprise, lower taxes, law and order, and above all, equality of opportunity. It is not simply about removing elites or institutions, but enabling people to rise to the full level of their abilities. And here in Canada, I believe embracing such policies will allow the conservatives to connect with the voters they don't have, but that they need, people in the cities. and the suburbs, new Canadians, and the next generation. Conservatives also oppose woke politics and identity politics and this notion of government picking winners and losers. So overall, I think the right path for conservatives here and abroad is to be true conservatives and not populists.

Thanks, Tasha. And thanks, Andrew. A bunch of great opening statements there. Focus to the point. I love it the way you guys are respecting our show clock. We're going to continue that with a round of rebuttals now, two minutes each. on our debate, the future of conservatism is populism. Andrew, your opportunity to react to Tasha's opening remarks. I would have hoped that we could get more than three minutes into the debate without Hitler and Nazi Germany coming up, because I think this is the precise problem, is that you're talking about people who have needs and the populism discussion gets shoved into this same old, I think, tried and overused, and I also argue not particularly historically

correct comparison to Nazi Germany. The reality is evil regimes throughout history are not connected to the political debates that we're having about what Canadians need and what people in Western liberal democracies need right now. And I think it's important to note when Tasha mentions all of these things that conservatism has historically stood for and should stand for, I don't disagree. I think local governance is important. I think faith and family are important. I think law and order are important. But I don't believe that you can narrowly distill populism down to removing elites as an end. The populist obsession, if you will, about elites is not an end in and of itself. It's the belief that these institutions that are governed by elites are not providing results for all of those things.

Tasha and I think both agree are important in a free society and in a liberal democracy. So the question then is not whether law and order and local governance are good things. The is whether populism is a way that conservatives can support themselves and maintain relevance for people. And I would argue the answer is yes. In fact, it's the only way they can. And when you talk about the history of conservatism, I would also point out that conservatism has itself evolved. And this may be somewhat antithetical for a movement that's generally speaking been rooted in tradition. But there was a time when being a conservative meant you were voting against same-sex marriage, as the political culture has changed, so too has the manifestation that we call a conservative.

So I don't believe that the history of conservatism, whether we're going back to Edmund Burke, whether we're going back to John Locke, whether we're going back to Hobbs, is prescriptive for the future. Andrew, thank you so much for that rebuttal, Tasha, in the name of fairness, same opportunity for you, two minutes on the clock. You can react to Andrew's opening statement or what you've just heard now. Thank you so much, Rudurin. Thank you, Andrew. And I don't mean to be alarmist, but at the same time, like I said, you have to acknowledge what has come before. And the danger of repeating history is that you ignore what has come before. Conservatism and populism have danced together in our country and around the world. I think ever since there has been conservatism. Because like I said, it's been a reaction to populism. Populism, I agree with you, is a situation where people feel that elites and institutions have failed them. However, too often, their sentiments are taken up by a strong man or sometimes a strong woman, but mostly a strong man leader, and used to demagogic ends.

And you can't deny this has happened. And we don't want it to happen again. You know, Donald Trump in the United States has taken the Republican Party over, taking it to places where conservatism, even though. the word liberty is not even used. The idea of conservatism is rooted in tradition and yes, has evolved. There have been different strains of conservatives and they still exist social conservatives you mentioned. Libertarians, fiscal conservatives. The common thread, though, that unites them is the idea that conservatism is the philosophy that gives people the greatest fair chance in life. And this is what I'm talking about. People who decry institutions that have failed and elites that they feel are letting them down or standing in their way are blocked in their quest for opportunity.

It's not about freedom. It's not the cry of freedom that people are heeding. Because in fact, if you look at in Canada in particular, people in the center right or the common sense Canadian, as I will call them voter, they want opportunities for themselves and their children. They do not feel they are unfree. In fact, Canada is one of the freest countries in the world. I believe we came in number six on the Freedom Index the last year. It is not about freedom. It is about being denied opportunity. So that is where conservatives have to show how their values and implementing those values through government will actually enable people to access those opportunities. You know, when you put your kid into hockey, for example, you want them to go to the NHL.

