You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Canada’ tag.
Collin May has published a long, ambitious essay in the C2C journal (Hearts of Darkness: How the Left Uses Hate to Fuel its 21st Century Universal Imperium) on cancel culture, “hate” rhetoric, and the modern left’s moral posture. It is broader than I would write, more philosophical than most readers will tolerate, and occasionally overbuilt. But it names a pattern that matters, and one I return to often here: once “hate” becomes a universal accusation, institutions stop persuading and start policing.
May’s most useful contribution is not just the complaint (“cancel culture exists”) but the mechanism: “hate” stops being a moral description and becomes a category that pre-sorts who may be argued with and who may simply be managed.
That is the issue.
Not whether hatred exists. It does. Not whether some speech is vicious. It is. The issue is what happens when “hate” becomes the default label for disagreement, skepticism, refusal, dissent, or plain moral and factual judgments that cut against elite narratives.
At that point, the term stops describing and starts doing administrative work.
You can watch this happen across the institutions that shape public life: media, HR departments, professional bodies, universities, bureaucracies, and the expanding quasi-legal space around speech regulation. The sequence is familiar. Someone raises a concern about policy, ideology, language rules, school programming, medical ethics, public safety, immigration, religion, or sex-based rights. Instead of answering the argument, the institution reframes the speaker. Not wrong—harmful. Not questioning—spreading hate. Not participating in democratic friction—a threat to social order.
That move changes the rules of engagement. A wrong claim can be debated. A “hateful” claim can be quarantined. Once a claim is reclassified as harm rather than argument, the institutional response changes with it: less rebuttal, more restriction.
This language matters because it is not only moral language. It is managerial language. It justifies deplatforming, censorship, professional discipline, reputational destruction, and exclusion from ordinary civic legitimacy. It creates a class of people whose arguments no longer need to be answered on the merits. It also trains bystanders to confuse moral panic with moral seriousness.
May explains this through a large historical and philosophical genealogy. Fair enough. I am less interested in the full genealogy than in the practical result in front of us. In plain terms: the rhetoric of “hate” is often used to centralize authority in institutions that no longer trust the public and no longer feel obliged to reason with them.
That is one reason trust keeps collapsing.
People can live with disagreement. They can even live with policies they dislike. What they do not tolerate for long is being handled—being told their questions are illegitimate before they are heard. Once citizens conclude that institutions are using moral language as a shield against scrutiny, every future statement gets discounted. Even true statements are heard as spin.
And then the damage compounds. If “hate” is defined so broadly that it includes dissent, genuinely hateful speech becomes harder to identify and confront. The category gets inflated, politicized, and cheapened. Meanwhile, ordinary democratic disagreement becomes harder to conduct without professional or social risk.
That is not a confident free society. It is a managerial one.
Canada is not exempt. We have our own versions of this habit: speech debates reframed as safety debates, policy criticism recoded as identity harm, and public disputes (including over schools, sex-based rights, and even routine civic rituals like land acknowledgements) routed through tribunals, regulators, HR offices, and media scripts instead of open argument. The details vary by case. The mechanism does not. This tactic is not unique to one political tribe, but it is now especially entrenched in progressive-managerial institutions, which is precisely why it has so much reach.
The answer is not to deny hatred exists, or to become casual about cruelty. The answer is to recover civic discipline.
Name actual incitement when it occurs. Enforce existing laws where there are real threats, harassment, or violence. But stop using “hate” as a catch-all for disfavoured views. Stop treating condemnation as a substitute for evidence. Stop teaching institutions that the way to win an argument is to disqualify the speaker.
May quotes Pope Francis on cancel culture as something that “leaves no room.” Whether or not one follows his full historical argument, that phrase captures the operational problem.
A liberal society cannot function if citizens are only permitted to disagree inside moral boundaries drawn in advance by bureaucrats, activists, and legacy media.
The test is simple: can a claim be examined without first being moralized into silence?
If the answer is no, that is not moral confidence. It is institutional insecurity backed by power.
That is the pattern worth naming. And that is why essays like May’s, even when they overshoot, remain worth reading.
References
Collin May, “Hearts of Darkness: How the Left Uses Hate to Fuel its 21st Century Universal Imperium,” C2C Journal (February 16, 2026), https://c2cjournal.ca/2026/02/hearts-of-darkness-how-the-left-uses-hate-to-fuel-its-21st-century-universal-imperium/. (C2C Journal)
Some children are genuinely vulnerable, atypical, or distressed, and they deserve careful support.
That should be easy to say. It should also be the beginning of the conversation, not the end of it.
The problem starts when a narrow duty of care is expanded into a broad teaching mandate. Support for a small number of children becomes a reason to saturate schools, children’s media, and online spaces with contested identity frameworks. What begins as accommodation becomes doctrine. What begins as care becomes a general lens for everyone.
That is the central move.
It is usually framed in soft language: inclusion, visibility, affirmation, making room. Sometimes that language is fair. But it can also hide a scope change. A real minority need is used to justify population-level exposure. The existence of some children who need unusual support does not, by itself, justify turning child-facing institutions into delivery systems for anti-normative identity scripts many children are not developmentally ready to evaluate.
Put simply: support is not the same thing as saturation.
A useful heuristic is the inoculation model. The implicit argument often sounds like this: expose everyone early and often to the framework so harm is prevented later. But that assumes the framework is age-appropriate, conceptually clear, and socially harmless when applied at scale. Those assumptions are usually asserted, not argued.
You can see the pattern in school frameworks like SOGI 123. SOGI 123 describes itself as an initiative to help educators make schools safer and more inclusive for students of all sexual orientations and gender identities, with tools spanning policy, school culture, and teaching resources. In British Columbia, SOGI 123 has been broadly integrated through educator networks and district participation structures. In Alberta, similar SOGI 123 resources and supports exist and are used, but public acceptance and implementation have been more contested and uneven. (Your local framing here is fine; if you want, we can add a specific Alberta anchor in the next pass.)
