Nolan Toscano: The luxury of 'leave-us-alone' conservatism

Solidarity is a necessary virtue to understand each other as neighbours, writes Guest Contributor Nolan Toscano.

Nolan Toscano is recognized as one of Canada’s Rising 30 Leaders.

“We are fond of talking about ‘liberty’; that, as we talk of it, is a dodge to avoid discussing what is good,” G. K. Chesterton once wrote.

As conservatism in Canada undergoes a self-examination of what it is and what its goals are, the tensions that have been managed are now openly fraying. This is particularly apparent among younger conservatives and those who endure the consequences of a nation that is confused, or even schizophrenic, about its identity.

The consensus of utilitarian libertarianism, though broadly appealing and certainly workable over the last generation, is insufficient to address the consequences of a public square that has lost its cultural underpinnings and direction.

An excellent articulation by Sean Speer of “leave-us-alone politics” broadly captures the prevailing tradition that modern Canadian conservatism. The origins of it lie in the libertarian reaction to the 1970s Keynesian consensus and the binding force of anti-communism. It is an inheritance shaped by think tanks, market ideology, and Western populist individualism rather than by inherited duties or shared cultural norms. That inheritance is an attractive case insofar as it asks for very little other than a recognition to look after yourself.

This, however, is a luxury belief.

“Leave-us-alone” is a politics built for individuals, not neighbours; taxpayers, not citizens; market actors, not people, and, to borrow from David Goodhart, anywheres, not somewheres. This is true for this premise on both the left and right sides of the political spectrum.

A political community cannot be held together simply by “my family, my taxes, and do not bother me”. That is a kind of cosmopolitan individualism that can only be embraced by those who can escape or isolate themselves from the consequences of the time we live in. It assumes communities can continue without an active cultivation of shared norms, values, and responsibilities. It rests on a false dilemma that a smaller or larger state will determine human flourishing, and still overlooks the pre-political and pre-liberal underpinnings we are burning the fumes of.

The consequences of this ideology are evident and not finished. The government has grown not just as a means of enforcing left-wing identity politics, but also as a mediator between isolated individuals.

As the small platoons and other mediating institutions in society diminish, the state is left to serve as the arbiter to fill the gaps.

Solidarity, a necessary virtue that leads to understanding the other as neighbour, is outright impossible.

Responsibility that motivates charity to take care of one another atrophies.

“Leave-us-alone” results in a vacuum that cannot sustain itself, let alone lead to flourishing. Communities cannot be self-sustaining and self-governing if those within them do not see the community as their concern.