On this website, I try to avoid commenting explicitly on Canadian politics. As a non-partisan public servant, I have a duty to neither openly praise nor criticize the elected government, and I take this responsibility seriously. As a result, I’ve spent much more time analyzing U.S. gun control policy and Australian immigration controversies than the most important matters in Canada. As much as I’d like to dig into these issues, this is usually not the place to do so.

But I would like to make an exception in this case and weigh in on the trucker protests that have gripped Ottawa. Not only because they have weighed on tens of thousands of people who live in my city, but also because the protests are being watched and emulated by activists around the world. The events occurring in Ottawa and at the border are unprecedented, internationally relevant, and right on topic for this blog. I would be remiss if I neglected to speak about them.

Before continuing, I’d also like to be explicit about one thing: I will not be addressing the worst of the protesters in this article. Yes, there were Nazi and Confederate flags brandished about the downtown core. Yes, many of the protesters have acted like thugs. Indeed, many of the methods used, from honking train horns in the night to assaulting mask-wearers, were contemptible. I have been blessed in living far from the action, and I don’t wish to overlook the strain that these protests have placed on many of my friends and colleagues. Neither do I wish to excuse the worst of the behavior seen recently in downtown Ottawa.

Last week, I presented a model of misinformation that draws heavily on insights from values analysis. The Care value (i.e. causing pain is wrong, especially to the vulnerable) has become the basis of most polite debate, as commenters try to outline why their chosen policies create more tangible benefit (e.g. economic growth, lives saved, etc.). Many people would argue that the prominence of the Care value is a positive development, because it ensures that public policy is designed to bring the most happiness to the greatest number of people.

However, such an approach has pushed other moral arguments to the margins, even if they remain salient to people’s decision-making. For example, it is no longer politically correct to claim that your country is simply better than others’, a viewpoint that draws heavily on the Loyalty value (i.e. people have special moral responsibilities to in-group members). That’s unlikely to be a winning argument in public, polite debate.

Last week, we discussed the difference between polite and impolite arguments. In public debate, there are rules around the types of arguments that are acceptable. Polite arguments are considered rational, and they usually show how certain policies lead to greater benefits (or fewer harms) in a tangible sense. “Policy X would lead to billions of dollars in savings, or enough money to treat thousands of cancer patients” is an example of a polite argument, which are almost exclusively based morally on the Care value (i.e. causing pain is wrong, especially to the vulnerable).

Although polite arguments may be dominant in educated society, they don’t always drive real decision-making. Instead, many people use other types of emotional appeals (i.e. impolite arguments) to guide their political beliefs. “Flag burning is an insult to the nation and should be punished” is an example of an impolite argument based on the Loyalty value (i.e. people have special moral responsibilities to in-group members). This argument is impolite because it is hard to show how the burning of a piece of cloth leads to tangible harms. Such an argument in unlikely to win a Munk debate, but it will certainly receive likes on social media.

“Toolbox” articles delve into a new way of looking at values, with a view to using these techniques in future articles.

What are the values that drive political discourse in liberal democracies? As outlined on this website, people operate, to varying degrees, according to six moral values:

1. care/harm (it’s morally right to help people and wrong to hurt them);
2. fairness/cheating (outcomes should be equitable and/or proportional to contributions);
3. liberty/oppression (freedom is a moral good);
4. loyalty/betrayal (people have special moral responsibilities to those in their group);
5. authority/subversion (it’s morally right to follow those in positions of authority); and
6. sanctity/degradation (some actions are inherently corrupting and dirty, and therefore, wrong).

Given that these six values are important to people, you might guess that all six could help justify policy choices. Perhaps your average politician would rely on one central value to make a point, and then bolster that idea with appeals to the others. For example, imagine an American civic leader from the 1960s advocating for the end of Jim Crow and saying the following: