You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Politics’ category.
A recent B.C. Supreme Court ruling has intensified long-standing concerns about the direction of Indigenous-rights jurisprudence in Canada. In Cowichan Tribes v. Canada, Justice Barbara Young recognized that the Cowichan may hold Aboriginal title to a major tract of land in Richmond—land that has been surveyed, subdivided, and privately owned for more than a century. While the court did not transfer property or invalidate existing titles, the judgment rests on principles and evidentiary approaches that critics say could destabilize the foundations of Canada’s property-rights system.
As Peter Best argues in Manufactured Judgements: How Canada’s Courts Promote Indigenous Radicalism (C2C Journal, 2025), the case illustrates a broader judicial shift: courts are increasingly interpreting history, Aboriginal rights, and Crown obligations through the lens of reconciliation, sometimes in ways that depart from established legal norms, evidentiary standards, and basic assumptions about the security of freehold property.
Historical Context and the Cowichan Claim
The Cowichan, based on Vancouver Island, assert that a portion of modern Richmond corresponds to an ancestral summer fishing site. Their claim rests largely on oral traditions and historical references, including Governor James Douglas’s 1853 pledge to treat the Cowichan “with justice and humanity.”
At the time, mainland British Columbia had not yet been formally established as a British colony; governance was conducted through the Hudson’s Bay Company.
After Confederation in 1871, the disputed lands were surveyed, granted, and sold as fee-simple parcels. These titles have since passed through generations of owners, now covering dense residential neighborhoods, commercial districts, and major infrastructure. A witness in the case estimated the present value of the affected area at approximately $100 billion.
The Cowichan assert that their title to the land was never extinguished. Justice Young agreed that Douglas’s 1853 actions engaged the “honour of the Crown,” giving rise—retroactively—to a fiduciary obligation that the court believes may have been breached when settlers later acquired the land.
Shifts in Terminology, Ceremony, and the Courtroom Atmosphere
Best notes that the judgment reflects more than a legal analysis—it also signals cultural and symbolic alignment. Justice Young explicitly avoids the term “Indian,” adopts Indigenous linguistic framing, and opens proceedings with hən̓q̓əmin̓əm̓ phrases such as Huychqʼu, without translation. She thanks Indigenous witnesses for their “bravery” in testifying.
Best argues that such gestures, however well intentioned, risk creating the perception that the court identifies with one side’s worldview. Similar patterns appear in other major cases, such as Restoule v. Ontario and Gitxaala v. B.C., where courts incorporated Indigenous ceremonies, eagle staffs, and spiritual claims directly into proceedings. Higher courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada, have endorsed such practices.
While symbolic recognition is not inherently problematic, Best contends that the cumulative effect may undermine the appearance of judicial neutrality.
Evidentiary Standards: Expanded Oral Histories, Reduced Weight for Documentary Records
A central critique concerns how the court treated historical evidence.
Justice Young acknowledges that oral history “includes subjective experience” and may contain elements “not entirely factual.” Yet she relies heavily on recently recorded testimony to support the Cowichan claim, while discounting earlier documentary sources.
For example:
- Older anthropological evidence, such as the work of Diamond Jenness—who reported that Cowichan leaders in the mid-19th century denied fishing rights on the lower Fraser—was treated as less credible.
- Hearsay rules were relaxed, consistent with existing Supreme Court precedents (Delgamuukw, Tsilhqot’in), allowing extensive oral and spiritual testimony that would be inadmissible in other civil trials.
- In Gitxaala, courts recognized the existence of naxnanox (supernatural beings) and restricted mining exploration to avoid disturbing their “dens.” Best argues that importing spiritual cosmology into secular legal frameworks risks eroding basic evidentiary principles.
From his perspective, the cumulative effect is an evidentiary imbalance that places spiritual narratives and reconstructed oral histories on equal or greater footing than contemporaneous written records.
Historical Judgments Applied Selectively
Best argues that the judgment applies modern legal and moral frameworks to colonial actors—accusing them of dishonourable conduct—while refusing to apply modern moral standards to pre-contact Indigenous practices such as warfare, enslavement, or internecine violence. This asymmetry, he argues, reflects a reconciliation-oriented narrative that treats Indigenous groups as bearers of inherent moral authority while treating colonial figures primarily as agents of oppression.
The “honour of the Crown,” originally a narrow doctrine designed to ensure fair dealing in modern administrative decisions (Haida Nation, 2004), is expanding into an all-purpose lens for assessing and revising historical events. When applied retroactively to 19th-century decisions, Best contends, it risks collapsing the distinction between historical understanding and contemporary political aspirations.
Implications: Legal and Social Consequences
Although the Richmond ruling does not extinguish private property rights, it raises several concerns:
1. Uncertainty in Freehold Property Systems
If courts continue to recognize Aboriginal title in densely settled regions, the legal interface between ancient claims and freehold property becomes increasingly unclear. Even if governments—not homeowners—carry the liability, uncertainty around title affects markets, investment, and long-term planning.
2. A Growing Precedent
Should appellate courts affirm the judgment, it may encourage similar claims in other urban or developed areas. The jurisprudential trajectory appears to be expanding the geographic and historical scope of Aboriginal title.
