If you want to vilify your political opponent, accuse them of holding policy positions for “ideological reasons”. Check Hansard or listen to speeches at political rallies and you will find numerous examples of elected officials using the word “ideology” in all its forms to attack their opponents.

According to the Conservatives, Liberals care little about helping Canadians and are only interested in furthering their “radical” ideologies. By a remarkable coincidence, if you listen to Liberals, they will tell you that Conservatives have no interest in what is best for Canada and are instead driven by their own “radical” ideologies.

As insults go, it’s not bad and it’s also obviously quite versatile. All of us have encountered annoying zealots on both the left and the right, unwilling to compromise as they attempt to ram their extreme beliefs down our throats. Nobody wants to vote for them.

Yet, the term ideology doesn’t always carry a negative connotation. People also use it to describe the core set of beliefs and values that help shape their response to the world’s problems – ones that they will never abandon, even when the going gets tough.

Voters want to understand the core beliefs and values that guide political parties to be reassured that those seeking power aren’t simply saying anything to get elected. In fact, in a world where few of us can even begin to understand complex issues, sometimes the best you can hope for is voting for someone whose core beliefs align with yours.

Which leads to the obvious “I know you are, but what am I” question: If Liberals and Conservatives like accusing each other of being “ideological,” what does it make them? Do they not stand for anything? Do they not have beliefs and values that they will never compromise?

Some politicians actually touch upon this awkward question by claiming that unlike their opponents, their party is driven only by evidence, implying that they inhabit a “neutral” space where core beliefs play no role.

We all know that such a world doesn’t exist. All of us make sense of the chaos that surrounds us in different ways. Presented with the same evidence, people can reach radically different conclusions which is why we have different political parties in the first place.

It’s all very confusing but a recent book by the Canadian philosopher Jeffrey Dudiak, Post Truth: Facts and Faithfulness, seems to provide some answers.

In the book, Dudiak argues that we all tell ourselves stories to help us understand our world. As we work through these stories one of two things happens: One is that we adopt what he calls a “worldview” or the other is that we adopt an “ideology.”

The two approaches start out the same but start to diverge when facts and situations arise that challenge or contradict our understanding of the world. Someone with a healthy worldview welcomes these moments and uses them to broaden their understanding of reality. Someone with an allegiance to an ideology doesn’t.

According to Dudiak, a worldview “does not impose its own expectations upon reality” but is open to new possibilities. An ideology, on the other hand, “cannot see beyond its own way of seeing…is incapable of seeing anything new or unexpected, anything interesting or challenging.”

This is a clearer definition of ideology. Unfortunately, it applies to almost every mainline political party in Canada today.

Listen to Pierre Poilievre’s speeches. Watch his famous video on the housing crisis. Hear his policies — “axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime.” The Conservatives have made up their mind about our problems and have zero interest in considering any other possibility or learning from any other perspective.

But can’t the same also be said of the Liberals?

Could you really describe the current government as being open to new ideas and willing to learn from other perspectives? Think of Liberal policies on the environment, Indigenous reconciliation, or a whole host of social issues. Polling tells us that one of the reasons the prime minister is doing so poorly is because Canadians feel that he is divisive and “preachy.”

There is something strange going on in Canadian politics today. The Conservatives may enjoy a commanding lead, but there doesn’t appear to be great excitement about it — “Poilievre-mania” is not a thing. At the same time, many hard-core Liberals appear deflated as they try to sell the same old policies to a public not interested in what they’re peddling.

Maybe our political parties should adopt more of a “worldview” approach to politics.

Maybe they should describe both their understanding of the world and clearly demonstrate their openness to new perspectives and possibilities.

Who knows, moving beyond the “ideology” insult might actually garner the attention of a public sick of all the name calling and desperate to know how parties understand the world.

John Milloy, a former Ontario cabinet minister, is the director of the Centre for Public Ethics at Martin Luther University College and practitioner in residence in Wilfrid Laurier University's Political Science department. His most recent book, Politics and Faith in a Polarized World was published by Novalis in 2021. John can be reached at [email protected].