The point is not that every teacher using these materials has radical intentions. Most likely do not. The point is structural. A framework introduced in the name of protecting a minority of vulnerable students can become a general lens for shaping the environment of all students. That is exactly where support turns into saturation.
None of this requires pretending there are no benefits. Anti-bullying frameworks and school supports can reduce harassment and improve school climate for vulnerable students, and in some cases for other students as well. Recent SOGI 123 evaluation reporting in B.C. has explicitly claimed reductions in some forms of bullying and sexual-orientation discrimination, including effects observed for heterosexual students in studied schools. But that is a different question from whether a framework is well-bounded, developmentally fitted, and appropriate as a general lens for all children. A program can produce some good outcomes and still be overextended in scope.
This is also where ordinary parents often feel morally cornered. They are told the framework is simply about kindness and safety. Then they discover it also carries contested claims about identity, norms, and development. When they raise questions about age, fit, or timing, the objection is treated as hostility rather than prudence.
That rhetorical move matters. It is how debate gets shut down.
Some activist frameworks are not just asking for tolerance or non-harassment. They are more ambitious. They treat ordinary social norms as presumptively suspect—or as things to be actively challenged—rather than mostly inherited and refined. Adults can debate that in adult spaces. The problem is when those frameworks are translated into child guidance and presented as common sense before children are developmentally ready to sort through the concepts.
You do not need a graduate seminar to see the issue. Children imitate. Children seek belonging. Children absorb prestige cues. Children are shaped by what trusted adults celebrate. That is not bigotry. That is basic reality.
This is why developmental fit matters. Children do not process abstract identity questions the way adults do. Identity formation is gradual. Social context matters. Timing matters. Adult authority matters. Age appropriateness is not a slogan; it shifts across developmental stages, and what may be discussable at 16 is not automatically suitable at 6. When institutions present contested frameworks in a celebratory register first and a cautionary register later (or never), adults should worry.
The usual public binary is false. The choice is not between cruelty and total affirmation. It is not between neglect and ideological immersion. A sane society can do both things at once: provide targeted support for the children who truly need it, while refusing to reorganize the symbolic environment of all children around contested anti-normative frameworks.
That is not repression. It is proportion.
And proportion is exactly what gets lost when every concern is moralized and every request for limits is treated as harm.
We should be able to say, plainly, that some children need exceptional care without turning exceptional cases into the template for everyone else. We should be able to protect the vulnerable few without swamping the many. We should be able to teach kindness without requiring ideological inoculation.
If we cannot make those distinctions, then we are not practicing compassion. We are practicing scope creep with moral language.
Support for vulnerable students is necessary. But targeted care is not the same as saturating schools with contested identity frameworks for all children.
References
- SOGI 123 / SOGI Education. “SOGI 123 | Making Schools Safer and More Inclusive for All Students.”
https://www.sogieducation.org/ (SOGI 123) - SOGI Education. “What Is SOGI 123?”
https://www.sogieducation.org/question/what-is-sogi-123/
(official explainer page) - SOGI Education. “British Columbia.”
https://www.sogieducation.org/our-work/where-we-support/british-columbia/
(B.C. implementation / network context) - ARC Foundation. “UBC Evaluation of SOGI 123 (October 2024).”
https://www.arcfoundation.ca/ubc-evaluation-sogi-123-october-2024
(evaluation / outcomes framing from SOGI-supportive side) - Alberta Teachers’ Association. “What is SOGI 123?”
https://teachers.ab.ca/news/what-sogi-123 (teachers.ab.ca) - Keenan, H., and Lil Miss Hot Mess. “Drag Pedagogy: The Playful Practice of Queer Imagination in Early Childhood.” Curriculum Inquiry 51, no. 5 (2021): 578–594.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03626784.2020.1864621 - Gender Report (opinion/critical perspective). “We need to take ideological gender rhetoric out of education.” (Jan. 28, 2021).
https://genderreport.ca/sogi-gender-curriculum-queer-theory/ (CANADIAN GENDER REPORT) - Global News. “Duelling protests held in Edmonton over sexual orientation and gender identity policies in schools” (Sept. 20, 2024).
https://globalnews.ca/news/10766483/edmonton-gender-identity-sexual-orientation-alberta-schools/ (Global News)
Social media is not a neutral information pipeline. It is a distribution system for identity scripts, status incentives, and institutional messaging aimed at children and adolescents.
The internet matters, but the internet is not the first mover. The first mover is often the institution. Child-facing media packages contested identity-adjacent material in a glowing register—creativity, confidence, self-expression, empowerment—then platforms do what platforms do: amplify, repeat, and reward.
That sequence matters. Parents know the internet is porous and chaotic. Institutional children’s programming arrives pre-approved. It signals safety. It signals legitimacy. By the time a clip hits the feed, it is not just content. It is content stamped with adult authority.
Criticism of this pattern is routinely framed as hostility to “queer youth.” That framing is too convenient. The stronger criticism is about frameworks.
Some strands of queer activism are not simply asking for tolerance or protection from abuse. They are explicitly suspicious of norms as such, and in some cases treat norm disruption as a political good. Adults can debate that project in adult spaces. The problem begins when a norm-disruptive framework is repackaged as child guidance and presented as developmental common sense.
Developmental psychology matters here as a guardrail. Piaget’s core point still stands: children do not think like adults; reasoning develops in stages. Erikson likewise treats identity formation as developmental, social, and staged. Children and early adolescents are especially sensitive to imitation, belonging, prestige, and adult cues. That does not mean they lack an inner life. It means adults should not hand them high-status identity templates and call it pure self-discovery.
The question is not whether vulnerable youth exist. They do. The question is whether activist frameworks built to challenge adult social norms should be translated into child-facing institutional messaging as if they were straightforwardly age-appropriate. On that question, skepticism is not cruelty. It is adult judgment.
Public argument usually collapses here. One side calls it moral panic. The other calls it recruitment. Both are lazy.