3. Financial Risk for Governments and Taxpayers
A potential $100 billion liability—referenced in testimony—highlights the scale of future compensation, negotiation, or settlement costs.
4. Judicial Activism and the Role of Courts
Best argues that many judges now see themselves as agents of reconciliation, advancing broader societal transformation rather than resolving discrete legal disputes. Whether one views that as overdue correction or ideological mission, the implications for democratic legitimacy and legal certainty are substantial.
Conclusion
Peter Best’s critique raises difficult but important questions. The evolution of Aboriginal title law reflects sincere efforts to redress historical wrongs—but also reveals an increasingly expansive approach that reaches deep into settled expectations about property, historical evidence, and judicial neutrality.
The Cowichan case illustrates the tension between reconciliation and legal stability: a conflict not easily resolved, but one that demands scrutiny, clarity, and public debate.
Glossary of Legal Terms
Aboriginal Title
A constitutionally protected form of land ownership held communally by Indigenous groups, based on pre-contact occupation. It is distinct from fee-simple title and is difficult to extinguish without explicit government action.
Chain of Title
The documented historical sequence of legal transfers from the first grant of land to the current owner.
Fee-Simple Property
The most complete form of private land ownership in Canadian law, allowing full use, sale, and inheritance, subject only to zoning and taxation.
Fiduciary Duty
A legal obligation requiring one party (e.g., the Crown) to act with loyalty, fairness, and care toward another (e.g., Indigenous peoples), particularly in matters involving land or treaty rights.
Honour of the Crown
A legal doctrine requiring governments to act honourably in their dealings with Indigenous peoples. Courts apply it broadly, including to historical events, treaty interpretation, and modern administrative actions.
Hearsay Rule
A rule that generally excludes statements made outside court from being used as evidence. In Aboriginal rights cases, the rule is relaxed to allow oral histories.
Nullity
A legal status meaning something—such as a deed or grant—is void from the outset and therefore lacks legal effect.
References
Best, Peter. “Manufactured Judgements: How Canada’s Courts Promote Indigenous Radicalism.” C2C Journal, September 30, 2025.
https://c2cjournal.ca/2025/09/manufactured-judgements-how-canadas-courts-promote-indigenous-radicalism/
Supreme Court of Canada. Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010.
Supreme Court of Canada. Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), 2004 SCC 73.
Supreme Court of Canada. Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia, 2014 SCC 44.
Footage from Shanghai’s Pudong district offers an unfiltered look at how algorithmic governance operates when efficiency becomes a pretext for control. Inside the city’s “Urban Brain”—a sprawling AI system that integrates cameras, databases, and behavioral scoring—daily life is rendered into data points for state management. Occupancy of apartments, movement of the elderly, waste disposal habits, even parking irregularities—everything feeds into a real-time ledger of “acceptable” and “unacceptable” behaviour. Enforcement no longer waits for human judgment. Automated alerts dispatch teams, algorithms flag residents, and facial-recognition systems reportedly identify individuals in seconds.
Some observers frame this as the promise of the “smart city”—a way to streamline services, detect hazards faster, or help vulnerable citizens. But Pudong’s model shows how quickly that promise can harden into something else entirely. Once a government can observe everything, the line between assistance and discipline becomes impossally thin. Citizens begin policing one another through app-based reporting; infractions become entries on an invisible scorecard; social pressure becomes a tool of the state. The technology doesn’t force authoritarianism—but it supercharges its reach.
This isn’t science fiction, and it isn’t uniquely Chinese. Western policymakers watch these experiments closely, often through the lens of innovation rather than power. International organizations—from the World Economic Forum to UN smart-city initiatives—regularly showcase such systems as examples of “urban optimization.” Meanwhile, closer to home, governments have tested their own versions in more modest forms:
• traffic-camera systems calibrated for behavioural nudging,
• digital IDs tied to expanding databases,
• lingering post-pandemic contact-tracing infrastructure,
• carbon-tracking tools that incentivize or shame consumption.
These tools may not be malicious in design, but intent matters less than trajectory. Once data feeds administrative decision-making, and administrative decisions condition everyday freedoms, the architecture of a “soft” social-credit system begins to emerge—quietly, gradually, and often without the public debate such power deserves.
The core issue isn’t technology itself. It’s governance. Liberal democracies depend on thick boundaries between the individual and the state, including the right to act without constant monitoring or algorithmic interpretation. When those boundaries erode, even incrementally, the cost is not abstract: it is the loss of private space, unobserved choices, and the freedom to make mistakes without consequence.
If Pudong shows us anything, it is that systems designed for convenience can be repurposed—rapidly—into systems of compliance. The lesson for the West is not paranoia but prudence. We can adopt data-driven tools, but only if we embed them in strict legal guardrails, transparent governance, and a presumption of personal liberty.
The measure of a free society is not how efficient its systems become, but how widely it preserves the right to live beyond the gaze of the state—and increasingly, beyond the reach of its algorithms.
