Tag Archive

Most of us were never really taught how political debate is supposed to work. We absorbed it from bad examples.

Say the words “political debate” and many people picture television panels where two partisan performers interrupt each other until a producer cuts to commercial, or the online version: a thread full of dunks, slogans, insults, and people congratulating themselves for having exposed the other side as stupid, corrupt, dangerous, or insane. That may be what political debate often looks like now, but it is not what political conversation in a liberal democracy is for.

I am not interested in rules-lawyering everyone’s tone. People are free to be blunt, angry, sarcastic, partisan, impatient, and rude. Politics is not a finishing school, and some public arguments deserve a sharp answer. The problem is not that Canadians are sometimes impolite with one another. The deeper problem is that a more corrosive habit has been creeping into our political life: we have started evaluating the speaker before we evaluate the argument.

A claim appears, and before anyone asks whether it is true, reasonable, exaggerated, foolish, or worth answering, the person making it is sorted. Loyal or suspect. One of us or one of them. Serious citizen or coded enemy. Once that sorting happens, the argument itself begins to vanish from view, because the real work has already been done by the classification.

That is the temptation captured by the friend/enemy distinction, a phrase most famously associated with Carl Schmitt, the early twentieth-century German political theorist whose wider politics should not be sanitized or treated as a model. I am not invoking Schmitt as a guide. I am using the distinction as a warning label, because it names something liberal societies need to recognize early: the moment politics stops being a contest of judgment and becomes a test of allegiance.

In ordinary life, we all distinguish between allies, opponents, rivals, strangers, and genuine threats. Prudence is not the problem. A country should know when it is being pressured. Citizens should be able to recognize bad faith, fanaticism, corruption, and hostile interests. Liberal democracy does not require political innocence; it requires enough discipline to keep prudence from hardening into total suspicion.

The danger comes when disagreement no longer remains disagreement but becomes evidence of allegiance. The question shifts from “Is this true?” or “What evidence supports it?” to “Whose side are you on?” The person matters more than the claim, the label matters more than the reasoning, and the side-taking becomes the argument. When politics moves there, liberal democracy begins to lose the oxygen it needs to survive.

A free society depends on the possibility that fellow citizens can disagree sharply without becoming enemies of the country. It asks us to answer arguments rather than merely classify the people making them. It leaves room for someone to be wrong, irritating, partisan, badly informed, or even deeply mistaken without being treated as a contaminant in the public square.

I saw this play out recently in a small online exchange around the phrase “Maple MAGA.” There is a real criticism buried in that label. Some Canadians have been far too indulgent toward Donald Trump’s rhetoric about this country, and some have seemed more animated by American partisan identity than by Canadian sovereignty. When a Canadian cheers pressure from Washington against Canada, or treats our independence as a bargaining chip in someone else’s political theatre, that deserves a firm answer because Canada is not an accessory to American politics, not a province-in-waiting, and not for sale.

But “Maple MAGA” often does more work than that. Instead of describing a specific position, it expands into a moral category. It gathers people in. It becomes a way of marking domestic opponents as suspect before their arguments are considered. The issue is no longer what a person actually argued about Canadian policy, economic weakness, sovereignty, or Ottawa’s failures. The issue becomes whether he has denounced the correct villain, in the correct language, with the correct visible enthusiasm.

That is where debate begins turning into a loyalty test, because there is a real difference between saying Trump’s rhetoric toward Canada was hostile and saying Canadian citizens must use a demanded label before their arguments can be taken seriously. The first is a judgment about foreign conduct. The second smuggles a test of domestic belonging into political conversation.

Once that happens, the original issue starts to disappear. Was Canada’s economic weakness caused mainly by domestic policy, American pressure, or some combination of both? Is “Maple MAGA” an accurate description of a real political tendency, or a lazy smear used to dismiss people who dislike Ottawa’s direction? Is the argument being made true, false, half-true, exaggerated, or badly framed? Those questions take patience, which is exactly why the loyalty test is so tempting.