Children are impressionable. Social learning is real. Status-seeking is real. Identity experimentation is real. None of that requires conspiracy thinking. It also does not justify a cartoon model of causation where one video produces one outcome. The serious concern is cumulative: repeated exposure, emotional framing, peer reinforcement, institutional endorsement, and algorithmic repetition shape what children perceive as admirable, normal, and socially rewarded.
That concern becomes more serious when the surrounding issue can become clinical. Once clinical pathways enter the picture, the adult burden of care rises. “Let kids explore” is not a sufficient standard when the surrounding culture is supplying scripts, rewards, and institutional validation at scale.
The evidence conversation has to stay honest. Research on social media and transgender or gender-diverse youth supports a mixed picture: online spaces can correlate with distress, discrimination, and problematic use, while also providing support, connection, and relief from offline isolation. Used carelessly, that literature gets abused in both directions—either as proof of “brainwashing” or as proof that social influence is irrelevant.
The more useful point is simpler: institutions increasingly present contested identity material to children in the language of celebration before they provide any framework for developmental caution. The sequencing is wrong. The tone is wrong. The confidence is often ahead of the evidence.
A sane standard is still available. Some online spaces help marginalized youth. Some online dynamics intensify confusion, distress, and imitation. Institutions should not present complex identity performance to children as if there are no downstream risks, tradeoffs, or developmental questions.
That is not cruelty. It is adult supervision.
The deeper problem is cultural, not merely digital. We outsource moral formation to feeds, then act surprised when children absorb what the feed rewards. Social media amplifies. Schools legitimize. Media narrates. Government ratifies. Then the shift is described as organic.
It is not fully organic. It is curated.
That does not mean every child in these spaces is inauthentic. It means authenticity itself is now being shaped inside an environment saturated with scripts, incentives, and prestige signals children are poorly equipped to evaluate critically.
If standards do not return, institutions will keep mistaking early exposure for compassion, and children will keep paying for adult vanity dressed up as progress.
References
-
Piaget, Jean, and Bärbel Inhelder. The Psychology of the Child.
-
Erikson, Erik H. Identity: Youth and Crisis.
-
Halperin, David M. Saint Foucault: Towards a Gay Hagiography. Oxford University Press, 1995.
-
Keenan, H., and Lil Miss Hot Mess. “Drag Pedagogy: The Playful Practice of Queer Imagination in Early Childhood.” Curriculum Inquiry (2021). DOI: 10.1080/03626784.2020.1864621.
-
CBC Kids News / Drag Kids segment (2017, resurfaced clip).
Modern North American politics is increasingly conducted as if the other side is not an opponent but a threat. Not “wrong,” but illegitimate. Not “mistaken,” but dangerous. Once that framing takes hold, everything downstream gets harder: legislating, compromising, trusting institutions, even sharing a country.
There’s a name for this move, and it’s older than social media: the friend–enemy distinction associated with the German jurist Carl Schmitt. Use it carefully. Attribute it correctly. Treat it as a warning label, not a blueprint.
The Schmitt paragraph (correct attribution without laundering)
In The Concept of the Political (first as an essay in 1927; expanded as a book in 1932), Carl Schmitt argued that what is distinctively political is not morality, economics, or aesthetics, but the capacity to sort human beings into friends and enemies—public groupings that can reach the highest intensity and, in the extreme case, make violence thinkable. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) Schmitt is a morally compromised figure: he joined the Nazi Party in 1933 and wrote in support of the regime, which makes him “radioactive” as an authority. (Wikipedia) That’s precisely why the concept should be handled as a diagnostic for a recurring political pattern—not as an endorsement of Schmitt’s politics, and not as a permission slip to treat fellow citizens as foes.
That’s the frame. Now the point: you can reject Schmitt’s politics and still find his definition useful for recognizing when a society is sliding from politics-as-bargaining into politics-as-threat-management.
1) What the friend–enemy distinction is (and isn’t)
Schmitt’s core claim is often quoted badly. The clean version is this:
- It’s public, not personal. “Enemy” is not your private dislike. It’s a public adversary, a category applied at the level of groups. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
- It’s about intensity and stakes. The distinction becomes political when disagreement is framed as a contest over a community’s existence or way of life—when coercion becomes not just imaginable but morally narratable. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
- It’s not reducible to morality. In Schmitt’s framing, you can judge an enemy morally good and still treat them as an enemy; the political is not the same thing as ethics. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
So the friend–enemy distinction is less a philosophy lesson than a switch. When it flips on, political disagreement stops being about what we should do and becomes about who is allowed to be “us.”
2) The observable move: how to spot it in the wild
You’re watching friend–enemy politics when rhetoric shifts from:
- “Their plan won’t work” → “They cannot be permitted to govern.”
- “We’ll reverse this policy later” → “If they win, the country is finished.”
- “We can bargain on X” → “Any compromise is betrayal.”
- “Institutions are imperfect” → “Institutions are legitimate only when they deliver our outcomes.”
Here’s the part that matters: this is not just “heated language.” It’s a legitimacy test. The argument isn’t “our side has better ideas.” It’s “the other side is outside the moral community.”
What it sounds like now (no special villains required)
Over the last decade, ordinary campaign language has absorbed a new register: catastrophe certainty. You hear it when routine electoral competition is narrated as a point of no return not “we’ll reverse their policy,” but “if they win, the country is over.” You hear it when every institution that fails to deliver your preferred outcome becomes not merely flawed but captured—courts, schools, public health bodies, legacy media, election administration. Once those are recast as enemy infrastructure, the next step is predictable: treating compromise as collaboration.
That’s the Schmittian escalator: it turns normal democratic rivalry into a kind of internal cold war.
3) Why this maps onto polarization in the U.S. (with verifiable anchors)
American public opinion data increasingly fits the emotional profile you would expect in a friend–enemy environment: high frustration, high anger, low confidence, and pervasive negativity toward the opposing party.