Every parent dreams of this. You want them to actually become an elite. What does that mean? You want them to be able to rise to the level, full level of their competence with no one standing in their way. But you're not saying tear down the NHL, tear down the elites. No, you want your kids to be able to join them. And that aspirational aspect appeals to new Canadian voters, it appeals to families, it appeals to the next generation. We need words and conservative ideas that lift people up, not populism and the anger, unfortunately, that accompanies it that turn off large segments of the voting population. Thanks, Tasha. Okay, my opportunity to kind of join this conversation and think up some questions that are on the minds of our monk listeners.

I would have refocus a bit around the actual resolution itself because we, you know, we spent a lot of time working with you and our producers to kind of craft these motions so they get at what we think is the essence of the debate. And our motion today, again, to state it, the future of conservatism is populism. So, Andrew, let's just touch on that. Like, give me some examples, some case points as to why you think that is the case and why you think, as maybe in opposition to others who would say, in fact, no, you know, maybe the populist wave has crested that conservatism is increasingly detached from populist elements. I want some proof points for you as to why you think populism is now and into the future in form. conservative thinking, conservative leaders, conservative parties, and conservative ideas. There are two aspects to the resolution. There's the descriptive aspect of just the matter of fact, whether you like it or not, is this trend happening? Is conservatism drifting towards populism?

And there's also the normative aspect, should this happen? And as I said in my opening remarks, I think the answer to both is yes. And I would say that even if you don't like it, you need to accept that this is where things are going. The political debate is shifting. And I think one very recent example and very poignant example that is Canadian is 2021. You had the People's Party of Canada, a new party that had been derided by all of the mainstream political parties that have seats in the legislature, certainly by mainstream media coverage, yet they managed to triple their vote, getting, you know, not quite 6%, but close to 6% of the vote. A number it took the Green Party decades, to achieve in an election where the stakes were very high and anger towards the incumbent

towards Justin Trudeau was also very high. Yet people who didn't like the status quo didn't vote for the most electable alternative, the Conservative Party of Canada. They voted for a party that I assume most people knew had a very significant uphill battle to even elect a member of parliament and virtually no chance of forming government. And we can talk about all of the different factors there, but I want to focus on one, which is vaccine management. This is an issue where people would look and see virtual unanimity among political leaders in 2021, among the media. There was very little, in fact, I'd say no real political voice for those who were not vaccinated for whatever reason who wanted to enjoy the same life and same liberty as people who were vaccinated,

whether it was going to a restaurant working in a public sector. This is a very real need that government has created. Government has created this barrier and all of a sudden it created a need in people and there was no voice to represent them. So when you look at now, the Freedom Convoy, this mass populist protest, it's shaped the conservative response. The conservative leadership race right now has candidates arguing about who was a better supporter of these people, who supported them first, who supported them earlier. And the fact that this has reshaped the conservative leadership race, months after and election in which the leader would not even talk about that is a very real example of how conservative politicians in this country realize this populist issue is a necessity for them to be

relevant to the voters and to their own base. Okay, Tasha, so this is helpful. There's a prescriptive, you know, part of this resolution, or should I say, descriptive and then normative. So let's put the normative aside for a sec, because clearly you guys sharply disagree on that. and I want to explore that debate with you. But on the descriptive component,

do you concede to Andrew's argument that pure Pollyev looks set to to win the conservative leadership, barring some unforeseen surprise and for our American international listeners? This is a conservative politician in Canada, a member of our parliament, who has come forward and expoused, not, if not overtly populist beliefs and policies. he's certainly crafted his campaign with this key message around gatekeepers and, you know, tearing down, moving aside, pushing away the gatekeepers to expand the scope of human freedom. Tasha, that sounds like a pretty classic, you know, populist trope. So is it correct? Is it right to argue that in Canada, at least for now, the future of conservatism is populism?

I would argue it's not. I'm not arguing that Mr. Polyev does not have very strong chances of winning the leadership. However, the race isn't decided yet. People are voting as we're speaking, actually, and the votes are going to be tallied and known by the 10th of September. But what you have seen is, and to Andrew's point, it has been channeled by the pandemic. The pandemic really in Canada represented the ascension of populism at this time. We've seen the ascension of populism in other places around the world for other reasons. But in Canada, the pandemic and the anti-vax issue, anti-mandate issue, that is what is galvanized the freedom talk that Pollyev and the conservatives are discussing.

But let's look at some numbers. The number of people who have not been vaccinated in Canada is not, it's not a mass number. It is less than 10 percent who have said they absolutely do not want to be vaccinated. There are a greater number who say they don't believe in mandates. This is true. But it is not a mass protest. The trucker protest, also, the Freedom Convoy, was not a mass. protests. When you look at polling on it, in fact, you see that over half of people believe that

what people did there is wrong and doesn't deserve sympathy. You find a greater percentage among conservative voters who do agree that it is something that deserves sympathy, if not for its means, then for its ends. This is true. There's a divide on the right in terms of populism and conservatism, but not in the rest of the country. And if the conservatives want to get into power, which ultimately, as a party, as a movement, you cannot affect any real change unless you hold the reins of power. If they want to achieve electoral success, they have to look at that landscape and say, where do the votes lie? Do they lie on the side of the People's Party, which got 5% and we can maybe increase that number? Do they lie in the center right where the liberals in NDP here have left a big gap?

Because the liberals have formed a deal with the more left of Center Party for our international listeners. We have several parties in Canada, not just a choice of two. So the result is that there are many conservative-minded voters. And I call these, again, common sense Canadians. They may not be engaged, but they are conservative-leaning voters. They are potential conservative voters who feel they have no home. And they will be turned off by the talk only of freedom and unbridled populism. It is not something.

And many of them agree with mandates that they did at the time. If they still do not, that is an issue. It's that mandates are mostly being lifted. And when you look at the scholarship on this issue too, which I do explore in my book, you know, vaccine mandates are not going to be around forever. The pandemic is not going to be around forever. And in fact, there's already a sense that this anger is misplaced in waning. There are people who will have identified perhaps with this cause before who will not have the cause in the future. So to build your party around an issue that is a minority position that is not going to be an issue going forward. for the next decade to which the conservatives have to look as they build their voter bases, to me shows the future is not in populism. It is in addressing populist concerns with conservative ideas that are more enduring, timeless, and will go forward. So Andrew, key point here you to respond to it. This is, this is situational. It's a unique moment, a unique 24 months.

Your argument is, in a sense, making a mountain out of a molehill. It's empowering a vocal minority to speak on behalf of the conservative movement when, in fact, it's just that. It's a minority. I think it's very short-sighted in the reverse sense, looking back, to say that freedom is just this new thing that just conservatives in the last couple of years have started talking about. I mean, John Defenbaker, a great conservative prime minister in promoting the Bill of Rights, this heritage of freedom I pledged to uphold for myself and all.

mankind. I mean, even baked into the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that we got from Pierre Elliott Trudeau, this idea of freedoms. This is not new to the Canadian political discourse. And I think that if you want to say that the pandemic has created the conditions for a lot of these political debates, as Tasha did, I would completely agree with that. But I think that it has revealed challenges, not created challenges. And when mandates are lifted, we can't all just say, okay, I guess there's no issue. We can all move on. Because government, has popped that cork in the same way as the Emergencies Act. Government has invoked this thing. They broke the glass case. They took out the hammer. They smashed it and they hit the button there

