Time to clean up our language

CHELSEA, QUE.—Political language has become so degraded that a gross betrayal of supporters, a shameless climbdown from previously embraced imperatives, the sudden disappearance of favourite dog whistles when they are no longer useful, is widely known as a “pivot." Not a lie, not self-serving evasion, not what non-political people would consider a damning character defect. A pivot. The term is not new and neither is the practice. Politicians are renowned for saying one thing and doing—or not doing—another. In some instances, it makes no sense to pursue remedies for problems that no longer exist; occasionally, a campaigning politician will learn, too late, that the idea she was promoting is ill-considered, or impossible. But far more common than genuine mistakes, or policy proposals mugged by reality, are radical changes of direction—usually soft-pedalled as changes in “tone”—based on calculation and strategic advantage. In political backrooms, where the term originated a decade or more ago, pivots are either clever, or clumsy: they are simply another morally-neutral facet of the modern campaign. So, he said a few borderline-racist things at that rally in rural Saskatchewan? Let’s just drop that talking point, now that we are courting a larger, more diverse audience. People forget. Besides, the disgruntled haters that we were wooing with our coy claims to solidarity are far outnumbered by the not-so-angry majority that we need to take power. If the extremists kick up a fuss, we’ll just denounce them and move on, earning even more mainstream cred. The problem is that this corrosively cynical approach to politics—to human nature—has become so commonplace, providing endless fodder for political panels and news coverage, that it is now normalized. Anyone who is shocked, even disappointed, when yet another promise is broken, yet another apparently heart-felt concern is discarded by an ambitious political striver, is left feeling naive, discounted, and utterly despondent—if, in some deep recess of the heart, unsurprised. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre’s victory speech last month, after his crushing victory, for instance, was hailed for its relatively moderate “tone.” He didn’t explicitly talk about firing the governor of the Bank of Canada, for instance, nor was there any mention of the entirely innocuous World Economic Forum (a big applause line at rallies), or of crypto-currency. He didn’t even utter his trademark JustinFlation dig, although the phrase is still in rotation in Conservative circles. Calgary political scientist Duane Bratt, for one, told The Hill Times after the speech that Poilievre didn’t “pivot away” from his ideological roots, but merely “smoothed off some of the rougher, more extreme edges of his campaign.” Like when he marched with Freedom Convoy leader James Topp last June, say. Like other olive branches and handshakes he extended to the protesters who occupied Ottawa last winter, blocked traffic and trade in Alberta, and created chaos in so many city centres. Like his dangerous vow to never impose vaccine mandates, for any disease, notwithstanding the threat to public health. Just rough edges. Long-time Progressive Conservative communications specialist, Geoff Norquay, who supported Jean Charest, praised Poilievre’s ability to simplify complex issues—he actually creates an entirely new reality, often untethered from the facts—but added, “now is the time to transition the language he uses to talk about the issues.” Transition the language. From hare-brained threats, cruel personal insults and deliberate distortions—the laughable notion that Trudeau has destroyed Alberta’s oil and gas sector at a time of record-high fossil fuel profits, exports and production—to high-minded visions of economic prosperity for all, or compassion over the lack of affordable housing? Not to forget the promised, but never defined, vow to make Canada “the freest country on Earth”? Something like that. As for the YouTube flirtation with mens’ rights groups, the intolerance of dissent within the ranks, the sometimes breathtaking meanness—we are supposed to accept that as tactical, and follow the leader to a higher plain. Another stupefying “pivot” was executed last week by Alberta’s newly elected leader of the United Progressive Conservatives and premier, Danielle Smith. She dominated the leadership campaign with her promised Alberta Sovereignty Act, intended to empower the province to reject any federal law or court ruling the province finds objectionable. But hours after her victory, her camp clarified that Alberta would continue to respect Supreme Court rulings, which, in the view of some legal experts, makes her sovereignty act mostly symbolic—a piece of political theatre, in other words. This change in emphasis was described as a “reversal," a “softening," a “dialling back” in media coverage, so somewhat short of a full pivot. But it will still be disappointing to her more avid right-wing supporters. (In any event, Smith’s constitutional tap-dancing was soon overwhelmed by her maladroit claim that anti-vaxxers faced more discrimination that any other group in her lifetime. The next day brought a clarification, insisting that she didn’t intend to “trivialize” the persecution of other minorities throughout history. Which she had already done.) It isn’t only right-leaning politicians who “pivot." Justin Trudeau famously, and brazenly, dropped his promise to end first-past-the-post elections when he discovered the existing system suited him fine. And in Quebec, François Legault, recently re-elected with a huge majority thanks to Quebec’s distorted electoral math, also decided his 2018 pledge to reform the voting system was unnecessary, given a lack of public interest. There is a reason this transparent dishonesty doesn’t end political careers. Sometimes, “pivots” away from particularly nasty or unsettling promises come as a relief to the larger, non-partisan voting public. Premier Smith, for instance, is no political neophyte—in fact, her most spectacular “pivot” occurred in 2014, when she crossed the floor as leader of the Wildrose caucus, to join Jim Prentice’s Progressive Conservatives. She would have surely known her promise to ignore federal law was unconstitutional, that her Sovereignty Act would never survive legal scrutiny. Presumably, she just like the sound of it, liked the tough-guy posturing—and so did a significant minority of Albertans, (although not outgoing premier Jason Kenney). In the end, more people (not only in Ottawa) will probably be pleased to see her pivot to more pressing concerns—housing, health care and education, to name a few—in her home province, and away from performative rage. As for Poilievre, will he really get rid of the carbon tax—which is originally a conservative idea—if he becomes prime minister in 2025? If he does, will it have any appreciable impact on prices at the pump? Will as many voters care, as electric cars and trucks make increasing inroads? Will he really build pipelines “south, north, east, and west” as the oil industry shrinks and investors become increasingly wary of oil’s future? From this vantage point, it looks like a Poilievre “pivot” on climate is inevitable—although it will be dressed up as a fairer, more equitable approach to containing emissions, not a complete policy reversal. But however welcome the intrusion of reality on some more deluded ideas, the political “pivot” leaves a bad taste in the mouths of those living in the ordinary moral universe in which it is wrong to lie, to boast, or to bully. It is time to drop the word entirely from political discourse and call the pivot what it usually is: rank, self-serving hypocrisy. There are other, snappier, more profane synonyms that spring to mind, but they only compound the problem. The goal is to replace euphemism with language that is more honest, not more pungent. Susan Riley is a veteran political columnist who writes regularly for The Hill Times. The Hill Times

Time to clean up our language

Canada’s aging crisis and a call for reform in eldercare

As COP29 wraps up, will Canada finally stop funding fossils this fall?

Addressing the threat of antimicrobial resistance

The wisdom of Homer Simpson and Aaron Sorkin

Climate finance should target resilient food systems

Trump’s ‘America First’ plans may undermine global trade

How to navigate post-fact politics: skeptically, but attentively

There are signs of resistance to the right-wing juggernaut, if you look hard enough

A rapidly changing climate and a glaring political disconnect

How the Liberal Party can save itself, maybe

Oil and gas industry’s fancy foot-dragging wins the day, again

News

Get free news updates

Opinion

Submit a guest opinion article

resources

Advertise

subscribe

get help

Get free news updates

Submit a guest opinion article

Time to clean up our language

Get The Weekend Point of View Newsletter