The loyalty test asks for something much simpler. Are you one of us, or one of them? Have you said the required phrase? Have you distanced yourself enough? Have you performed the right moral posture before being allowed into the conversation? At that point, politics has slipped away from argument and into status testing.

This is not unique to one party, one movement, or one ideological tribe. Conservatives have their own shortcuts: “woke,” “globalist,” “Laurentian elite,” “anti-Canadian,” and plenty of other labels used when answering a person would take more work than sorting him. Progressives have their versions. Populists have theirs. Centrists have theirs too, though they often dress the habit up as responsible seriousness. Every faction has a vocabulary for making opponents morally inadmissible before the argument begins.

The “Maple MAGA” example is useful because it is current, Canadian, and revealing. It shows how quickly a legitimate concern can become a domestic sorting tool. Trump’s obnoxious rhetoric about Canada, along with threats of economic pressure, gave Canadians good reason to be alert. A patriotic response was necessary, because no serious country should shrug when a powerful neighbour treats its sovereignty casually. But a necessary patriotic response can still curdle into something unhealthy when an external threat becomes a way of disciplining internal dissent.

Criticism of Ottawa, Liberal policy, or the direction of the country can be made to look foreign-aligned, morally suspect, or insufficiently Canadian. A foreign politician becomes the shadow cast over every local disagreement. The moment someone criticizes domestic policy, the insinuation arrives: whose side are you really on? That is a dangerous move even when it begins from a real grievance.

A foreign leader can behave badly. A neighbouring country can apply pressure. A government can be right to resist that pressure. None of this means Canadian citizens lose the right to criticize their own government without first proving that they belong to the acceptable moral category.

Canada is not the United States, and our political culture is not yet as intensely polarized. We should be careful not to exaggerate the crisis, but that is exactly why the habit matters now. Civic decay is easier to resist while it is still forming; once it hardens into the ordinary way politics is done, people stop noticing the damage.

Liberal democracy does not require us to pretend every argument is good. Some arguments are foolish, dishonest, thin, or soaked in partisan fog. Some are recycled grievance dressed up as principle. Some deserve a brief answer and a quick dismissal. But even then, the way to answer a bad argument is to answer it: expose the error, challenge the premise, show the missing evidence, point out the contradiction, or say plainly that the argument fails.

What should not become our first move is declaring the person contaminated and treating that as a substitute for thought. Social media makes the shortcut feel righteous because contempt performs well. Sneering is easy to understand. Labels travel faster than arguments. A caricature can be shared in seconds, while a fair summary takes effort and usually wins less applause.

Anyone can dunk, sneer, caricature, and perform disgust for an approving crowd. The harder civic discipline is being able to state an opponent’s position in terms he would recognize, not because every view deserves endless patience, not because politics should become a parlour game for people with too much time and too few convictions, and not because all sides are equally right, honest, or harmless. The point is simpler than that: you cannot seriously defeat an argument you have not first understood.

If you can only answer the worst caricature of your opponent, you are not debating so much as shadowboxing. You may win applause from people who already agree with you, but you have not clarified the issue, persuaded the undecided, or improved the public conversation by one inch.

That is one of the civic habits we are losing. We are becoming quick at identifying villains and slow at understanding claims. We know how to attach labels, detect contamination, and turn disagreement into a question of moral hygiene, while forgetting how to stay with an argument long enough to know what it actually says.

A liberal democratic citizen should be able to say: I think you are wrong, and I will answer you. I think your politics are mistaken, but I will not treat you as an enemy of the country. I think your judgment is poor, but I will not demand a ritual of denunciation before you are allowed to speak. That is not softness, weakness, or both-sides evasion; it is democratic discipline.

When Canadian debate becomes a loyalty test, we do not become more patriotic. We become easier to manipulate. Once every issue is reduced to friend or enemy, loyal or traitor, acceptable or suspect, we stop asking whether arguments are true and start asking whether people belong.

That is not how a free country reasons with itself, and a country that can no longer reason with itself will eventually be governed by fear, resentment, and whoever is most skilled at naming enemies.