that no one is supposed to hit. And this tells people that there is a challenge to their freedom, to their way of life. And I would say that this is not exclusively the domain of the right either. If we want to delve into the United States context in 2016, there have been a number of polls talking about the crossover between Bernie Sanders supporters and Donald Trump voters when Hillary Clinton won the Democratic nomination and Donald Trump won the Republican nomination because the challenges that real people are dealing with are not distilled into these neat political scientist and political pundit boxes of left versus right. And the last two elections in Canada in particular, where conservative leaders have run on tremendously moderate centrist platforms and not right. one, I think shows that Tasha's way doesn't work and hasn't worked. You know what? Andrew? A fair point. The last two elections have been lost on platforms that would be considered more centered right. But that wasn't because of the platform. That was

because people felt they could not trust the party and the leader of the party to actually go forward with these agendas. In the first case in 2019, Andrew Shear was seen as untrustworthy on issues of social conservatism. There was a question on his position on abortion. There was a lack of clarity. In the 2021 election, Aaron O'Toole ran as a blue Tory, quite right of center when he was running for the leadership and then pivoted to a more centrist position as leader in the election. And so that broke faith with his original supporters who said, wait a minute, who is this guy? What does he stand for? In 2015, if you go back further, the conservatives broke faith with new Canadians when they brought forward a barbaric practices

tip line for people to report instances of, yes, terrible things that were being done to women and girls in Canada in certain faith communities, but the packaging for it was such that it was deemed racist. And that tag has still affected conservatives to this day. And this is the issue that I want to get at that is incredibly important is perception becomes reality. And if the conservatives become tagged with a perception that their version of freedom is what happened at the convoy, that is going to turn off a lot of people who have a very different view of freedom, who like Edmund Burke and many conservatives, see freedom and restraint, rights and responsibility as two sides of the same coin, and you don't go with one without the other.

In Ottawa, you know, there are different, I know you were on the ground, there are different versions of what happened there in terms of the impact on people, but it's not just the media who reported stories of people being harassed, people feeling unsafe. I've spoken to many people I know who lived in that city, who felt terrorized. And in fact, people who aren't even going to support Mr. Pollyev in his own writing, because they feel that he and the conservatives let them down in ensuring safety in their city. So it is not universal that conservatives feel that the convoy was a positive representation of populism. In fact, to me, the word freedoms become tarnished. I think it is not going to have wide appeal. I'm as much a freedom lover as you,

but I think the word opportunity and the sense of what conservatism can offer people is preferable than the populist cry of freedom, which will turn off a large number of people who even conservatives who feel that it is not representative of what they believe their party should be. Hi, Rudyard Griffiths here, your host and moderator. I have a favor to ask you, please consider becoming a monk member. Membership is free and you get access to a series of great benefits, including a 10-plus-year library of some of our best debates, dialogues and podcasts.

You also get a free monthly newsletter featuring the debates that we're watching around the world. And you get a specially curated Friday weekly monk members only podcast that focuses on the big international events and trends shaping our world. All of that, again, free at www.munkdebates.com. I hope you'll consider joining and becoming part of our community. Now, back to our program. Andrew, opportunity for a quick rebuttal, and then I want to just spend the remainder of our time together talking about the normative aspect of this debate, this tension between conservatism and populism. So quick rebuttal first, though, from you, Andrew.

I don't really view the freedom opportunity distinction you're drawing to Hasha as really being a distinction. I think that to a lot of people, opportunity is freedom, or at least requires freedom. and to other people, they only have freedom when they have opportunity. So I think we're probably closer together on that than people might think. Because if you are denied the freedom to work because of your vaccination status, you're denied the opportunity to work. If you're denied the freedom to own and operate a business without excessive regulation, you're denied that opportunity because of the infringements on freedom.

