skip to main |
skip to sidebar
An understanding of the proper role of government is no substitute for a society's way of life.
"Politics is not like an ocean voyage or a military campaign… something which leaves off as soon as reached. It is not a public chore to be gotten over with. It is a way of life." - Plutarch
I have noticed recently that a number of Danielle Smith's supporters have been pushing some new arguments. The argument is that her candidacy creates a fusion between those political philosophies of 'libertarianism' and 'social conservatism'. As if to further emphasize their point, they make the argument that the party's policies and principles will remain the same regardless of who is leader. Lastly, they have argued that labels like 'libertarian' and 'social conservative' are not nearly as important as the principles that lie behind these two political philosophies. Are they correct in making these arguments? I would say that they are partially correct, but that they are not entirely so. I have several points that I would like to make beginning with the last and weakest argument.
The argument that there is no real distinction between self-described 'libertarians' and 'social conservatives' beyond the labels is something that those from both camps would surely deny. The first question we ought to ask is, if these labels are meaningless than why does Danielle Smith insist that the first one be used to described her? If there is no real substantive difference wouldn't she be indifferent to being described using either label? Obviously there is a substantial difference that make the labels necessary. While 'libertarians' have an absolute belief in a very limited role for the state, 'social conservatives' have an absolute belief that the first and foremost role of the state is to protect human life. These two beliefs needn't always contradict, but sometimes they do. In a case of euthanasia, a libertarian might believe the state has no business to intervene in someone's personal choice whereas a social conservative might believe the state has the legal duty to intervene and save a human life.
The other argument that the policies and principles of the party will remain the same regardless of who is leader. Someone should have told members of the old federal PC party that they should have had nothing to fear with David Orchard becoming leader because their party's policies would have remained unchanged. Even if the Wildrose Alliance is a party that is more grassroots-driven that most, a genuine leader is not pushed any which way but ably leads a party in a certain direction. Therefore, the principles and policies that Danielle Smith calls her own will be extremely important in determining which direction the party is led. What proponents of this argument also forget is although some of these 'hot-button social issues' fall under federal jurisdiction, they are not entirely irrelevant to the Premiership. Who would deny that having the Premier of Alberta speak openly and frankly to Stephen Harper about these social issues would have no effect on how the Albertan-based Prime Minister?
The most potent argument that Smith supporters are making about her candidacy representing a fusion of libertarianism and social conservatism is also the most disconcerting. It is wrong for two reasons. The first is that conservatism is split into different ideologies when it is first and foremost a way of life. Yes conservatives have ideas and policies, but these must always reflect and safeguard a pre-existing way of life and not the other way around. The second is the assumption that there are other factors of electability that are more important than holding Alberta's mainstream conservative values. While factors such as personality, age, and talent should be considered, ultimately the most important factor in electability is a candidate's conviction to maintain our province's conservative values. The values of Albertans ought to be exemplified in the public and private lives of her political leaders. They must provide a moral example to young Albertans of the meaning of faith, family, and freedom.
I will conclude with a few others observations. Like Preston Manning, I myself believe that there is a larger label that both 'libertarians' and 'social conservatives' fall under and that is the label of 'conservative'. To press home my point I note that Randy Hillier did not run his campaign on the label of being 'a libertarian-social conservative candidate', but as a 'conservative leader for a conservative party'. While Danielle says she is modeling her campaign in many ways with that of Randy Hillier's campaign for the leadership of the Ontario PC Party, the fact that she has kept 'libertarian' label speaks volumes about her convictions as a candidate. Unfortunately, her supporters would do well to remember that politics is not just a political campaign, but an entire way of life that goes far beyond mere public image. Therefore, I believe that the candidate for the leadership of the Wildrose Alliance party with the most electability is also the candidate that lives the values of ordinary Albertans.
This week the campaigns finally squared off on the policy front even as Danielle continued to receive media attention. After spending the first part of her campaign speaking to the media about the issue of royalty rates, Danielle Smith's campaign has unveiled a new policy platform on democratic reform. It was only last Friday that Danielle was on the Charles Adler show explaining why the New Royalty Framework badly needs to be fixed. This past Tuesday her campaign sent out an e-mail in which she outlines her policies on democratic reform. Danielle's proposals include policies on free speech, fixed election dates, direct democracy, and senate elections. By and large her proposals are similar to those that have are made on Mark Dyrholm's web site. One notable difference is that Danielle doesn't go quite as far as Mark on the issue of free speech. While Danielle policy states that "the Commission’s power of political censorship should be repealed", Mark explicitly calls for "the elimination of Section 3 from the Alberta's Human Rights Act."
