National Post (National Edition)
Elite silence a threat to public trust
In the 2006 federal election campaign, Stephen Harper was widely criticized for stating the obvious: even if Conservatives win elections, they must still govern in a political context in which virtually every mainstream institution — including academia, news media, the public service, judiciary and organized labour — tilts to their left.
His point was that these left-leaning institutions can place significant constraints on Conservative policy action in the form of protest and criticism, litigation, bureaucratic delays and other stall tactics. As a result, Conservatives often face greater obstacles in implementing their policy agendas than progressive governments even if they have Parliamentary majorities.
Harper's observation has played itself out several times in recent weeks and months. The Kenney government in Alberta and Ford government in Ontario have been subjected to steady opposition — what one might describe as “resistance” — from a combination of elite voices and left-wing activists. The rise of social media has only amplified the ability of these groups to critique, oppose and ultimately shape the popular discourse.
That's not necessarily a bad development in and of itself. In theory, it should enable more rigorous debate, greater accountability and better government. In practice, though, it often manifests itself in selective and onesided criticisms of Conservative governments that aren't equally applied to progressive policy-makers across the country.
This asymmetry of institutional criticism and activism along ideological and partisan lines ought to concern everyone. An overwhelming left-wing bias in our mainstream institutions is neither healthy for our civic life nor the institutions themselves. It can ultimately lead to declining trust and rising polarization as we've witnessed elsewhere.
The elite reaction to the Trudeau government's recent decision to sue the Parliamentary speaker is a case in point. The House of Commons has passed several motions in recent weeks to request documents from the government regarding the firing of two federal scientists on national security grounds and yet the government has consistently refused to comply.
The Trudeau government has now taken the extraordinary step of filing a lawsuit against Speaker Anthony Rota (who is himself a Liberal member of Parliament) in order to circumvent the Parliamentary orders. The ongoing ordeal raises basic questions about Parliamentary supremacy in our constitutional system.
It's precisely the sort of issue that ought to animate law professors across the country who can usually be relied upon to issue an open letter of condemnation every time a Conservative government makes a decision they don't like. Yet there's been deafening silence in response to the government's act of executive aggrandizement. No open letters. No protests. No media exposes. Not even the usual snark or incredulity on social media. Apparently academic Twitter has suddenly exhausted its usual supply of indignation.
The country is therefore going through something of a constitutional crisis and Canadians could be forgiven for not knowing much about it. Apparently opinion leaders and legal experts just aren't that interested for some reason. One cannot help but think that if it involved the Harper government or one of the provincial Conservative governments their interest level might be heightened.
This isn't a rhetorical point; it's a testable proposition. Consider, for instance, the overwhelming elite reaction to the Ford government's recent use of the notwithstanding clause in the Canadian constitution to uphold restrictions on third-party campaign spending after they were struck down by a provincial court judge.
Media attention paid to the Ford government's explicitly constitutional use of Section 33 is a magnitude greater than that dedicated to the Trudeau government's challenge to the basic foundation of our constitutional system. Irrespective of what one thinks of Ontario's decision, the asymmetrical reaction here is both notable and difficult to justify.
Yet there are some in these elite institutions who still wonder why Conservatives (and conservatives) have assumed a more populist and anti-establishment posture in recent decades. Is it really that hard to understand? Surely it shouldn't be that challenging to see how conservatives might not view them as neutral arbiters.
Now, as someone who generally travels in these circles, I'm reluctant for conservatives to give up on elite institutions — indeed I've previously argued in these pages that a full withdrawal from them would be an intellectual and tactical mistake. But it's also true that episodes like this one and the one-sidedness that it reveals at least makes it understandable for Conservatives to doubt the sincerity of those who occupy these institutions and their own place within them.
That's unhealthy for the country. We need strong elite institutions to shape and train future leaders, contribute ideas and bring expertise to bear to public questions. But they mustn't forget that their influence and standing ultimately depends on trust. Growing perceptions of partisanship may therefore represent a serious, long-term threat to their status in our society.
For those running these institutions — including newspaper editors, university presidents or law school deans — it's a threat they ought to take seriously. That means encouraging and supporting greater intellectual diversity within their institutions and pushing back against cases (or perceived cases) of one-sidedness in their reporting, analysis and public positions.
While it's one thing for mainstream institutions to generally tilt to the left, the recent elite silence over the Trudeau government's extraordinary legal actions is something else. If these institutions are going to hold governments accountable, they need to break free from one-sided conformity. The public's trust is at stake.
THAT'S UNHEALTHY FOR THE COUNTRY.