So I wouldn't get too hung up on those as being wildly disparate concepts here. even if someone loathes the convoy, they hate the convoy, they don't think it was a good expression of anything, they don't think it was a good political protest or a legitimate political protest, I would hope that we could agree that it was a symptom of a political class that was not listening to these people, whether it was Aaron O'Toole not saying one way or another, whether he supported them, whether it was Justin Trudeau that went to vilifying them, the reality is the convoy was a symptom of a political class, a class, of elites, if you will, that was not responding to a very real problem that existed in society

and in the populace. And I think that the convoy is supporting my thesis regardless of whether someone likes it or not, which is that these people need to be represented. They are Canadians. They deserve to have a voice and a seat at the table. And the fact that this issue is one that's divisive within the conservatives, I think also supports my position because the conservatives cannot do what Tasha is prescribing without losing the base that they need to get elected and becoming completely irrelevant. Thank you, Andrew. Let's just pivot, guys, in our, I'm conscious of our time allotted here.

This has been a great conversation. Our motion today, the future of conservatism is populism. And Tasha, to come to you to talk about, you know, the, I guess the intentionality in this motion. And, you know, to rephrase it in a way that you would support it, I assume, is that the future of conservatism is conservatism, is more conservatism. And I guess it would be interesting to hear you respond to the argument well articulated by many populists that, you know, what has been conservatism over the last number of decades? Some people would say it is a relentlessly kind of neoliberal agenda that has outsourced jobs. opportunities that has coddled a corporate elite that has been many times defending monopolies,

oligopolis, duoplies, you name it, anything but competitive, emphasizing human potential, human opportunity, human freedom. I just wonder how you respond to the reality in the, in the sense. the advanced world, the advanced economies of the world that a lot of what we see around us is the product of a conservative ideology that seemed to have protected and enriched and advanced the interests of elites. Well, I'd say first of all, neoliberal philosophy is not necessarily conservative. And the ideas that you discussed, conservatives, yes, some conservative parties have advanced them. However, what I'm talking about is rediscovering essentially what conservatism is. And I agree

with you. It has been a bit lost in translation. I mean, even Stephen Harper has written about free trade and while free trade has been championed by conservatives, it is an engine of prosperity. He also has acknowledged that free trade has displaced, workers has displaced, industries has made people feel that their opportunities have been removed from them. And they as you put it, conservatives, conservative elites. Now, it is not just conservative parties, though, who have adopted those economic ideas. What conservatism really is about, fundamentally, is very human. It is the intergenerational bonds between societies, between people. It is the little platoons of society. It is the importance of the family as a bulwark against the state. It is not about

big state government and big state decisions. It is about moving decisions to the closest level to the people, local decision making, something we don't talk enough about. And this is what I'm saying is that if we did talk about it, we could find solutions to issues. One of the which I talk about in Canadian context is, for example, gun laws. Conservatives in Canada are often accused of saying, oh, they're just, they're also, they're pro-gun. That's all they are. Whereas in fact, conservatives who are then shut out of urban voting markets would have a much better chance, I believe, at delivering good policy and also ascribing to their conservative roots by saying, you know what, we're actually in favor of local decision-making. So if Toronto wants to

have a particular set of gun laws around handguns as an urban center that's threatened with gun crime. And we want to have a different set of regulation for guns in rural environments where people use them as part of daily life for hunting, for protection, for all sorts of other things. Then why don't we? That is a true conservative policy and principle. Conservatism has been conflated with a lot of things in the past couple of decades. And I agree it is seen as also elitist, potentially. I don't, you know, I don't ascribe to that myself. And I think that that is why if conservatives really show what they truly are and market those ideas to people, there will be

great appeal because I think there's a hunger for community. I found that in talking to conservatives across this country, particularly young people. They want a sense of community and belonging that they are not finding in any political party and that I don't believe populism either will deliver. So, Andrew, let's hear from you as to why you think conservatism as it's traditionally been expressed by mainline parties over the last number of decades maybe isn't reformable. And then also I'd like to just challenge you a little bit about why you think populism is a viable model, both an ideological and a theoretical model to replace, you know, conservatism as a movement that has, as Tasha has stressed, you know, does have a series of principles and beliefs. It has, you know, for better or

worse, a theory of the case. Whereas, Andrew, I think we have to concede that populism is, you know, it's a re-articulation of a kind of a theory of direct democracy, of the expression of the will of the people through, primarily through a leader often, but yes, it could be through a party and it ultimately could be through policies. But, Andrew, that is a very big change in our political culture to move towards a kind of a theory of political life, of institutional life of the future of the country as an expression of the general will to give an echo back to your previous discussions and references to the French Revolution. That's very fair.