Pew Research Center (survey fielded Sept. 22–28, 2025) reports that roughly half of U.S. adults say each party makes them feel angry (Democratic Party 50%, Republican Party 49%), and large majorities say each makes them feel frustrated (Democratic Party 75%, Republican Party 64%). (Pew Research Center) Pew also reports that majorities view both parties as too extreme (GOP 61%, Democrats 57%). (Pew Research Center)
That doesn’t “prove Schmitt.” It shows a climate where it’s easy for elites and activists to plausibly say: “The other side isn’t just wrong; they’re dangerous.”
Political science has a name for the emotional side of this: affective polarization which is the tendency for partisans to dislike and distrust the out-party as a social group. Iyengar, Sood, and Lelkes argue that affect increasingly operates through social identity dynamics rather than ideological distance alone. (Political Communication Lab)
Affective polarization supplies the fuel. Friend–enemy rhetoric supplies the spark.
4) Why Canada is not “the same,” but not immune
Canada has its own stresses: regional tensions, institutional distrust, culture-war imports, and an online ecosystem shared with the U.S. but it is still a mistake to claim Canada is simply America north.
A careful comparative point looks like this: research summarized by UBC Magazine reports Canadians show moderate affective polarization and lower levels of deeper hostility (political sectarianism) than Americans; divisions exist, but they are less intense, and fewer people treat the other side as morally beyond the pale. (UBC Alumni Magazine)
A note on insulation (not immunity) 🧯
Canada also has some built-in insulation: parliamentary governance can make politics feel less like a single, winner-take-all presidency; multi-party dynamics can prevent a total two-tribe monopoly; party discipline can concentrate bargaining inside caucuses rather than turning every vote into a public loyalty test. None of that makes Canada immune especially in a shared online ecosystem with American media incentives but it helps explain why Canadian polarization can be real without being identical.
5) Why identity politics dovetails so easily (even when it starts as justice) 🧩
“Identity politics” is a term that gets used as a slur, so define it cleanly. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy describes identity politics as political activity and theorizing rooted in shared experiences of injustice among members of particular social groups, often aiming to secure political freedom for a marginalized constituency. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
That definition is not inherently friend–enemy. You can organize around group experiences without treating dissenters as enemies.
So why the dovetail?
Because identity politics—left and right—naturally foregrounds group boundaries: who counts, who belongs, who’s harmed, who threatens, who is owed what. Schmitt’s point is that any distinction ethnic, cultural, religious, linguistic, and ideological can become politically decisive if it becomes a marker of collective identity with enough intensity. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Now add moralization. Finkel and colleagues define political sectarianism as “the tendency to adopt a moralized identification with one political group and against another.” (Political Communication Lab) Once politics is moralized at the identity level, compromise starts to look like apostasy: you don’t bargain with evil; you resist it.
Here’s the dovetail in one line:
Identity makes the boundary salient; moralization makes it sacred; friend–enemy logic makes it coercive.
The accelerant: attention economics
The friend–enemy move also fits the modern information economy. Outrage travels; nuance doesn’t. Platforms and partisan media ecosystems reward content that converts complexity into moral clarity so we get villains, victims, emergencies, and betrayal. That incentive structure doesn’t invent the friend–enemy distinction, but it mass-produces it, because existential framing is the most reliable way to keep attention and discipline the in-group.
6) The cost: why friend–enemy politics jams the machinery of governance
When politics is friend–enemy:
- Compromise becomes betrayal.
Not merely “a bad deal,” but disloyalty to the tribe. - Institutions become contested terrain.
Courts, legislatures, bureaucracies, and media are judged not by process but by whether they serve “us.” Legitimacy becomes outcome-dependent. - Policy friction skyrockets.
Even mutually beneficial reforms become hard because the other side’s win is treated as loss of status or existential risk. - Moderation gets punished.
The moderate’s basic civic move—“I’ll grant you partial legitimacy and bargain” gets rebranded as weakness or collaboration.
The social cost (quiet, cumulative, real)
The damage isn’t confined to legislatures. Friend–enemy framing erodes social trust: people self-censor at work, avoid neighbours, and retreat into curated friend-only spaces. Institutions become identity badges your media, your university, your charities, your professional associations until public life resembles a network of gated communities with competing moral jurisdictions.
7) The steelman (and the answer)
Steelman: sometimes the other side really is dangerous. Sometimes a movement is openly anti-democratic, violent, or committed to permanent domination. In those cases, “enemy” language can feel like moral clarity.
Answer: danger exists. But friend–enemy framing is cheap to claim and expensive to live under. The burden of proof has to be high, because once you normalize existential threat talk, you train citizens to treat routine democratic alternation as intolerable. You also incentivize mirroring: nobody wants to be the only player insisting it’s “just politics” while being branded a threat.
Friend–enemy politics is a ratchet. It rarely turns only one way.
8) A short field guide: “know it when you see it”
You’re in friend–enemy territory when you hear:
- “They’re illegitimate.”
- “If they win, the country is over.”
- “Neutrality is complicity.”
- “Compromise is betrayal.”
- “The system is rigged—unless we win.”
- “Your neighbour’s vote is violence / treason / conquest.”
And you’re watching it spread when those claims expand outward to tag neutral institutions and ordinary citizens: not just the party but anyone who isn’t for us is with them.
9) The exit ramp: moderation without naïveté
This is not a call for civility theatre. It’s a call for civic hygiene.
A workable politics of moderation has one core rule:
Treat opponents as lawful rivals unless and until they clearly demonstrate otherwise and even then, be precise.
Practically, that means:
- Argue policy in terms of tradeoffs, constraints, second-order effects (the language of governing, not excommunication).
- Reserve “enemy” language for genuinely exceptional cases, and specify evidence and predictions that could, in principle, be falsified.
- Defend institutional legitimacy as a process, not a scoreboard.
If you can’t do that, you don’t just intensify conflict you corrode the shared premise that makes democratic disagreement possible: that losing an election is not losing the country.