References
- Cui, Q., Chen, R., Wei, R., Hu, X., & Wang, G. (2023). Smart Mega-City Development in Practice: A Case of Shanghai, China. Sustainability, 15, 1591. (MDPI)
- Marvin, S., While, A., Chen, B., & Kovacic, M. (2022). Urban AI in China: Social control or hyper-capitalist development in the post-smart city? Sustainable Cities and Society. (Frontiers)
- ChinaDaily. (2019, August 31). Shanghai using tech for city management. China Daily. (China Daily)
- U.S.–China Economic and Security Review Commission. China’s Smart Cities Development. (PDF) (USCC)
- CES.tech. (2020, November 30). Three Projects from the World’s Smartest City of the Year. (CES)
Tweet Link
https://x.com/JimFergusonUK/status/1989983450636435560
Canada’s treaty relationship with Indigenous peoples is in crisis — not because Canadians don’t care, but because the way we currently honour those obligations is dysfunctional, opaque, and increasingly divisive. The federal government now spends nearly $24 billion per year on Indigenous services, up from about $13 billion in 2019–20, according to the Auditor General of Canada (OAG report). Yet outcomes in many communities have barely moved. Infrastructure failures persist. Unsafe drinking water advisories continue. And trust on all sides is eroding.
We are reaching a dangerous moment: if nothing changes, Canadians may not merely resent the system — they may begin to reject treaty obligations altogether. That would be a national disaster, morally and politically. We need a new approach that is fair, transparent, and results-driven.
So here is a trial balloon: a voluntary, 100-year “Treaty Modernization Agreement” that pays out treaty obligations in a structured, accountable, measurable way — while helping Indigenous communities build long-term economic sovereignty instead of permanent dependency.
This isn’t abolition. It isn’t assimilation. It’s modernization — and it might be the only path that prevents a complete breakdown of goodwill in the decades ahead.
A Simple Vision: A Century of Commitment, Delivered Honestly
Imagine treaties not as open-ended entitlement but as a 100-year contract: transparent funding, rising early when needs are greatest, tapering later as communities grow stronger.
Here’s what such a plan could look like:
1. A Guaranteed Base Payment for All Members
Every band member would receive an annual $1,000–$2,000 inflation-adjusted payment, routed directly to individuals. But band governments must publish transparent financial reports — online, accessible, and clear — to unlock the full amount. This is basic fiscal hygiene, not paternalism.
2. Bonuses for Measurable Success
Communities that achieve agreed-upon goals — clean water for all residents, higher high-school graduation rates, better youth employment, successful community-run businesses — would receive up to 50% more funding.
These aren’t colonial metrics. They’re Indigenous success metrics already visible in places like:
- Osoyoos Indian Band, known for its award-winning winery and economic diversification
- Fort McKay First Nation, where resource partnerships have delivered 98% employment
- Westbank First Nation, a leader in self-government and transparent governance
Evidence shows what works. This plan would reward it.
3. Safeguards Against Corruption and Waste
If independent audits or RCMP investigations uncover mismanagement, community-level funding temporarily drops to the guaranteed base. Proven diverted funds would go straight to families, bypassing leaders.
This isn’t punitive. It’s protection — for ordinary Indigenous citizens who suffer most when money disappears into bureaucratic fog.
4. A 100-Year Sunset (With Renewal)
The agreement would run from 2025 to 2125. In that century, Canada commits to fulfilling treaty obligations through:
- Upfront investment in infrastructure
- Predictable annual payments
- Transparent reporting
- Bonuses for success
At 2125, the arrangement can be renewed voluntarily. Nothing is extinguished. But nothing drifts forever, either.
5. Indigenous-Led Oversight
A new Indigenous-majority Treaty Accountability Commission would handle:
- auditing
- performance metrics
- transparency
- dispute resolution
This keeps Ottawa honest — something many Indigenous leaders rightly insist upon.
Why Change Is Necessary: The Status Quo Is Failing Everyone
Canada’s existing system is massively expensive, poorly coordinated, and shockingly ineffective.
Billions Spent, Little Progress
The Auditor General has repeatedly found that Indigenous Services Canada has not made satisfactory progress on key issues like health services, emergency management, or infrastructure (OAG report).
Even after years of promises, long-term drinking water advisories remain. In 2024, ISC acknowledged 28 active long-term advisories still affecting 26 communities (ISC report).
Procurement Concerns and Fraud Risks
Federal documents show ongoing concerns about weak verification of Indigenous procurement claims and ongoing vulnerability to fraud in contracting (ISC procurement update). Even ISC itself acknowledges that better integrity controls are needed.
Systemic Fragmentation
Parliamentary debates and committee reports consistently point out that treaty and program obligations are scattered across many federal departments, creating delay, duplication, and confusion (House of Commons debate).
In other words: no one is truly accountable.
Political Backlash Is Growing
Many Canadians are becoming skeptical about endless spending that produces weak results. This is dangerous. Without reform, public support for treaties — already strained — could collapse. That would harm Indigenous peoples first and most, and invite an ugly political reaction.
We must fix the system while we still have the national goodwill to do it.
Addressing Indigenous Concerns Honestly
A plan of this scale cannot be imposed. It must be voluntary and co-developed.
“Are you sunsetting treaty rights?”
No.
Treaty rights under Section 35 remain intact. This is a modernization of the cash obligation, not a constitutional extinguishment.
“Are bonuses a colonial imposition?”
No.
