To be principled or pragmatic: That is the question

In this article, I will use the recent Canadian federal election to illustrate the dilemma of whether to behave according to one’s principles or to adjust one’s behaviour to match the demands of social situations.

In my education as a psychologist, I was taught about a personality characteristic known as self-monitoring. It refers to the extent to which people keep track of the impressions they are making on others in social situations.

High self-monitors do more of this keeping track than do low self-monitors. The benefit of self-monitoring is that it makes it easier for the person to fit in to various social situations and get along with the people in them because the person regularly monitors and adjusts their behaviour in order to give off a positive impression.

Low self-monitors tend to fit in less well than do high self-monitors but they enjoy the benefit of acting consistently with their attitudes, values and principles more than do high-self monitors. High self-monitors and low self-monitors are often referred to as ‘pragmatic’ and ‘principled’ respectively.

Although there are individual differences in whether someone leans toward being a low self-monitor or a high self-monitor, there is an ongoing attempt by most people to balance the two ways of thinking, feeling and behaving in order to gain the benefits of being a low self-monitor while also enjoying the benefits of being a high self-monitor. That is, people attempt to fit into social situations while also trying to behave consistently with their attitudes, values and principles.

In the following sections, I will discuss the challenges of this balancing act of attempting to get the best of both the high and low self-monitor worlds. I will use examples from the recent Canadian federal election campaign to illustrate these challenges.

Where Canada’s major political parties land on the self-monitoring spectrum

I will first discuss where I see each of the three major Canadian federal political parties landing on the self-monitoring spectrum. That is, do they lean toward being pragmatic akin to a high self-monitor or toward being principled in the manner of a low self-monitor? For this discussion, I will focus on the Liberal Party of Canada, the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) and the New Democratic Party (NDP) because they have been the most influential parties throughout Canadian history.

The Liberal Party—mainly pragmatic/high self-monitor

The most successful of the three major federal Canadian political parties is the Liberal Party by virtue of having won the most elections. Perhaps not so coincidentally, this party most closely matches the pragmatic nature of the high self-monitor. That is, just as the high self-monitor focuses less on acting according to their principles in favour of adjusting their actions to fit in better with people in social situations, the Liberal Party of Canada has adjusted its policies and positions over many years to fit in with the prevailing attitudes of voters. The essence of its pragmatism is captured by analysts describing it as a ‘centrist’ party on the political spectrum.

As such, there have been successful Liberal Party leaders who have emphasized right wing concepts like fiscal responsibility (think Prime Minister Jean Chretien and his Finance Minister Paul Martin who consistently balanced budgets while in power) while there have been others—most notably the current Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his father Pierre Trudeau—who have focused more on social justice concerns which are typically associated with the left of the political spectrum.

This ability of the Liberals to form their positions based less on party ideology and more on what matches the mood of voters has played a significant role in their electoral success. So while less principled, their pragmatism has allowed them to fit in with the views of voters of Canada just like the pragmatism of high self-monitors allows them to fit in with people in social environments.

The New Democratic Party—mainly principled/low self-monitor

Of the three major Canadian political parties, the one which matches the concept of low self-monitor the most is the NDP. Leaders of this party have focused on left wing principles during campaigns which tend to be consistent from election to election. They have rarely shifted their positions to match the preferences of larger sections of the Canadian electorate. The result is that not making attempts to ‘fit in’ with these broader preferences has limited their electoral success.

One notable exception was in the 2011 federal election in which a combination of a more pragmatic centrist platform and a charismatic leader in the form of Jack Layton led the party to its biggest success in finishing second to the Conservative party and becoming the official opposition in Parliament. The party’s flirtation with the high self-monitor behaviour of adjusting its positions in accordance with the views of voters at the expense of sticking to its principles in the manner of low self-monitors continued into the 2015 federal election campaign under leader Thomas Mulcair. Although the party still did well in this election by capturing 45 seats, the significant drop from the 103 seats it won in the 2011 election quickly led to Mr. Mulcair being removed as leader by party members.

Since then, the party has returned to behaving more like its traditional low self-monitor self under current leader Jagmeet Singh by advocating for principle-based left wing positions. Its move back to favouring principle over pragmatism has been accompanied by a return to its traditional ‘also ran’ position in election results.

Interestingly, Mr. Singh has not faced threats of being ousted as leader as a result of his lackluster electoral performance. It appears that the party is fine with mediocre results as long as the leader sticks to advocating the party’s principles. It also appears that the party will tolerate a pragmatic leader as long as that leader is successful in elections as Mr. Layton was. Similar pragmatism by Mr. Mulcair cost him his job as leader when his electoral results were less successful than those of Mr. Layton.

