And they worry it could lead to the end of candour in federal politics, with wary politicians reduced to mouthing platitudes and reciting carefully scripted talking points.
Or saying nothing at all, while paid spokespeople or dropped ads become the only vehicle for message to be sent, with no equivalent existing for input to be received.
This not to say it's a shift unique to the Conservatives; the "contact sport" that is politics has become increasingly aggressive and mean-tactic heavy. Contact, by the way, refers to hitting opponents, not engaging with constituents.
Of course there are no apologies; apologies are for the weak. Real men, or mannish women, hit hard, take no quarter, and as they are always in the right, are justified in doing whatever it takes to beat back the heathens at the gate.
If anyone calls into question their tactics, it's simply an indication that those self-same tactics are effective.
Call Team Harper Nixonian all you want - they'll think of you as sore losers. Nixon didn't get away with it, they'll say, but we did. Clearly, we're better than he was.
This is not a democratic approach. This is not about "exposing true feelings" or even about policy. What's pushing these increasingly aggressive political players is the desire for power, not love of the leader.
Leaders look to their own self-interest, collect teams that do the same, and so on down the chain it goes. That's what a sociology-free government looks like; Sun News in the House of Commons.
Lest you think that's a universal condemnation, there are many who see that as a positive. It's only in angry reaction, don't you know, that true selves are revealed, right?
Here is the heart-breaking, maddening irony. When anything you do is right, and any attack that comes from opposition is only evidence of how powerful you truly are, you lose sight of the big picture and your place in it. The tactics you use become increasingly shocking, simply because that's the nature of escalation.
It's the exact same spectrum that ISIS is on - they too are about power, instilling fear in their foes through harsh tactics and taking what they want simply because they can.
What happens when powers equally focused on destroying their foes and with no introspection about their purpose and the social impact of their action come head-to-head?
Massive amounts of money gets spent on the weapons of war, ranging from robocalls, troll armies and attack ads to real troops throwing real grenades. The severity of collateral damage follows suit. The basics of italicization fall away, because they are all matters of sociology.
War is the worst time to commit sociology, right? Your opponent isn't to be understood, but eliminated by brutal force, full stop. This is the mind-set of the people wielding power who can't be bothered to understand their enemy and are so trapped by their egos they are incapable of understanding themselves.
And so the only option they know and embrace is escalation.
That's where we're at, internationally. That's what we're creeping towards, domestically.
These folk haven't won. They've set fire to our common ground without realizing that wherever their heads are at, their feet stand on the same earth.
Hope exists in unlikely places, but there's a creeping darkness overtaking our politics.
Fall's coming and, as always, winter isn't far behind.