Closing: the consequence if we don’t name it
Schmitt’s concept is dangerous partly because it’s accurate as a description of how politics can harden. Once a society trains itself to see politics as friend versus enemy, it will eventually demand enemy-handling tools: purges, blacklists, emergency powers, legitimacy tests, permanent distrust. The policy state becomes brittle; the civic culture becomes suspicious; moderation becomes a vice.
The friend–enemy distinction is not merely an idea. It’s a habit of mind. And habits, unlike ideologies, don’t require formal assent. They spread by imitation.
The minimum defensive act is to recognize the move when it’s being done to you, and when you’re tempted to do it back. 🧭
Glossary
Affective polarization — Dislike, distrust, and social hostility toward supporters of the opposing party, treated as a group identity rather than merely a set of policy positions. (Political Communication Lab)
Catastrophe register / no-return framing — A rhetorical mode that describes ordinary electoral competition as an existential point of no return (“if they win, the country is over”).
Friend–enemy distinction (Schmitt) — The claim that the political is defined by the capacity to distinguish friend from enemy in a public sense, with sufficient intensity that coercion or violence becomes thinkable in extreme cases. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Identity politics — Political activity and theorizing grounded in shared experiences of injustice among members of particular social groups, typically aimed at securing political freedom for a marginalized constituency. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Legitimacy denial — Treating the opposing side as outside the set of lawful rivals who may govern; shifting from “they’re wrong” to “they must not rule.”
Political sectarianism — “The tendency to adopt a moralized identification with one political group and against another,” borrowing the metaphor of religious sects rather than mere teams. (Political Communication Lab)
Process legitimacy — The idea that institutions are legitimate because procedures are lawful, stable, and fairly applied—not because they produce outcomes you like.
Citations (Sources)
- Carl Schmitt (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy), overview of Schmitt and the friend–enemy distinction. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
- Background note on The Concept of the Political and Schmitt’s Nazi Party membership (reference context). (Wikipedia)
- Pew Research Center (Oct 30, 2025), party feelings: anger/frustration measures. (Pew Research Center)
- Pew Research Center (Oct 30, 2025), views of both parties: “too extreme” findings. (Pew Research Center)
- UBC Magazine (Dec 2, 2025), summary of Canadian polarization research and comparative claims. (UBC Alumni Magazine)
- Iyengar, Sood, & Lelkes (2012), “Affect, Not Ideology,” on affective polarization as social identity. (Political Communication Lab)
- Finkel et al. (Science, 2020), “Political sectarianism in America,” definition and framework. (Political Communication Lab)
- Identity Politics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy), definition and scope. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Tyler Cowen once tried to name the biggest “revolutions” he’s lived through—moon landing, collapse of communism, the internet, and now AI. In the middle of that list he drops one that most people still don’t treat like a revolution at all: “Feminization.” (Marginal REVOLUTION)
That word isn’t a complaint. It’s a category. It says: a long-run compositional change is underway, and it matters.
Helen Andrews’ “Great Feminization” thesis—popularized in a talk and elaborated in her Compact essay—takes the next step: as women become a larger share of institutions, institutions don’t merely “include” women; they become substantively feminized, and what we call “wokeness” is basically the cultural exhaust of that process. (Compact)
Here’s my position up front: the demographic shift is real and measurable in Canada; the “feminization = wokeness” equation is an overconfident master key.
It explains too much, too easily, by psychologizing demographics instead of interrogating incentives.
Canadian anchors: the shift is measurable (not vibes)
Start with a handful of Canadian facts you can actually point to.
- Parliament: the House of Commons sits at 104 women out of 343 MPs (30.3%). (IPU Parline)
- Judiciary: the share of federally appointed judges who are women rose from 43.8% (2021) to 46.7% (2023), per Statistics Canada. (Statistics Canada)
- Universities: women are 43.7% of full-time teaching staff in 2024/2025, up from 15.9% in 1984/1985. (Statistics Canada)
- Management: women are 51.9% of public-sector managers but 35.2% of private-sector managers (2023), and hold 42.7% of middle management vs 30.8% of senior management (2021). (Statistics Canada)
- Psychology (Alberta snapshot): Job Bank puts psychologists at 81% women / 19% men in Alberta. (Job Bank)
You don’t need to think any of this is good or bad to recognize the basic point: elite and semi-elite Canadian pipelines have changed composition in living memory. The “Great Feminization,” at minimum, names something real.
Why composition changes institutions (and why noticing this isn’t misogyny)
Here’s the move that poisons discussion: someone observes a demographic shift and asks what it does to norms; the response is to treat the question itself as hatred.
That’s not an argument; it’s a veto.
Institutions aren’t just rulebooks. They are reward systems: what gets you promoted, what gets you ostracized, what gets you hauled into a meeting, what everyone learns not to say out loud. When composition changes, the informal equilibrium can change too—sometimes for the better, sometimes not.
Before anyone reaches for the “misogyny” stamp, three obvious distinctions:
- Descriptive claims aren’t moral verdicts. Saying “X is now 47% female” is not saying “women ruined X.”
- Group averages aren’t destinies. Even if differences exist on average, overlap is huge. Plenty of women are rule-first and combative; plenty of men are harmony-first and censorious.
- The target is incentives, not women. If a system rewards reputational risk-avoidance and punishes open conflict, it will drift toward soft enforcement and speech management—regardless of who staffs it.
Those distinctions don’t sanitize the topic. They make it discussable.
Where Andrews helps—and where her thesis becomes a master key
Steelman Andrews first: she’s right that the shift is large, and she’s right that institutions can be remade through changes in who occupies them. If you pretend otherwise, you’re pretending humans don’t do social enforcement.
Where she overreaches is the claim (often treated as self-evident) that “feminization = wokeness.” (Compact)
Two problems.