The performance indicators would be co-designed with Indigenous nations. Many First Nations already track their Community Well-Being Index and publish governance data. This rewards success on their terms.
“Can we trust Ottawa?”
Not without structural reform — which is exactly why this plan builds in Indigenous-majority oversight and transparent fund-tracking.
“Will this require more legal work?”
Yes. Much more.
Legislative design, oversight creation, financial modelling, and treaty-by-treaty negotiation will take years. But the alternative — drifting deeper into dysfunction — is far worse.
Why a 100-Year Plan Is the Only Sustainable Path
A century may sound long. But the truth is that the current system is infinite — infinite spending, infinite dependency, infinite frustration.
A 100-year Treaty Modernization Agreement offers:
- certainty for taxpayers
- predictability for Indigenous communities
- transparency for everyone
- a path toward long-term economic sovereignty
Most importantly, it reduces the risk that rising resentment will one day lead Canadians to reject treaties entirely. That would be catastrophic.
A modern, accountable, results-based agreement is not abandonment — it’s the opposite. It’s a chance to finally make good on Canada’s commitments, in a way that improves outcomes and preserves national unity.
If Indigenous communities want self-determination, and Canadians want accountability, then this is the kind of bold, honest conversation we need to start having.
Final Thought
We can either keep drifting toward mutual bitterness, or we can build a transparent, predictable 100-year plan that lifts communities up and restores trust.
This proposal is a trial balloon — not a final blueprint. It requires co-development, legal negotiation, financial modelling, and a lot of listening.
But doing nothing is no longer an option. Canada needs a sustainable treaty future. Indigenous peoples deserve real results. And our children deserve a country where reconciliation means something more than hashtags and hollow spending.
This is a way forward. It’s not perfect. But it’s a start — and we desperately need one.
When Calgary City Hall raised the Palestinian flag on November 15, it wasn’t merely a ceremonial gesture. It instantly became a national controversy—one that shows why municipalities need a clearer, more restrained approach to foreign-flag displays.
The event, organized by the Palestinian Community Association to mark the 1988 Declaration of Independence, drew several hundred attendees who described the atmosphere as one of “pride and hope.” But the reaction was immediate and intense. The Calgary Jewish Federation called the raising “disappointing and alarming,” warning that it deepened “unprecedented levels of fear and antisemitism” among local Jews at a moment already charged with global tension. Mayor Jeromy Farkas quickly proposed changes to the city’s flag policy to prevent similar events, arguing they “unintentionally heighten tensions here at home.”
This dynamic—the celebratory intent and the equally real sense of threat—is exactly why public institutions need neutrality, not symbolism that comes preloaded with geopolitical baggage.
Public Institutions Aren’t Arenas for International Disputes
Canadian civic buildings exist to represent a shared political community. They are meant to be the places where everyone should be able to walk in and feel the institution belongs to them. When City Hall becomes a platform for international symbols representing deeply contested conflicts, that neutrality disappears.
People don’t see a gesture of cultural recognition; they see their city taking a side. And the effects go beyond feelings—these symbolic acts consistently spill into local tensions, protests, counter-protests, and strained inter-community relations. Calgary is not alone: Regina shelved a similar proposal last year, Toronto now faces more than 20,000 signatures against its own planned raising, and B’nai Brith Canada has condemned the practice nationwide.
The details of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict aren’t the point here. The point is that a municipal flagpole is too narrow and too prominent a place to plant the symbols of any conflict that divides Canadians at home.
The Palestinian Flag Carries Political Luggage That Can’t Be Wished Away
Supporters of the flag raising framed it as recognition of Palestinian peoplehood. Critics saw something entirely different: a symbol long tied to the Palestine Liberation Organization, whose founding charter called for the destruction of Israel as a Zionist entity. While amendments were pledged during the Oslo years, credible observers—including the Anti-Defamation League—argue that its core rejectionist elements were never formally removed.
That history is not merely historical; Hamas, which governs Gaza and uses the same colours and iconography, still explicitly calls for Israel’s eradication. You don’t need to subscribe to either side’s narrative to understand why many Canadians saw the raising as more than a cultural celebration.
Even if activists insist the flag “means something different” in a Canadian context, public institutions don’t operate on activist reinterpretations. They operate on widely understood meanings—and those meanings are contested, volatile, and inseparable from global politics.
Neutrality Isn’t Cowardice. It’s Civic Responsibility.
Some will argue that refusing foreign-flag raisings amounts to silencing communities. But this misunderstands what’s being protected.
People are free to wave any flag they like on private property, at rallies, or in public demonstrations. That freedom is intact.
What’s restricted is the official endorsement that comes from hoisting a flag on municipal grounds—a distinction our institutions must preserve if they’re to serve a pluralistic society.
Canada already recognizes this principle in its federal protocols: foreign flags may be flown with the Maple Leaf, but only in specific diplomatic or ceremonial contexts and only with the national flag taking precedence. These guidelines are narrow for a reason—they prevent exactly the sort of domestic polarization Calgary just lived through.
When municipalities improvise their own ad-hoc symbolism, they abandon that safeguard.
A Simple, Clear Standard
Calgary—and every municipality—would benefit from a straightforward rule:
On public buildings and grounds, fly only Canadian, provincial, and municipal flags.