And to be clear, I'm not talking about a reform of any system of government or system of election. I don't think we need to go to the old ancient Greek model or even the Swiss model. I think that when I'm talking about populism in this context, it's about. whether politicians, specifically conservative politicians in this debate, need to be responsive to that and need to have a populist influence as they value their own voters and the voters they want a court and all of these things that we've been discussing here. And just to look at the firearms issue for one example, Tasha mentioned something very sensible there, which is that, yes,

a local government approach to this would be Toronto can do what it wants to do and Red Deere Alberta can do what it wants to do. But I think the proof is, in how conservatives have responded. When Justin Trudeau proposed exactly that, conservatives and gun owners were saying no. And I think part of this is because conservative, I mean, John O'Sullivan's first law is that anything that is not explicitly right wing will over time become explicitly left wing. And I think the magic of that is that he captures there's an institutional drift to the left and that conservatives are always going to be swimming upstream and against the current and whatever other cliche you want to put there. So

conservatives are very resistant to incremental changes against them because they know exactly what is at stake. So conservatives will not accept a change like that. Well, let's just allow Toronto to ban guns because they know it's going to eventually expand outside of that. And all of a sudden you won't be able to own a gun in rural Alberta just because it started in Toronto. And I think to the other aspect of what you let in with there, Rudyard, I would look at how conservatives have to confront this as being partially tactical because they have to be responsive to their voters and the voters they want to get. But it is also, I think, a moral issue as well in that any party, any party should want to appeal to the people. And when you start to dismiss populism as being a negative or as being

not particularly relevant, what you're saying is that the people don't know what's good for them. And it is, I mean, anti-populism is inherently elitist because you're saying that, no, it actually takes political parties to come and tell people what they really want and what they should really get and decide which segments of the population are worthy of being represented. And that, I think, is a very dangerous view, a government that not only is not responsive to the people, but doesn't actually care about the people because they're following a model that's rooted in some other philosophy. You know, what surprises me in these conversations is always the assumption that populism represents the people, what people, who people, where?

If you look at the populist movements in Canada, they've outrisen mostly, chiefly, in fact, from the West. Eastern Canada has not bought into populism in large numbers. Doug Ford was probably the most populist premier in Ontario history. He ran initially as quite a populist, you know, running against the media and talking about, you know, his brand as opposed to the conservative or the progressive conservative brand. But even Doug Ford has mellowed over time. in this province because he knows that is not where most of the voters sit. And if you're going to deliver them the government they want,

it's not going to look like the populist fervor you see in Western Canada. I just spend some time in Western Canada and in talking with people there, there is a definite difference in how they perceive the attitude of government. And in Canada, particularly, it is an attitude they feel is negative from East, from Ottawa, towards Western culture. So when you talk about who represents them, populist parties in Canada, in Canada have arisen from the West, the Reform Party, the Sokred Party, the Progressive Party, which was a more left-leaning, but still, populist party, because of the sense of grievance

against how they are treated, and I agree, there is basis for that grievance by the Eastern Party of the country. So it is very regional. So if you're talking about what the people want, well, you've got to define who they are. And how does that play out for a national, a federal conservative party in this country? It doesn't. We have seen the fact they got 34% in the last election and yet didn't form government because of the concentration of the vote. So I'm not talking about system reform either, Andrew. I don't think that is a path that wants to go down for a whole host of reasons, constitutional and otherwise. What I do think, though, is you've got to find a way to bridge and address the populist concerns, which are legitimate,