Following up on the key advantage she has in garnering media coverage, Smith also appeared on the Leslie Primeau Show on 630 CHED yesterday where she admitted that a strong perception of Calgary as the oil centre of Alberta exists. Although Primeau brought up her interview on the Charles Adler show last week, Smith chose to discuss other issues and didn't bring up the New Royalty Framework once. Meanwhile, the Dyrholm campaign appears to be aware but not bothered by all the media attention is Danielle is receiving. Yesterday, the Mark Dyrholm sent the following message out to his followers on twitter, "My focus has been talking to people, not the media and I think that is working in the nomination. One race at a time." On October 14th we will know for certain whether Danielle's advantage in media coverage will translate into a victory or not.To see Danielle's policies on democratic reform, please visit:http://www.daniellesmith.ca/?p=159#more-159To see Mark Dyrholm's policies on democratic reform, please visit:http://www.markdyrholm.ca/policies
If you scan down the July 2009 archives of the Western Standard's Shotgun Blog, you will find an interesting article by Matthew Johnston entitled From the Poorhouse to the Penthouse: The Fall and Rise of Jeff Irwin Willerton: Book Review. The piece explores the often difficult journey that is Jeff Willerton's life. The author ends his book review by mentioning Willerton's latest project which is to run for the leadership of the Wildrose Alliance. Johnston admits to having initially written Willerton off as a serious candidate, but explains how he has changed his mind from reading his autobiography. Mentioning that Willerton needs to raise $10,000 to enter the leadership race, Johnston even plugs his web site where people can learn about Willerton and make a donation.
What is especially interesting about this blog post is the comments section where Johnston and a number of prominent libertarians in Canada are express support for Jeff Willerton as a candidate for the Wildrose Alliance leadership. However, the last comment seems to suggest that at least some libertarians do not support Willerton for being "an unapologetic social conservative" as Johnston describes him. Their support for his entrance into the race is built on the premise that he could split the social conservative vote, putting Danielle Smith in a better position to beat Mark Dyrholm and win the leadership. Here are some excerpts from the comments responding to the article:
"Willerton's frankness, candor and honesty strike me as risky for someone who wants to pursue a political office and, because of that, admirable....I wish him luck."
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2009-07-11 10:17:51 AM
"Best of luck with your campaign."
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-07-12 11:03:32 AM
"And a Willerton candidacy is important for the injection of honesty, and because it can provide the so-called "socon" segment with real choice and a real debate."
Posted by: John Collison | 2009-07-12 3:54:14 PM
"John Collison: I've only met you a few times, but I'm sure you wouldn't get Willerton going to split the hard socon vote and get Danielle the victory:) It works for me"
Posted by: Dennis Young | 2009-07-12 6:27:27 PM
To read the article in it's entirety and read the full comments in response to the article, please visit:
http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2009/07/index.html
I came across this from The Alberta Altruist blog at http://thealbertaaltruist.blogspot.com commenting on leadership hopeful Jeff Willerton. I was disappointed the blog mentioned two letters Willerton wrote to attendants at the AGM without divulging anything contained either of these letters. So I have taken the liberty of posting one of the letters in its entirety below.
"Jeff Willerton when googled has his website, previous elections, and gay pride bashing. I have to admit he is not the conventional type to run. At the AGM I had received copies of his book as well as the two letters he left for the audience. I won't go into detail what was in them outside of a strong opinion of Danielle Smith and her beliefs. His website offers nothing to his running for leader and I could find no social networking at all."----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 June 2009
Ladies and gentlemen,
The AGM is over and if I was successful we have become the 'anti-Liberal, anti-government' alternative in Alberta. Or not, but either way I will seek the leadership of the party. A short history:
Fourteen years ago I quit a lucrative job in the insurance industry to work for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. (I'm confident you're familiar with the organization). You will not have heard of me because I was not their public spokesperson. I was the guy running around the province knowing on doors raising money to keep the organization afloat. I was also their top rep in the country.
I quit that in '99 to get more involved in partisan politics and raise money for the Socreds. (Don't hold that against me - it's where people like us went in those days). That was a disaster! Broke, I stumbled onto another sales opportunity in which I made considerable $ in a short period of time and published my first book.