1) One variable can’t carry a multi-cause phenomenon
The rise of “woke” managerial dynamics tracks at least four forces that are not reducible to gender composition:
- social media: instant reputational escalation; permanent records of mistakes; a public audience for internal disputes
- liability culture: institutions optimizing to avoid lawsuits, complaints, and scandal
- bureaucratic expansion: more compliance, more policy, more internal language policing
- credential sorting: ideological clustering in certain professional strata
In Canada, you can see the basic direction without naming villains: risk management becomes a career track; “process” becomes protection; disputes become “incidents”; leaders learn to value quiet over truth because quiet is legible as safety.
You can believe feminization is one contributor. But treating it as the engine is an interpretive leap, not an established causal law.
2) It tempts essentialism even when it gestures at nuance
If “wokeness” is “women’s morality,” you’ve turned a complex institutional pathology into a personality profile of half the species. That’s analytically brittle and politically stupid: it hands critics the easiest rebuttal (“you’re essentializing women”) and it blinds you to male-led versions of the same pathologies (purges, conformity spirals, status policing), which history supplies in bulk.
If you want to criticize a norm regime, criticize the regime. Don’t smuggle in contempt.
What the evidence can support—more modestly
A defensible claim, one that doesn’t require you to psychologize women as a class, looks like this:
- Some sex-linked preference gaps show up in some contexts, especially around speech, conflict, and social sanction. For example, a Knight Foundation/College Pulse study reports large gender differences among U.S. college students: 41% of college women prioritized protecting free speech versus 71% of college men, while women were more likely to prioritize promoting an inclusive society.
- Institutions are sensitive to preference distributions because norms are enforced socially, not just formally.
- Incentives decide which preferences become “policy.” Liability, reputation, and managerial bureaucracy amplify harm-avoidance.
And this is the part Andrews gestures at, but doesn’t fully own: if you want to understand modern speech policing, HR creep, and the new professional fearfulness, start with incentives. The incentives turn every controversy into a corporate emergency; then people behave accordingly.
On that view, feminization isn’t the whole story. It’s a relevant input—and its effects depend on the system it enters.
The real Canadian question: can we preserve hard virtues mid-transition?
Canada is useful here because we’re visibly mid-shift rather than at some imagined endpoint. Parliament is at 30% women, not parity. (IPU Parline) The federal judiciary is closing on parity. (Statistics Canada) Universities have moved dramatically since the 1980s, but remain below parity in full-time teaching staff. (Statistics Canada) Management splits sharply by public vs private sector, and senior leadership remains male-skewed. (Statistics Canada)
So the live question isn’t “should women be here?” They are here, and they belong here.
The question is narrower and more urgent:
As composition changes, what norms do we want to protect because they are fragile?
A short list:
- due process and evidence standards (law)
- viewpoint tolerance and intellectual risk-taking (academia)
- candid disagreement and non-performative conflict (organizations)
- the capacity to make decisions that feel “unkind” but are necessary (policy)
If you think those virtues are real and fragile, you don’t need to scapegoat women. You need to design institutions that reward truth-telling and competence more than “harm management” and reputational prophylaxis. That means fewer performative “values” rituals and more procedural backbone: clear standards, clearer speech norms, and leaders who can say “no” without laundering it through therapy language.
Verdict and prediction
The Great Feminization is real in Canada. The numbers are not subtle. (IPU Parline)
But “feminization = wokeness” is a bad master key. It explains too much, too easily, by psychologizing demographics rather than interrogating incentives. (Compact)
My bet is that the next decade won’t be settled by shouting “misogyny” or shouting “women did this.” It will be settled by whether our institutions relearn a difficult skill: distinguishing “this feels harmful” from “this is false,” and building cultures where adults can endure disagreement without turning every conflict into a moral emergency.
Glossary
- Confounders — other factors that could be the real cause, making cause-and-effect hard to prove.
- Essentialism / essentialize — treating a group as if it has one fixed “essence” (“women are X”), ignoring variation.
- Epiphenomenon — a byproduct; something that looks important but is really “exhaust” from a deeper cause.
- Monocausal — blaming one cause for a complex outcome.
- Pathology (institutional pathology) — a recurring dysfunctional pattern inside an institution.
- Prophylaxis — preventative action; here, pre-emptive “avoid scandal” behavior.
- Psychologizing — explaining political/institutional behavior by reducing it to personality traits or “mental makeup.”
Canada is in the middle of a familiar temptation: the Americans are difficult, therefore the Chinese offer must be sane.
The immediate backdrop is concrete. On January 16, 2026, Canada announced a reset in economic ties with China that includes lowering barriers for a set number of Chinese EVs, while China reduces tariffs on key Canadian exports like canola. (Reuters) Washington responded with open irritation, warning Canada it may regret the move and stressing Chinese EVs will face U.S. barriers. (Reuters)
If you want a simple, pasteable bromide for people losing their minds online, it’s this: the U.S. and China both do bad things, but they do bad things in different ways, at different scales, with different “escape hatches.” One is a democracy with adversarial institutions that sometimes work. The other is a one-party state that treats accountability as a threat.
To make that visible, here are five egregious “hits” from each—then the contrast that actually matters.
Five things the United States does that Canadians have reason to resent
1) Protectionist trade punishment against allies
Steel/aluminum tariffs and recurring lumber duties are the classic pattern: national-interest rhetoric, domestic political payoff, allied collateral damage. Canada has repeatedly challenged U.S. measures on steel/aluminum and softwood lumber. (Global Affairs Canada)
Takeaway: the U.S. will squeeze Canada when it’s convenient—sometimes loudly, sometimes as a bureaucratic grind.
2) Energy and infrastructure whiplash
Keystone XL is the poster child of U.S. policy reversals that impose real costs north of the border and then move on. The project’s termination is documented by the company and Canadian/Alberta sources. (TC Energy)
Takeaway: the U.S. can treat Canadian capital as disposable when U.S. domestic politics flips.
3) Extraterritorial reach into Canadians’ private financial lives
FATCA and related information-sharing arrangements are widely experienced as a sovereignty irritant (and have been litigated in Canada). The Supreme Court of Canada ultimately declined to hear a constitutional challenge in 2023. (STEP)
Takeaway: the U.S. often assumes its laws get to follow people across borders.