That is not censorship. It is neutrality.
It is the institutional equivalent of staying out of a heated argument so you can continue serving everyone fairly.
This approach:
- avoids endless debates about which diaspora group gets access;
- eliminates the perception of favouritism;
- prevents local flare-ups rooted in global conflicts;
- reinforces shared civic identity.
Multiculturalism works only when no group feels the state is endorsing another’s cause at their expense. Sometimes the most inclusive action is restraint.
Calgary now has a chance to lead. Mayor Farkas’s proposed changes should be adopted quickly, and Ottawa should consider harmonizing national guidelines to end these high-risk symbolic battles across the country.
Canada has enough challenges at home. We don’t need to import more.
Quick Sources / References
- Calgary Jewish Federation statements on the flag raising (2025).
- City of Calgary Flag Protocol (2016).
- Government of Canada – Rules for Flying the National Flag (Federal Heritage).
- Anti-Defamation League assessments of PLO charter revisions.
- B’nai Brith Canada public statements on municipal flag raisings (2024–25).
- City of Toronto petition data (2025).
(TL;DR) – Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France warned that abstract ideals, once severed from tradition, devour the civilization that birthed them. Against the arrogance of rationalist utopia, Burke offers a philosophy of gratitude: reform through inheritance, freedom through reverence, and wisdom through time.
Edmund Burke (1729–1797), the Irish-born British statesman and philosopher, published Reflections on the Revolution in France in November 1790 as an open letter to a young Frenchman. Written before the Revolution’s worst excesses, the work is less a history than a prophetic warning against uprooting inherited institutions in the name of abstract rights.
At a time when Enlightenment rationalists sought to rebuild society from first principles, Burke defended the British constitution not as perfect but as the tested fruit of centuries of moral and political experience. Against the revolutionary attempt to remake society on metaphysical blueprints, he argued that true political wisdom rests in “prescription” (inheritance), “prejudice” (habitual virtue), and the moral imagination that clothes authority in reverence and restraint. Reflections thus became the founding text of modern conservatism, grounding politics in humility before the slow wisdom of civilization (Burke 1790, 29–55).
1. The Organic Constitution versus the Mechanical State
Burke likens a healthy commonwealth to a living organism whose parts grow together over time. The British settlement of 1688, which balanced liberty and order, exemplified reform through continuity—“a deliberate election of light and reason,” not a clean slate.
The French revolutionaries, by contrast, treated the state as a machine to be disassembled and reassembled according to geometric principles. They dissolved the nobility, confiscated Church lands, and issued assignats—paper money backed only by revolutionary will. Burke foresaw that such rationalist tinkering would require force to maintain: “The age of chivalry is gone. That of sophisters, economists, and calculators has succeeded.” The predictable end, he warned, would be military dictatorship—the logic of abstraction enforced by bayonets (Burke 1790, 56–92).
2. The Danger of Metaphysical Politics
The Revolution’s fatal error, Burke argued, was to govern by “the rights of man” divorced from the concrete rights of Englishmen, Frenchmen, or any particular people. These universal abstractions ignore circumstance, manners, and the “latent wisdom” embedded in custom.
When the revolutionaries dragged Queen Marie Antoinette from Versailles to Paris in October 1789, Burke saw not merely a political humiliation but a civilizational collapse: “I thought ten thousand swords must have leaped from their scabbards to avenge even a look that threatened her with insult.” The queen, for him, symbolized a moral order that elevated society above brute appetite. Once such symbols are desecrated, civilization itself is imperiled (Burke 1790, 93–127).
3. Prescription, Prejudice, and the Moral Imagination
For Burke, rationality in politics is not the isolated reasoning of philosophers but the accumulated judgment of generations. “Prescription” gives legal and moral title to long possession; to overturn it is theft from the dead. “Prejudice,” far from being ignorance, is the pre-reflective moral instinct that makes virtue habitual—“rendering a man’s virtue his habit,” Burke wrote, “and not a series of unconnected acts.”
In his famous image of the “wardrobe of a moral imagination,” Burke insists that society requires splendid illusions—chivalry, ceremony, religion—to clothe power in dignity and soften human passions. Strip away these garments and you are left with naked force and the “swinish multitude.” Culture, in his view, is not ornament but armor for civilization (Burke 1790, 128–171).
4. Prophecy Fulfilled and the Path of Prudence
Events soon vindicated Burke’s warnings: the Reign of Terror, Napoleon’s rise, and the wars that consumed Europe. Yet Reflections is not an “I told you so” but a manual for political health. Burke accepts reform as necessary but insists that it must proceed “for the sake of preservation.” The statesman’s duty is to repair the vessel of society while it still sails, not to smash it in search of utopia.
Reverence for the past and distrust of untried theory are not cowardice but prudence—the recognition that civilization is a fragile inheritance, easily destroyed and seldom rebuilt (Burke 1790, 172–280).
5. Burke’s Enduring Lesson
Burke’s insight extends far beyond the French Revolution. His critique applies wherever abstract moralism seeks to erase inherited forms—whether through revolutionary ideology, technocratic social engineering, or the cultural purism of modern movements that prize purity over continuity. The temptation to rebuild society from scratch persists, but Burke reminds us that order is not manufactured; it is cultivated.
