How Cultural Narratives Shape Conservative Strategies and Voter Perceptions

Introduction

As we conclude our fact-checking series, we turn our attention to Dr. Jordan Peterson’s cultural and philosophical commentary during his conversation with Pierre Poilievre. While Peterson’s insights often added nuance to Poilievre’s economic arguments, his broader critique of “wokeism” and declining “traditional values” reveals an ideological framework that warrants deeper scrutiny.

What does Peterson mean by “wokeism”? What are these “traditional values” he advocates for, and why are they so central to his critique of Canada’s current state? Let’s unpack the rhetoric and explore how these concepts function as dog whistles, mobilizing conservative bases into voting against their own best interests.

1. What Does Peterson Mean by “Wokeism”?

Peterson’s Definition of Wokeism

• He frequently associates “wokeism” with the rise of identity politics, progressive social movements, and perceived overreach in diversity and inclusion initiatives.
• Peterson has criticized what he sees as “compelled speech,” particularly around pronoun use, and broader cultural shifts that prioritize equity over meritocracy.

The Problematic Nature of the Term

• A Catch-All Boogeyman: “Wokeism” is often used as a nebulous term to dismiss a wide range of progressive policies or social changes, from climate activism to anti-racism efforts. Its lack of a precise definition allows it to act as a convenient scapegoat for broader societal discomfort with change.
• Cultural Backlash: Framing issues like diversity or inclusion as “woke” pits progress against tradition, creating unnecessary polarization. It casts social progress as a threat rather than an opportunity for growth.

2. What Are “Traditional Values”?

Peterson’s Focus on Traditional Values

• Hierarchical structures in society, which he argues are natural and necessary.
• Religious and family-centered frameworks, with a strong emphasis on Christianity.
• A return to personal responsibility and self-reliance, often framed as antidotes to modern societal malaise.

Traditional Values as Dog Whistles

• Religious Undertones: While Peterson may not explicitly advocate for a return to Christian governance, his emphasis on “traditional values” often aligns with Christian nationalist rhetoric. This connects to the conservative notion that societal issues stem from a rejection of Judeo-Christian ethics.
• Exclusionary Narratives: The invocation of traditional values often excludes those who don’t fit within that framework—whether due to their religion, lifestyle, or identity. By framing these values as inherently superior, Peterson risks marginalizing diverse perspectives.

3. How These Concepts Mobilize Conservative Bases

Voting Against Their Own Interests

• Economic vs. Cultural Priorities: By framing issues like inflation or deficit spending within a cultural battle against “wokeism” and declining traditional values, this rhetoric distracts voters from economic policies that may not align with their best interests.
  • Cuts to social programs disproportionately harm low-income Canadians, including many conservative voters.
  • Tax reductions for corporations rarely translate into tangible benefits for working-class households.
• Cultural Polarization as a Tool: Concepts like “wokeism” create a sense of cultural emergency, galvanizing voters around abstract fears rather than practical solutions to economic challenges.

Global Parallels

• Trump and Meloni: Similar rhetoric has been used by Donald Trump (“Make America Great Again”) and Giorgia Meloni (“God, Family, Fatherland”), emphasizing a return to traditional values as the solution to economic and social issues. These narratives often lead to policies that widen inequality while reinforcing cultural divisions.

4. Peterson’s Nuance vs. Contradictions

Adding Depth to Poilievre’s Arguments

• Peterson’s critique of abrupt service cuts introduced a thoughtful counterpoint to Poilievre’s fiscal proposals. For instance, his comment—“Fiscal discipline is a virtue, but it has to be implemented with care”—acknowledges the complexities of balancing budgets without harming essential services.

Contradictions in Philosophy

• Despite these moments of nuance, Peterson’s focus on cultural grievances often undermines his economic insights. By linking Canada’s current challenges to broad cultural decay, he shifts the conversation away from actionable solutions toward ideological battles.

5. Why Clinging to “Traditional Values” is a Losing Game

• A Changing World: The Canada of today is diverse, dynamic, and interconnected. Attempting to enforce traditional frameworks risks alienating large swathes of the population who don’t see themselves reflected in those values. Progress isn’t the enemy of stability—it’s the mechanism by which societies adapt to changing circumstances.
• Economic Realities: Policies rooted in cultural conservatism often fail to address the economic challenges that voters care about, such as housing affordability, healthcare access, and job security.

Key Takeaways

• “Wokeism” as a Distraction: Peterson’s invocation of “wokeism” is a rhetorical tool that stokes division while failing to address the root causes of Canada’s challenges.
• Traditional Values as Dog Whistles: References to traditional values carry exclusionary undertones, marginalizing those who don’t fit within this framework.
• Nuance Amid Polarization: While Peterson occasionally adds depth to Poilievre’s critiques, his cultural commentary often contradicts the practical economic solutions he advocates.
• Focus on Solutions, Not Culture Wars: Canada’s path forward lies in addressing tangible issues like housing, healthcare, and education—not retreating into ideological battles over “values.”

Closing Statement

Throughout this series, we’ve explored Poilievre and Peterson’s rhetoric, policies, and critiques. While their narratives resonate with certain audiences, they often rely on cultural polarizations and ideological framing that distract from actionable solutions to Canada’s most pressing issues.

Canada’s strength lies in its diversity and adaptability. Moving forward, the focus should be on inclusive, data-driven policies that address the real challenges Canadians face—affordable housing, healthcare, education, and climate change—while rejecting divisive rhetoric and cultural scapegoating. The path to a stronger Canada is not through ideological battles but through pragmatic, united action.

Namaste.

Share: