Ideology as Religion

When does a political ideology become a religion?

As a none-partisan observer of our political parties, who was raised in a Christian household, I see the overlaps between religious belief and political ideology. This really becomes apparent when partisans write critiques of their own ideology or party, like Sean Speer does here on conservatism.

The telling moment is near the beginning as he reflects on Jason Kenney’s term as Premier of Alberta.

There were virtually no areas of provincial policy, from taxes and spending to education to health care and everything in between, that wasn’t the subject of energetic reform. The totality of the government’s reformist impulses shifted the Alberta government decidedly in a more conservative direction

This is a comment about Alberta. That has had a Conservative government for 83 of the last 87 years. If it weren’t for the Rachel Notley led NDP government from 2015–2019 Alberta would have had Conservative governments for 87 years straight.

You don’t have to be a dedicated student of Political Science to reach the conclusion that 83 years of Conservative governments would create a culture that leans conservative in every area of government policy. The preceding 80 years of conservatism would not be undone by a four year stint of an NDP government.

So what really needed to change? Speer doesn’t say. He just believes it was necessary that Alberta needed vast reform in a conservative direction. The direction it had already gone for 83 of 87 years… (Insert joke about the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.)

This is going to appear to be a bit unfair, because Speer has a different view of conservatism than the more radical arms that have started to redefine what it means to be conservative. He does have a valid point about that, but…

There’s a small yet spirited minority of grassroot conservatives who’ve come to define their politics in solely oppositional terms.

Oppositional terms is exactly how he framed the successes of the Kenney government. That whole part where only now is Alberta leaning in a conservative policy direction. Anything that doesn’t align with Speer’s definition of conservatism he is opposed to. Even if that direction was also conservative.

And this illustrates the true rot within conservatism today. Conservatism is so oppositional it is even oppositional with itself. That is what holds them together, the hatred and suspicion of anything that is not them. It is not a solid foundation to build and sustain a party. We see this happening across the country at the provincial and federal level .

It is true that every political ideology has tensions and conflict. This is where belief, a religious fervor in a way, overtakes civil discussion. Belief and righteousness subsumes debate and listening between members of the same party. But conservatism of today has a particular bent where it eats its own even when it is in power. When it has a solid grasp on the levers of power it still crumbles from within. What should be an internal and healthy discussion of the direction the party explodes into public view and is full of acrimony and spite.

Speer has a more conservative view of conservatism, one that I recognize:

Conservatism’s instinct to conserve can put it at something of a structural disadvantage against the false yet compelling utopian politics of modern progressivism. Conservatives have to be the ones that raise questions about costs, trade-offs, and inadvertent consequences. This invariably risks sounding a bit negative or gloomy.

Conservatives must therefore balance their inherent realism by being aspirational and confident. They need to bring their ideas and values to bear on the key issues facing their society in the form of an affirmative agenda of steady yet sensible reform.

This necessarily involves the hard work of ideation, policy development, and implementation. It’s not as easy or fun as throwing hand grenades but the long-run payoff is far greater.

…

I was attracted to conservatism as a young person because I thought its understanding of the world was good and right. Its emphasis on the dignity of individuals, respect for tradition and long-standing institutions, and recognition of the deep complexity of the economy and society provided a strong philosophical framework for thinking about old and new problems.

But Speer states that, while ignoring the blatantly oppositional and strident aspects of the Kenney Government. Jason Kenney deliberately lied, distorted and cheated ( and maybe even broke the law ) to attain and keep power. The fact that Kenney had a serious problem with truth, honesty and integrity is well documented.

While documenting the problem, Sean Speer doesn’t realize that he is part of the problem. He is not stepping outside his party far enough to take a truly objective point of view. If we wants to help take conservativism back to its traditional roots, he is going to need to do some serious introspection as well. His religious ideology is blinding him to the fact that the problems he identifies that are affecting conservatives have infected his side of the debate as well. Curing conservatism of the disease of reflexive oppositionalism, distrust and hatred means starting with oneself.

It means accepting that the parties across the aisle aren’t all bad whose policies don’t always need significant reform in a conservative direction. To do otherwise is an attempt at conversion of government into an intolerant religion.