In an age still haunted by ideological utopias, Burke’s prudence is an act of intellectual piety: to love what we have inherited enough to reform it carefully, and to mistrust those who promise perfection by destruction.
References
Burke, Edmund. 1790. Reflections on the Revolution in France, and on the Proceedings in Certain Societies in London Relative to that Event. London: J. Dodsley.
Glossary of Key Terms
Assignats – Revolutionary paper currency secured on confiscated Church property; rapid depreciation fueled inflation.
Latent wisdom – Practical knowledge embedded in customs and institutions, inaccessible to abstract reason.
Moral imagination – The faculty that clothes abstract power in elevating symbols and sentiments.
Prejudice – Pre-reflective judgment formed by habit and tradition; for Burke, a source of social cohesion.
Prescription – Legal and moral title acquired through uninterrupted possession over time.
Swinish multitude – Derisive term for the populace once traditional restraints are removed.
When the extremes meet, the center collapses. (TL;DR)
When the Horseshoe Hangs from the Scales explains why the far left and far right increasingly resemble each other—not in ideas, but in methods. Drawing on the metaphors of the scale and the horseshoe, this essay argues that both totalitarian idealism and populist reaction stem from the same metaphysical error: the rejection of objective reality. Only realism—humility before truth—can keep Western society from closing into a circle of coercion.
Political language often obscures more than it reveals. The familiar left–right spectrum suggests linear opposition—progressives facing conservatives across a straight divide. Yet history and experience show something stranger: as ideologies radicalize, their behavior begins to mirror one another. The further the extremes move from reality, the closer they become in method, rhetoric, and moral psychology.
In The Scales of Society (published yesterday), realism anchored the crossbar, and idealism dragged the pans downward into totalitarianism. The horseshoe adds a complementary image. Viewed from above, the scale’s pans curve toward each other like the ends of a bent spectrum. The metaphysical collapse becomes social convergence. Both metaphors describe a single process: when realism breaks, the poles of idealism meet in coercive symmetry.
The Geometry of Political Collapse
The horseshoe theory proposes that the political spectrum bends upon itself, bringing the far left and far right into proximity. Communism and fascism, though ideologically opposed, resemble one another in practice: one abolishes private property, the other subordinates it to the state; both demand absolute obedience. Each claims to redeem humanity through purity—of class or of nation—and each regards dissent as treason.
The scale explains why this happens: both extremes spring from idealism detached from reality. The horseshoe shows how it manifests: through behavioral and institutional mimicry. One describes the metaphysical axis, the other the social. Together they form a complete model of ideological deformation. The vertical collapse of realism generates the horizontal convergence of fanaticism.
From Difference to Sameness
Political polarization masquerades as difference, but when stripped of surface content, the ends often converge in identical impulses:
- Moral totalism. Each side claims moral monopoly—an absolute vision of justice or order that sanctifies any means.
- Friend–enemy logic. Politics becomes warfare. Dialogue is betrayal; neutrality, complicity.
- Collectivist ethics. The individual dissolves into the movement, valuable only as a vehicle for ideological ends.
- Epistemic closure. Truth is no longer discovered but declared; narrative replaces verification.
Arendt observed that totalitarian movements, regardless of ideology, replace empirical reality with “a fictitious world” sustained by propaganda. Popper saw the same pattern: the closed society begins when ideas become sacred and unfalsifiable. Whether draped in red flags or eagles, the architecture is the same.
What begins as opposition ends as resemblance. The revolutionary who abolishes hierarchy and the reactionary who enforces it both deny human limitation. Each demands transformation rather than reform, purity rather than compromise. The further they stray from realism, the more they mirror one another’s methods—purges, censorship, mythmaking, and ritual denunciation.
Convergence in the Contemporary West
The horseshoe is no relic of the twentieth century; its shape defines the present. In the West, the rhetoric of liberation and the rhetoric of restoration increasingly share an authoritarian grammar.
Cultural absolutism. On the progressive extreme, morality is redefined as the enforcement of inclusivity. Dissenting speech becomes “harm,” and linguistic deviation, “violence.” On the reactionary extreme, purity is national or moral rather than social, but the logic is the same: deviation equals corruption. Each side builds orthodoxy around identity.
Information control. The progressive insists on regulating “disinformation,” policing language for moral safety. The populist right responds with its own echo chambers, treating factual correction as conspiracy. Both distrust open discourse, substituting propaganda for persuasion. Truth is no longer common ground but a weapon.
Purity politics. Cancel culture and culture-war purges are functional twins. One excommunicates for heresy against equality, the other for heresy against tradition. Each side frames punishment as virtue, enforcing conformity by shame or exclusion. In both cases, moral capital accrues not from good deeds but from the public destruction of sinners.
The psychological mechanism is identical: belonging through denunciation. The horseshoe’s curve tightens as participants draw moral comfort from collective outrage. When opposing extremisms adopt the same tactics, the distance between them is illusion.
The Horseshoe Meets the Scale
The two metaphors illuminate one another. The scale shows the metaphysical error: idealism’s detachment from realism. The horseshoe shows the social consequence: the return of opposites through behavioral convergence. The result is not diversity of belief but monoculture of method.