but not with the populist fervor that is unacceptable and uninteresting to the people out in the rest of the country. So we're going to go to opening statements, but before we do that, last word to you, Andrew, maybe just answer the question. You know, how to further Tash's description of the country, which many people, I think, would feel accurate. It applies not maybe just to Canada, but the United States or other federations. I mean, there's a lot of different interests in this country, a lot of different regions, a lot of, in our case, in Canada, different languages. To what extent, Andrew, don't we just always end up in a brokerage situation where you need parties that have a brokerage function? And those parties may say that they're populace and they're expressing the will of the party.

But what they're really doing is what every conservative or liberal or socialist party has ever done, which is mediate interests. That's what parties are here for. And as a result, you know, the future of conservatism really can't be populism because the end of the day, populism is a chimera. It's a slogan. It's something, you know, that's the flavor of the month right now. but it doesn't really translate through to our politics to how government actually works, to how parties and coalitions actually form to lead countries. I'm not saying this is something that we should do,

but I think it is worth exploring whether regionalism is going to become a future dimension further in Canadian politics. I mean, we see right now a growing movement of Western Independence parties, not electorally relevant at this time, but still not insignificant. Quebec secession, we know very well, has mobilized and organized politically. So when I look at what Tasha says, which is completely accurate, that the populist movements that we've seen that have been successful in Canada generally have come from the West, I think that's because they're the ones most disadvantaged by the status quo, because the elites are the ones that are governing and dominating in Ontario and in Quebec. I mean, Quebec is the beneficiary of the West's

economic success, and this has been one of the big frustrations with the West. So, It's not surprising that they're further along in that in the West because they've been dealing with these issues longer. But we're talking about the future. The motion is about the future of conservatism. And I think we're going to increasingly see, as we're seeing in Ontario now, a greater rural urban divide between people that's going to exacerbate and I think reshape this in a fairly significant way. Fantastic debate here, guys. Let's go to closing statements. This is Two minutes each for both of you to kind of wrap up, leave our audience with your key arguments and ideas on our motion today. The future of conservatism is populism.

Tasha, you're up first. What do you want to leave our listeners with? So why do I think the future of conservatism is not populism? As I have said, because of the fact that populism is not truly representative of not only the people. Some people, yes, but not the people writ large. But also, conservatism cannot be rooted in populism because it grew out of the opposition to that very notion. Conservatism is rooted in tradition in a way that makes people feel they are part of a community, they are secure, yet they are free, but that they understand that there is a continuity that they feel they can continue to pursue opportunity for themselves and their children,

that they are not blocked by elites. That is the populist issue. I completely agree with that sentiment, that feeling of being blocked. But the blocking by elites is not the issue. What is the issue is a failure of the government to ensure there is a quality of opportunity. And we see that with the current government in Canada, which has essentially pursued redistributionist policies at the expense of wealth creation, which has actually impoverished the middle class through their policies of doing this, which has stifled innovation, which has decided they know better,

and can pick winners and losers. So in opposition to that, of course, you're going to get people angry. There's going to be a populist wave against that reality and also against the restraints of the pandemic. But the answer to that is not unbridled populism. It is looking at the other side, which is smaller government, no dictating from on high, local decision-making, a quality of opportunity, government providing the services it can do well,

but not more, lower tax. lower taxation, and also respect for law and order, which unfortunately in the populist conversation in Canada has become lost. So to me, if you want to bridge the anger in the West where people feel they don't have the right opportunities because the East is too dominant, and you want to bridge also the concern in the East that the government that is there now is not serving anyone's interest in the country, you have to find a ground that appeals to both. And like I said, it is not the populist cry of freedom. It is a promise of opportunity, which is not the same thing. And it is something that everyone can aspire to. We are an aspirational country, give people something greater to aspire