You see, while working for the Taxpayers I was living in Barrhead and writing a weekly column for the local paper ('98 and '99). In 2000 I republished them in book format and have been updating, revising and republishing it ever since, selling them door to door, largely in the business and farming communities. I might have made more money doing just about anything else, but there's an upside to everything and this rather odd form of self-employment has given me a wealth of contacts in the province. You have been provided with a copy of what is now the seventh edition. I trust you'll enjoy it.
I bring all this to your attention to let you know that, like you, I have made many sacrifices along the way in the promotion of better government. A promising career in insurance was sacrificed to work directly for the CTF and help that organization influence government policy. I left the CTF in '99 to get more involved in partisan politics and work specifically to bring down what are and always have been the very liberal Tories in this province.
I ran for the Socreds in '97 and '01, finishing third and second with 800 and 1200 votes respectively. (The '97 results being the second highest in Calgary that year; the latter being the second highest vote count in the province and the only riding in which the party's vote count actually went up from the previous election). I finished third for the Alberta Party in '04, (1,000 votes) dead last running as an independent in Ralph's old riding in '07 (125) and second representing the Wildrose Alliance in '08, finishing with the third highest vote count in the province (2300) among WAP candidates.
If you've lost count that's five election losses - as it turns out the same number John Diefenbaker lost before winning one and becoming the prime minister of Canada. So I've been beat upside the head a few times, yes, but it builds character.
Why, though, have I done relatively well compared to other candidates running under the same banner? It's called door knocking and fund raising. I've done lots of both...and that brings me to the point of this letter.
The entry fee to the leadership race is $10,000.00 and yours truly is about as poor as a church mouse is sober. Why would you want to contribute to my candidacy?
Because I'm grass roots; a man of the people, literally clawing and scratching my way up from the bottom. Unlike my most notable opponent I'm not Ivy League or even university educated. I graduated from the school of hard knocks, and with your help I will be a colourful - and I think remarkably successful - leader of this organization. And the media will be in an absolute tither.
You see, in 2006 a friend and I protested the Calgary gay pride parade. He was tackled to the ground and punched in the head. I came to his defence. That's what was caught on film. They will claim I'm homophobic. They couldn't be more wrong.
People need to be free to live their lives the way they choose and be respected regardless of how they choose to define themselves, (I mean that sincerely) but that does not require me to support gay marriage which is probably the most destructive social development in Canadian history.
Gay marriage is not an election issue. Neither is abortion, but they both might well be issues at some point in a world of Citizen Initiated Referenda - and I haven't fought this political battle, this long, to elect a leader who defends what is now the status quo on these, the most important social issues in our nation's history.
Danielle Smith might not recall but I debated her in a hotel in Whistler, BC eleven years ago on the subject of abortion; she defending a woman's right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy; I arguing on behalf of the foetus. It doesn't matter who won the debate. She was wrong and still is, and it's her right to continue to be so.
I've learned from other conversations that she supports gay marriage, 'in some circumstances'. Sorry, but you either do or you don't and in my view gay marriage means no more or less than the erosion of the institution of marriage itself. (The first four chapters of my book deal with that issue). Danielle is intelligent, articulate and well connected in the business community, but so was Randy Thorsteinson, and for the reasons noted above I can not possibly support her candidacy.
The same friend and I 'attended' George W. Bush's Calgary visit. Actually we saw that there would be hundreds of anti-Bush protestors out that day, so we waded into the crowd with signs reading 'The world is safer because of George W. Bush' (it is, but that's a long story). The media looks for controversy and we gave it to them.
I tell you these things to let you know that I'm basically fearless. I'll take on hundreds of left-wing protestors AND a raging 300 lb homosexual (though I'm acquainted with and get along well with others in that community)... and Danielle Smith ... I just need your help to do it. A self-addressed envelope is enclosed for any contribution you can make to the "Willerton Campaign Fund." All contributions are greatly appreciated. Big ones just a little bit more so.
Diefenbaker lost five elections before winning one and becoming the prime minister of Canada. Churchill financed his early election campaigns through the sale of his books. Our own esteemed colleague Ed Goodliffe brought that little tidbit to my attention when I knocked on his door in 2001 campaigning toward an election - selling my book - and I've of course been doing it ever since.
I am, of course, neither of the above men. I'm just Jeff, a guy scratching and clawing his way up from the bottom who, with your help now, will change the way things are done in this province.
Yours in the cause of defeating liberal governments everywhere,
Jeff Willerton