The Conservative Party—mainly alternating between principled/low self-monitor and pragmatic/high self-monitor

The Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) is the most complicated of the three major parties as to where it fits in the principled/low self-monitor versus pragmatic/high self-monitor framework. The party over the years has grappled with which of these elements to focus on. In a previous incarnation, the party leaned toward pragmatism as reflected in its centrist name –the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. Although generally more right of centre than the Liberal Party in its positions, on many occasions it was difficult to distinguish its views and policies from those of the Liberals as it adjusted itself to the mood of the electorate in an attempt to win elections. This pragmatic approach paid off handsomely at times with majority government victories by leaders John Diefenbaker and Brian Mulroney.

However, following a shellacking at the ballot boxes in the 1993 election under leader Kim Campbell, the party went through several shifts with the start of the right wing Reform Party which begat the right wing Canadian Alliance party which ultimately merged with the more centrist Progressive Conservative Party. This merger resulted in the current Conservative Party of Canada. The removal of the word ‘Progressive’ from the party’s name was indicative of a shift toward a more right wing principled party led by its first leader—right wing ideologue Stephen Harper.

Following a second place finish to the Liberals in his first election campaign as leader, Mr. Harper led the Conservatives to victories in three consecutive elections culminating in a majority government victory in 2011 and they held power for nine years. Mr. Harper managed to achieve electoral success by focusing on right wing principles rather than on being pragmatic to achieve victories as the Liberals and the former Progressive Conservatives did.

He accomplished this unconventional method of victory by inspiring the substantial percentage of the Canadian electorate (about 30 percent) who shared his right wing views and by benefiting from a string of leaders of the Liberal party who did not match Harper in political skill. This principled route to electoral success did not work for Harper in the 2015 election when the pragmatic Liberals led by current Prime Minister Justin Trudeau defeated the Conservatives and won power with a majority government.

Principles and pragmatism in the 2021 Canadian federal election

The results of the 2021 Canadian federal election, which were virtually identical to the results of the 2019 election, featured an interesting set of dynamics among the parties in terms of the principled/low self-monitor versus pragmatism/high self-monitor framework. Consistent with their histories, the Liberals under leader Justin Trudeau focused on pragmatism while the NDP under leader Jagmeet Singh opted for advocating positions consistent with the party’s left wing principles.

The most fascinating dynamics on the principled-pragmatism spectrum occurred with the Conservative Party. New leader Erin O’Toole had been chosen head of the party by presenting himself as a principled ‘true blue Conservative’ while he criticized his more pragmatic party leadership rival Peter MacKay. However, during the federal election Mr. O’Toole radically shifted from the principled to the pragmatic in an effort to appeal to the views of a broader range of voters in an effort to win the election.

This shift away from principles and toward pragmatism did not work for Mr. O’Toole as the Conservatives finished in second place, well back of the Liberals who won a second consecutive minority government victory. And just as the NDP’s Thomas Mulcair had party ideologues seeking to oust him as leader for not achieving electoral success with a shift from principles to pragmatism, Mr. O’Toole is already facing the same fate. Whether he will survive as leader remains an open question.

Conclusions to draw regarding being principled versus being pragmatic as they relate to electoral success

Based on the results of Canadian federal elections, it appears that just as high self-monitors benefit from fitting in better with people in social situations than do low self-monitors, political parties and their leaders generally fare better at the polls when they focus more on pragmatism than on principles. The history of election wins by the centrist and pragmatic Liberal Party and the former Progressive Conservative Party along with the consistent relegation to third place or worse by the principled NDP appears to support this notion. The recent success following a principled approach by former Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper appears to have been an anomaly.

Unfortunately for both the Conservatives and the NDP, efforts by their leaders to shift toward pragmatism in an attempt to win elections are often unsuccessful. One reason for this is that a pragmatic leader of either of those two parties faces enormous challenges in being selected leader by party members who are much more focused on principles and ideology compared with the larger population of voters in a general election. Secondly, any pragmatic shifts by the leader during the general election campaign away from the principles of the party and toward the views of the electorate to win more votes beyond the party’s base are likely to elicit negative reactions from many principled party members. This is especially likely to occur if the promised benefits of being more pragmatic in terms of electoral success do not come to pass.  Mr. Mulcair of the NDP and Mr. O’Toole of the Conservative Party are prime examples of this phenomenon.

Given these systemic obstacles to the Conservatives and the NDP moving toward pragmatism to try to achieve electoral success and given that the Liberals are relatively free of such obstacles, it will be interesting to see whether either of these (currently) low self-monitor parties are able at some point to topple the high self-monitor Liberals from power.

May your self-monitoring tendencies serve you well inside and/or outside the political arena,

-Dr. Pat