Imagine the scales viewed from above: the crossbar of realism forms the straight backbone, but as the pans descend into idealism, they bend toward one another, forming the curve of the horseshoe. The more society abandons truth, the closer its extremes approach in both temperament and technique.
When realism—objective verification, moral humility, and factual accountability—fails, politics becomes a contest of myths. The question is no longer “what is true?” but “whose truth will rule?” In that struggle, the difference between revolutionary and reactionary becomes decorative. Both invoke moral crisis to justify compulsion; both see coercion as salvation.
Why the Center Cannot Hold Without Realism
Critics often lament the “vanishing center,” as if centrism itself could rescue political sanity. But moderation is not a position; it is a discipline—an adherence to external reality over internal fervor. The true counterweight to the horseshoe’s closure is not neutrality but realism.
Realism anchors discourse in verifiable truth: data, evidence, experience, and the acknowledgment of limits. It permits disagreement without dehumanization because it recognizes a shared world beyond ideology. Realism turns enemies into interlocutors by subjecting both to the same facts.
Idealism, by contrast, makes conflict existential. When truth depends on belief, contradiction becomes evil. The desire to perfect the world leads to the compulsion to perfect others, and the moral imagination becomes the tool of tyranny. Only realism—accepting that the world corrects us—keeps the curve of politics open rather than collapsing into a circle of extremism.
The Moral Psychology of the Horseshoe
The convergence of extremes is not merely institutional; it is psychological. Both sides attract personalities drawn to certainty, purity, and moral theater.
The late political theorist Eric Voegelin described this as “gnostic revolt”—the refusal to accept human limitation and the longing to recreate the world in one’s own image. Arendt called it “world alienation.” Each formulation captures the same impulse: the substitution of idea for reality. The horseshoe is the social geometry of that spiritual rebellion.
When entire populations internalize this mindset, societies lose the ability to distinguish moral conviction from metaphysical arrogance. Activists and autocrats alike begin to speak in the same register—of awakening, purity, and necessary sacrifice. The vocabulary of utopia is universal; only its symbols differ.
The Path Back to Reality
Escaping the horseshoe requires reattaching it to the scales—recovering realism as the crossbar that holds political difference in balance. This means restoring institutions that mediate between belief and fact: open science, free inquiry, due process, and honest journalism. It means accepting that error, not heresy, is the normal state of human reason.
Humility, not ideology, is the civic virtue realism demands. The realist admits uncertainty, revises judgment, and learns from failure. Such modesty is not weakness but strength—the discipline that prevents conviction from hardening into cruelty.
Conclusion: The Shape of Sanity
The geometry of political life reflects our metaphysics. When truth stands above us, the scales stay level and the horseshoe remains open. When truth becomes a tool of power, the scales tilt, and the horseshoe closes into a circle—opposites united in coercion.
The West’s present turbulence is not a clash of left and right but a crisis of realism. Both sides, in their extremes, are tempted by the same illusion: that belief can replace being, that will can dictate truth.
If freedom is to endure, it will not be because one ideology triumphs but because reality reasserts itself—quietly, stubbornly, as the only ground capable of bearing the weight of difference.
References
- Arendt, Hannah. The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York: Harcourt Brace, 1951.
- Burke, Edmund. Reflections on the Revolution in France. London: J. Dodsley, 1790.
- Haidt, Jonathan. The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. New York: Vintage, 2012.
- Lukianoff, Greg & Haidt, Jonathan. The Coddling of the American Mind. New York: Penguin, 2018.
- Popper, Karl. The Open Society and Its Enemies. London: Routledge, 1945.
- Voegelin, Eric. The New Science of Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1952.
- Ortega y Gasset, José. The Revolt of the Masses. New York: W.W. Norton, 1932.
Why do societies slide toward tyranny when they pursue utopia? (TL;DR)
The Scales of Society argues that the real divide in politics isn’t left versus right, but realism versus idealism. When truth yields to belief, coercion follows. From communism and fascism to modern moral crusades, history warns that abandoning objective reality tips civilization toward totalitarianism. The balance must be restored—anchored in realism, humility, and truth.
In the landscape of political philosophy, metaphors serve as intellectual scaffolding—structures that help us grasp dynamics too intricate for direct depiction. The familiar political compass, with its left–right and liberty–authority axes, sketches ideological positions but fails to reveal the deeper fracture driving modern polarization. A more illuminating image is that of a balance scale. Its crossbar represents philosophical realism—the recognition of an objective reality—while the suspended pans embody the idealist extremes of communism and fascism. This model captures not just polarization but the gravitational descent into totalitarianism that occurs when societies abandon reality for utopia.
The Core Divide: Realism vs. Idealism
Realism begins with the premise that reality exists independently of human will or perception. The wall remains whether one believes in it or not, and collision has consequences indifferent to ideology. This external order imposes limits: progress requires trade-offs, and perfection is impossible. The realist accepts these constraints, submitting theories to verification through evidence, reason, law, and experience. Responsibility and competence—not vision or zeal—earn authority.
Idealism inverts this relationship. It treats reality as a projection of consciousness, imperfect but malleable. If perception shapes the world, then changing minds can remake existence. Truth becomes what society collectively affirms. This impulse, when politicized, leads toward social constructivism and, inevitably, coercion: those who refuse to affirm the “truth” must be re-educated or silenced. A contemporary example can be seen in gender ideology, where subjective identity claims are enforced as social fact through compelled speech and institutional conformity. The point is not about gender per se but about the pattern: belief overriding biology through social pressure rather than persuasion.
The Platonic ideal—perfect, transcendent, and abstract—becomes the new absolute. The imperfect, tangible world must be reshaped until it conforms. Once utopia is imagined as possible, coercion becomes inevitable, for someone must ensure that all comply with the ideal.
The Scale and Its Balance
The realist crossbar allows for movement and balance. One may lean left toward egalitarianism, right toward hierarchy and tradition, or find equilibrium between the two. Disputes are adjudicated by verifiable standards: evidence, empirical data, or, for the religious, revelation interpreted through disciplined exegesis. Justice is blind, authority is earned, and failure prompts responsibility rather than revolution.
From that crossbar hang the chains leading to the pans—communism on the left, fascism on the right. Each represents idealism in a different costume. Descent is gradual, a shimmy downward from realism into partial idealism, then freefall into extremism. The pans have no centers: in a world of pure ideals, moderation cannot hold.
Communism imagines a belief-driven utopia—re-educate humanity into “species-being” beyond property or conflict, and paradise will emerge. Fascism demands obedience to a mythic hierarchy—sacrifice self for the community’s glory, and unity will prevail. Both subjugate reality to ideology: when facts resist, facts are crushed. From the perspective of either pan, the realist crossbar appears as the enemy’s support beam. Each seeks to destroy it, believing that only by breaking the balance can truth be realized.
Polarization and the Descent
As tension mounts, the scale begins to swing. Idealists radicalize when realism resists persuasion—utopia seems attainable but for “obstructionist” constraints. In frustration, anti-fascism justifies communism; anti-communism, fascism. The center thins as factions define themselves by opposition rather than truth. The political becomes existential: the other side must be destroyed, not debated. The mechanisms of verification—law, science, journalism, reasoned discourse—collapse under pressure. Force replaces evidence; propaganda replaces persuasion.
History confirms the pattern. The twentieth century saw communism outlast fascism, not because it was less violent but because it sold coercion through promises of emancipation. Fascism, with its naked appeal to dominance, exhausted itself; communism cloaked tyranny in moral idealism. Both ended in mass graves.
Left and Right: The Limits of Tolerance
The realism–idealism axis cuts deeper than the traditional left–right divide. The left tends toward anti-traditionalism and radical egalitarianism, seeking liberation through the dissolution of hierarchy and norm. The right inclines toward tradition and hierarchy, valuing stability and inherited order. Each contains wisdom and danger.
Tradition carries epistemological weight: customs that survive generations have proven utility—Chesterton’s fence stands until one understands why it was built. Yet tradition can ossify, defending arbitrariness or prejudice. Egalitarianism corrects injustice but becomes destructive when it denies the functional necessity of hierarchy. Even lobsters, as Jordan Peterson once observed, form dominance orders; structure is not oppression but biology. When hierarchy is treated as sin and equality as salvation, society drifts from realism into moral mythology.
The Peril of Idealism
Idealism’s danger is not merely its optimism but its refusal to recognize limits. When imagination detaches from reality, coercion rushes in to bridge the gap. The ideal cannot fail; only people can. Those who resist must be “re-educated” or “deprogrammed.” What begins as moral vision ends as total control.
The cure is humility—a willingness to let facts instruct rather than ideology dictate. Repentance, in the philosophical sense, means returning from illusion to reality, subordinating theory to evidence and loving wisdom without claiming omniscience. Realism requires courage: to see, to accept, and to act within the bounds of what is possible.
Lessons from the Twentieth Century and Beyond
The horrors of the last century—gulags, purges, and genocides—were not aberrations but logical conclusions of idealism unmoored from realism. Communism and fascism both promised transcendence from the human condition; both delivered degradation. Today, similar impulses reappear in moralized movements on left and right that treat disagreement as heresy and consciousness as the final battleground. These are not new phenomena but recycled idealisms—different symbols, same metaphysics.
In an era of manufactured crises and moral crusades, the scales remind us: cling to the crossbar. Only realism—anchored in evidence, bounded by humility, and guided by verifiable truth—permits tolerance, adaptation, and progress. When the crossbar breaks, society plunges into the abyss, and one pan’s triumph becomes delusion for all.
References
- Arendt, Hannah. The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York: Harcourt Brace, 1951.
- Burke, Edmund. Reflections on the Revolution in France. London: J. Dodsley, 1790.
- Chesterton, G.K. The Thing: Why I Am a Catholic. London: Sheed & Ward, 1929.
- Lewis, C.S. The Abolition of Man. London: Oxford University Press, 1943.
- Lindsay, James. Left and Right with Society in the Balance. New Discourses Lecture, 2025.
- Peterson, Jordan B. 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos. Toronto: Random House, 2018.
- Popper, Karl. The Open Society and Its Enemies. London: Routledge, 1945.
- Voegelin, Eric. The New Science of Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1952.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…