4) A surveillance state that had to be restrained after the fact
Bulk telephone metadata collection under Patriot Act authorities became politically toxic and was later reformed/ended under the USA Freedom Act’s structure. (Default)
Takeaway: democracies can drift into overreach; the difference is that overreach can become a scandal, a law change, and a court fight.
5) The post-9/11 stain: indefinite detention and coercive interrogation
Guantánamo’s long-running controversy and the Senate Intelligence Committee’s reporting on the CIA program remain enduring examples of U.S. moral failure. (Senate Select Committee on Intelligence)
Takeaway: the U.S. is capable of serious rights abuses—then also capable of documenting them publicly, litigating them, and partially reversing course.
Five things the People’s Republic of China does that are categorically different
1) Mass rights violations against Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities in Xinjiang
The UN human rights office assessed serious human rights concerns in Xinjiang and noted that the scale of certain detention practices may constitute international crimes, including crimes against humanity. Canada has publicly echoed those concerns in multilateral statements. (OHCHR)
Takeaway: this is not “policy disagreement.” It’s a regime-scale human rights problem.
2) Hong Kong: the model of “one country, one party”
The ongoing use of the national security framework to prosecute prominent pro-democracy figures is a live, observable indicator of how Beijing treats dissent when it has full jurisdiction. (Reuters)
Takeaway: when Beijing says “stability,” it means obedience.
3) Foreign interference and transnational pressure tactics
Canadian public safety materials and parliamentary reporting describe investigations into transnational repression activity and concerns around “overseas police stations” and foreign influence. (Public Safety Canada)
Takeaway: the Chinese state’s threat model can extend into diaspora communities abroad.
4) Systematic acquisition—licit and illicit—of sensitive technology and IP
The U.S. intelligence community’s public threat assessment explicitly describes China’s efforts to accelerate S&T progress through licit and illicit means, including IP acquisition/theft and cyber operations. (Director of National Intelligence)
Takeaway: your “market partner” may also be running an extraction strategy against your innovation base.
5) Environmental and maritime predation at scale
China remains a dominant player in coal buildout even while expanding renewables, a dual-track strategy with global climate implications. (Financial Times)
On the oceans, multiple research and advocacy reports emphasize the size and global footprint of China’s distant-water fishing and associated IUU concerns. (Brookings)
Takeaway: when the state backs extraction, the externalities get exported.
Compare and contrast: the difference is accountability
If you read those lists and conclude “both sides are bad,” you’ve missed the key variable.
The U.S. does bad things in a system with adversarial leak paths:
investigative journalism, courts, opposition parties, congressional reports, and leadership turnover. That doesn’t prevent abuses. It does make abuses contestable—and sometimes reversible. (Senate Select Committee on Intelligence)
China does bad things in a system designed to prevent contestation:
one-party rule, censorship, legal instruments aimed at “subversion,” and a governance style that treats independent scrutiny as hostile action. The problem isn’t “China is foreign.” The problem is that the regime’s incentives run against transparency by design. (Reuters)
So when someone says, “Maybe we should pivot away from the Americans,” the adult response is:
- Yes, diversify.
- No, don’t pretend dependency on an authoritarian state is merely a swap of suppliers.
A quick media-literacy rule for your feed
If a post uses a checklist like “America did X, therefore China is fine,” it’s usually laundering a conclusion.
A better frame is risk profile:
- In a democracy, policy risk is high but visible—and the country can change its mind in public.
- In a one-party state, policy risk is lower until it isn’t—and then you discover the rules were never meant to protect you.
Canada can do business with anyone. But it should not confuse trade with trust, or frustration with Washington with safety in Beijing.
If Canada wants autonomy, the answer isn’t romanticizing China. It’s building a broader portfolio across countries where the rule of law is not a slogan in a press release.
References
- Canada–China trade reset (EV tariffs/canola): Reuters; Guardian. (Reuters)
- U.S. criticism of Canada opening to Chinese EVs: Reuters. (Reuters)
- U.S. tariffs/lumber disputes: Global Affairs Canada; Reuters. (Global Affairs Canada)
- Keystone XL termination: TC Energy; Government of Alberta. (TC Energy)
- FATCA Canadian challenge result: STEP (re Supreme Court dismissal). (STEP)
- USA Freedom Act / end of bulk metadata: Lawfare; Just Security. (Default)
- CIA detention/interrogation report: U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee report PDF. (Senate Select Committee on Intelligence)
- Guantánamo context: Reuters; Amnesty. (Reuters)
- Xinjiang assessment: OHCHR report + Canada multilateral statement. (OHCHR)
- Hong Kong NSL crackdown example: Reuters (Jimmy Lai). (Reuters)
- Transnational repression / overseas police station concerns: Public Safety Canada; House of Commons report PDF. (Public Safety Canada)
- China tech acquisition / IP theft framing: ODNI Annual Threat Assessment PDF. (Director of National Intelligence)
- Coal buildout: Financial Times; Reuters analysis. (Financial Times)
- Distant-water fishing footprint / IUU concerns: Brookings; EJF; Oceana. (Brookings)
“Trump Derangement Syndrome” (TDS) isn’t a medical condition. It’s a rhetorical label for a recognizable pattern: Donald Trump becomes the organizing centre of political perception, so that every event is interpreted through him, and every interpretation is pulled toward maximal moral heat. Even people who agree on the facts can’t agree on the temperature, because the temperature is the point. Psychology writers describe it as a derogatory term for toxic, disproportionate reactions to Trump’s statements and actions.
And when politicians try to literalize it as a clinical diagnosis, it collapses into farce. It is fundamentally a political phenomenon, not a psychiatric one.
The useful question isn’t “Is Trump uniquely bad?” Reasonable people can say yes on qualities character, norms, rhetoric, policy, whatever. The useful question is: when does valid criticism become TDS? The answer is: when Trump stops being an object of analysis and becomes a gravity well.