to, not simply a populist slogan. That is not the future of conservatism. Conservatism has to stand for enduring principles. And I believe in the 21st century that they are the way to move the party and the country forward. Thank you, Tasha Kerdin, the author of A great new book, The Right Path. Okay, Andrew, as per debate convention, we're going to give you the last word. You're speaking in favor of our motion. The future of conservatism is populism. Take this debate home for us. National Review founder, William F. Buckley Jr., coined the Buckley Rule, which is that the National Review would support, quote, the rightward most viable candidate, unquote, for a given office. So baked into that is the idea that electability is important, but also so is

being the most principled, in his case, conservative candidate. Conservatives as a political movement, as political parties need to get elected to do anything, absolutely. But they cannot surrender their values to be elected or to be electable, which is, I think, something we've seen fail every time it's been tried in Canadian conservative politics to surrender a part of what you believe just for the sake of making yourself more palatable to the voters. And really, it's talking about the media. When we talk about pocket. All of the things that Tasha mentioned in her closing remarks are good things. I don't view populism as being antithetical to those. I believe it as being the gateway for conservatives to speak to those

issues in a very real way. The one point of disagreement people might have on this is law and order. And I think the populist resistance to law and order conservatism, take, for example, the freedom convoy, is a belief that order was coming over the rule of law, which is supposed to have the fundamental right of equality, which means the right to protest, as people do, in the Canadian political tradition. So when I look at this question, and I look at the future of Canadian conservative politics and of conservative politics in general, I do not believe we can detach what we want to happen from what's actually happening, which is that the battle lines are shifting. We used to get hung up in Canada on the so-called big blue tent and how we keep libertarians

and social conservatives and fiscal conservatives and foreign policy conservatives of how we keep them all happy when a lot of the times they're working at cross purposes. And I think populism provides the answer. The idea of liberty provides the answer. Social conservatives who want the religious freedom to operate their church without government interference can get along with libertarians who don't have a socially conservative view in their body or mind, but they want a similar freedom. And this is an idea that is something that conservatives should rally behind because it's an idea that Canadians can rally behind. And it's the way that conservatives can build a winning coalition and also do what it is that conservatism purports to do, which is speak to all of these issues that matter to people on the right. Thank you, Andrew Lawton,

the author of another important new book, touching on all these themes, The Freedom Convoy. So Tasha, Andrew, thank you so much for a terrific debate. We touched on all the elements that I wanted us to cover and a couple more. You've certainly given me more to think about, you know, debates where I usually end up having no idea which way I would vote on this resolution if I was asked. That's a sign in my book of a terrific one-on-one. So on behalf of the Monk Debates community, thank you so much, guys, for coming on the program today. Thanks. It's been a pleasure. Yes, my pleasure. Thank you. Well, that wraps up our debate. I want to thank our participants, Andrew and Tasha for a terrific debate.

They certainly gave us a lot to think about. I'd love your feedback on our conversation. If you have a question, a suggestion, something that this debate made you think about, that you'd like the rest of us to ponder, please send me an email to podcast at monkdebates.com. Always great to get your feedback. Also, a reminder that our free weekly monk members-only podcast is available for you anytime as a perk of our complimentary basic membership. grab yours right now at triple w the monk debates.com. To listen to more debates on everything from genetic engineering to the future of American democracy to the conflict between Russia and

Ukraine, please visit our website, triple w monkdebates.com, literally 100 plus debates on pretty much any topic that you'd like to hear as a debate. We've got it for you again at our website, monkdebates.com. And on behalf of the Peter Melanie Monk Charitable Foundation, thank you for lending your time and attention to our efforts to bring back the art of public debate one conversation at a time. I'm your host and moderator, Rudyard Griffiths. The Monk Debates are a project of the Aurea and Peter and Melanie Monk Charitable Foundations. Rudyard Griffiths and Ricky Gerwitz are the producers. The Monk Debates podcast is mixed by Adam Karsh. Be sure to download and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. And if you

If you like us, feel free to give us a five-star rating. Thank you again for listening.