Nova Scotia, And Conservatism’s Case For Collectivism

On The Rights Of Old And New

“Legitimate state interest.”

Probably the legal opinion I’ve read most often is Scalia’s dissent in Lawrence, the 2003 case that legalized homosexual sodomy across the US. It’s a fascinating legal opinion, both entirely correct in parts and yet one of the most evil things ever written. It’s a contradiction, both entirely correctly understanding that the logic of Lawrence made legal, national gay marriage inevitable (as occurred 12 years later), but also a monstrosity that compared homosexuals to nudists and those who want to engage in beastiality. Despite that monstrosity, it’s a time capsule of the dominant strand of conservatism abound 20-ish years ago - a conservatism of moral imperatives that viewed the promotion of traditional values as worth infringing liberty for.

We had our own culture wars and made in Canada crises to fight, namely registration of long guns and the Constitutional questions that Meech Lake and the 1995 referendum caused, but in the US the right spent the 90s talking about banning porn and flag burning because the economy was good and they didn’t have real issues to talk about. (The fact that flag burning died as a salient issue the second America had real problems - the busting of the Dotcom Bubble and 9/11 - proves just how much it was a consequence of having nothing to complain about.) And, as Scalia wrote, “All other liberty interests may be abridged or abrogated pursuant to a validly enacted state law if that law is rationally related to a legitimate state interest.”

Now, I am loath to quote Scalia in a positive light, but this used to be a mainstream conservative viewpoint. What does any of this matter? Conservatives now, in Canada, are having meltdowns at attempts to stop the East Coast from burning to a crisp, and I find that fascinating.

I know nothing about forest management, I know nothing about risk assessments in this area, and I have something insightful to say about the decision to ban recreational hiking through forests in Nova Scotia. But I do find the fact that modern conservatives in Canada have become pure libertarians, obsessed with liberty at the expense of all else, interesting. They refuse to accept that stopping fires from forming is a legitimate state interest, because they’ve completely abandoned the idea that they have any obligations to anyone that aren’t themselves. They’ve become something they’d recoil against, if they cared enough to be consistent.

Scalia’s dissent is in many ways a rant against libertarianism in general and the specific perniciousness of liberty being the above all else priority. Much of his objection to Lawrence is that similar logic could be used to tear down anti-incest laws or obscenity or any number of other infringements of liberty. He points out that the right to use heroin is abridged by US law, and he’s right. The kind of conservatism that used to be dominant understood the purpose and the utility of collectivism and of the ability of the majority to impose its morality and its priorities onto a minority.

Now, these people have not fully embraced libertarianism - John Rustad’s BC Conservatives ran on reversing decriminalization of some hard drugs and involuntary treatment for some people, not exactly a liberty-enhancing policy - but that’s because it’s libertarianism for other people. If you don’t use drugs, you’re unbothered by policy on drug users, and so their liberty doesn’t matter. But god forbid the Nova Scotia government doesn’t want the province to burn to a pulp, that’s not a legitimate state interest.

I take seriously that governments, and yes liberals and progressives, didn’t care enough about disruptions of liberty during COVID. There should have been greater efforts made to enable religious services and other important functions to happen safely, or as safely as possible, and it’s important to not defend every COVID restriction in an effort to defend the principle of saving lives. But these are not COVID era restrictions. This is not a near-total ban on mobility and closing of businesses, this is trying to stop people’s homes and livelihoods burning. If that is not a legitimate state interest, then we should literally abolish the idea of governance.

The problem with this brand of individualism is that it doesn’t actually appeal to people. Yes, a $25k fine for hiking does sound like a Thick Of It C-plot that plagues the government and makes Malcolm want to break things, but the collective reaction to this won’t be revolt at the authoritarian government, but an inescapable sense that you are, in fact, fucking assholes who won’t do fuck all for the greater good. Should people be as willing to sacrifice because they’re told it’s for the greater good as they are? Maybe not, but we are. And it’s a wild contrast to the conservatism that used to dominate, and one they’d do best to try and get rid of.

Poilievre didn’t lose because of policy specifics, he lost because people did not trust him to handle the parts of the job you can’t predict. That was his fundamental crisis - he didn’t seem like a leader who could marry principle with pragmatism, who could be trusted to do what’s needed. The reason Harper won in 2008, and won the majority in 2011, was because he was trusted to handle fragile times well, and not just act as a rigid ideologue. Poilievre didn’t earn the trust of enough swing voters that he could handle uncertain times. This won’t help.

The reason that politicians punch their own side, or make a big show of having one or two seemingly contrary positions is because voters want governments who will not rigidly enact their partisan agenda regardless of the circumstances. They want people who can be trusted to change their minds when the facts change. And if something as simple as “stay out of the woods until there’s some fucking rain” breaks the brains of so many people in Poilievre’s coalition, then he’s going to have to come down on their side in time. And it’ll end up showing why people don’t want him running Canada.

The idea that these sorts of infringements on liberty are a Liberal or progressive invention is nonsense. They’re completely in line with how the right has historically been. The right used to win because they understood their role was to advocate for the majority. Now they’re embracing the worst kind of every man for themselves politics. When it doesn’t work, don’t be surprised.