What TDS looks like (beyond normal criticism)
Normal criticism is specific: this policy, this consequence, this evidence, this alternative. TDS is different in kind.
-
Totalization: Trump isn’t a president with a platform; he’s a single-cause explanation for everything.
-
Asymmetry: Similar behaviour in other leaders is background noise; in Trump it becomes existential threat (or, on the other side, heroic 4D chess).
-
Incentive blindness: The critic’s emotional reward (“I signaled correctly”) overrides the duty to be precise.
-
Predictable misreads: Even when Trump does something ordinary or mixed, it must be either apocalypse or genius.
This is why the term persists. It points generallyat a real cognitive trap: a personality-driven politics that makes judgment brittle. (It also gets used cynically to dismiss legitimate criticism; that’s part of the ecosystem, too.)
Why Canadian media amplifies it
Canada didn’t invent Trump fixation. But Canadian legacy media has strong reasons to keep Trump on the homepage. The reasons, in question, are not purely ideological.
1) Material proximity (it’s not “foreign news” in Canada).
When the U.S. president threatens tariffs, trade reprisals, or bilateral negotiations, Canadians feel it directly: jobs, prices, investment, and national policy all move. In Trump’s second term, Canadian economic and political life has repeatedly been forced to react to U.S. pressure: tariffs, trade disputes, and negotiations that shape Ottawa’s choices.
That creates a built-in news logic: Trump coverage is “domestic-adjacent,” not optional.
2) An attention model that rewards moral theatre.
Trump is an outrage engine. Outrage is a business model. Canadian mediais operating in a trust-and-revenue squeeze, and that squeeze selects for stories that reliably produce engagement. Commentators on Canada’s media crisis have argued that the Trump era intensified the trust spiral and the incentives toward heightened, adversarial framing.
3) Narrative convenience: Trump as a single, portable explanation.
Complex stories (housing, health systems, provincial-federal dysfunction) are hard. Trump is easy: one villain (or saviour), one emotional script, one endless drip of “breaking.” This is where amplification turns into distortion. A real cross-border policy dispute becomes a morality play; a complicated negotiation becomes a personality drama.
4) Coverage volume becomes self-justifying.
Once a newsroom commits, it has to keep feeding the lane it created. Tools that track Canadian legacy-media coverage of Trump-related economic conflict like tariffs for example, show how sustained and multi-outlet that attention can become.
The more space Trump occupies, the more “newsworthy” he becomes, because “everyone is talking about it” (including the newsroom).
None of this requires a conspiracy. It’s mostly incentive alignment: relevance + engagement + a simple narrative hook.
The cost: Canadians inherit America’s temperature
The predictable result is that Canadians import not just U.S. events, but U.S. emotional calibration.
-
Canadian politics gets interpreted as a shadow-play of American factions.
-
Domestic accountability weakens (“our problems are downstream of Trump / anti-Trump”).
-
Readers get trained to react first and think second, a reinforcing heuristic, because that’s what the coverage rewards.
And it corrodes trust: if audiences can feel when coverage is performing emotional certainty rather than reporting reality, they stop believing the institution is trying to be fair.
A reader’s heuristic: the TDS check
If this is going to be useful (not tribal), it needs a diagnostic you can run on yourself and on coverage:
-
Specificity test: Is the criticism about a policy and its consequences, or about Trump as a symbol?
-
Symmetry test: Would you report/feel the same way if a different president did it?
-
Proportionality test: Does the language match the evidence, or does it leap straight to existential claims?
-
Update test: When new facts arrive, does the story change—or does the narrative stay fixed?
-
Trade-off test: Are costs and alternatives discussed, or is “opposition” treated as sufficient analysis?
Pass those tests and you’re probably doing real criticism. Fail them repeatedly and you’re in the gravity well regardless of whether the content is rage or adoration.
The verdict
Trump is a legitimate target for strong criticism especially in a second term with direct consequences for Canada.
But the deeper media failure is not “being anti-Trump.” It’s outsourcing judgment to a narrative reflex: a system that selects for maximal heat, maximal frequency, and minimal precision. That’s how valid critique curdles into derangement—because it stops being about what happened, and becomes about what the story needs.
The fix is boring, which is why it’s rare: lower the temperature, raise the specificity, and let facts earn the conclusion.
Psychology Today — “The Paradox of ‘Trump Derangement Syndrome’” (Sep 5, 2024)
https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/the-meaningful-life/202409/the-paradox-of-trump-derangement-syndrome
The Loop (ECPR) — “Is ‘Trump Derangement Syndrome’ a genuine mental illness?” (Oct 13, 2025)
CBS News Minnesota — “Minnesota Senate Republicans’ bill to define ‘Trump derangement syndrome’ as mental illness…” (Mar 17, 2025)
https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/trump-derangement-syndrome-minnesota-senate-republicans/
Reuters Institute — Digital News Report 2025: Canada (Jun 17, 2025)
https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/digital-news-report/2025/canada
The Trust Spiral (Tara Henley) — The state of media/trust dynamics (May 2024)
Reuters — “Trump puts 35% tariff on Canada…” (Jul 11, 2025)
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-puts-35-tariff-canada-eyes-15-20-tariffs-others-2025-07-11/
Financial Times — “Canada scraps tech tax to advance trade talks with Donald Trump” (Jun 30, 2025)
https://www.ft.com/content/4cf98ada-7164-415d-95df-43609384a0e2
The Guardian — “White House says Canadian PM ‘caved’ to Trump demand to scrap tech tax” (Jun 30, 2025)
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/30/canada-digital-services-tax-technology-giants-us-trade-talks
The Plakhov Group — Trade War: interactive visualizations of Canadian legacy-media coverage of Trump’s tariffs (Feb–Sep 2025 dataset)
https://www.theplakhovgroup.ca/detailed-briefs/trade-war-interactive-visualizations
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…