Defining Conservatism in Alberta

Discussions from the media, to the water cooler, in classrooms, bedrooms, and in coffee shops are displaying a disturbing lack of understanding about the various dimensions of "conservatism" and "Conservatism" in Alberta. Stories and arguments that align Harper with Klein, Morton with Manning, Stelmach with Clark, and so on, are glossing over many of the intricacies of the parties and the movement.

What follows are broad strokes aimed at trying to flesh out the various dimensions of "conservatism" and "Conservatism" in Alberta. While of use in other provinces -- perhaps in other countries -- nowhere are the various dimensions of conservative thought more visible than in Alberta. The following is intended as the first-draft of a primer for discussing the right in Alberta. As always, your comments are welcome, along with permission to incorporate them into this work-in-progress.

Perhaps the simplest way to conceptualize an ideology like conservatism is to divide it into a series of functional dimensions. In this case, six seem especially pertinent (dramatic oversimplifications of each term are given in parentheses):

(1) MORAL CONSERVATISM* (a.k.a., NEO-conservatism; emphasis on traditional family values; often, but not always, tied to religious beliefs)

(2) SOCIAL CONSERVATISM*^ (opposition to social engineering, including affirmative action; emphasis on law, order and security)

(3) FISCAL CONSERVATISM^ (a.k.a., neo-liberalism; emphasis on fiscal orthodoxy, including balanced budgets, deregulation, privatization, debt repayment, and tax relief)

(4) POPULISM~ (a belief in grass-roots democracy, often in opposition to political partisanship and other top-down institutions like Parliament; often, but not always, mixed with libertarianism; see: Thomas Jefferson)

(5) HIGH TORYISM~ (a belief in parliamentary sovereignty, often in opposition to direct democracy and judicial activism; often accompanied by a communitarian/patriotic view of the state; see: Alexander Hamilton and Edmund Burke)

(6) LIBERTARIANISM (a belief in the sovereignty of the individual and the limitations of government in the moral, social, and economic spheres)

*The distinction between #1 and #2 is no doubt the trickiest. In every-day language, both moral and social conservatives have been lumped under the "SO-CON" label. While there is a correlation between the two sets of values, it's important to distinguish between the two. Logically, a person could be a moral conservative without being a social conservative (and vice versa).

^Both social and fiscal conservatism often favour limited state interference in the economy, and a guaranteed but limited social welfare system.

~This is where there is often a direct conflict within conservative ranks, between those who favour a grass-roots style of politics and those that favour an elite-driven version.

People do not have to conform to any one of these labels. In fact, few, if any conservatives are members of only one 'camp'. As mentioned, people with moral and social conservative tendencies are often referred to as "SO-CONS". People with moderate fiscal conservative leanings and tendencies toward "high toryism" -- without a touch of moral or social conservatism -- are often called "RED TORIES". In the United States, the "NEW RIGHT" consists of "neo-cons" and "neo-liberals". And so on. The point is not to pigeon-hole people into one class of conservatism. Quite the opposite.

Tracing the contours of conservatism in this way helps us make sense of Conservatism in places like Alberta. Some of the province's leading Tories have made strange bedfellows over the years. The media and public have either failed to notice these tensions or have failed to link them to the underlying ideological frictions. Let's have a look at some of the major players....

WILLIAM ABERHART -- Alberta's first Social Credit premier, his "vision" blended religious moral and social conservatism with an anti-system, populist outlook and a 'quirky' view of public finance. In reality, Aberhart's control over the party and the legislature was the polar opposite of grass-roots democracy, and his province-building strategy used the full capacity of the public purse. Ernest Manning is widely considered the heir to Aberhart's image.

PETER LOUGHEED -- Often called a 'red tory', Lougheed was a communitarian conservative who put Alberta first. In this sense, his battles with Trudeau resembled those fought between Aberhart and King decades earlier. Lougheed, too, had a loose grasp of fiscal conservatism, but, unlike Aberhart, tended to keep social and moral conservatism out of official government policy. This, along with his penchant for social welfare spending, has earned him the label "Pink Peter" (a reference to his possible 'pinko'-socialist ties), particularly popular among Ralph Klein's followers. Lougheed's son is currently in the running for president of the Alberta PC's, by the way.

JOE CLARK -- "Joe-Who" has become synonymous with red-toryism in Canada. His view of the country as a "community of communities"; his firm stance against social and moral conservatism; his willingness to relax the rules of fiscal orthodoxy; and his support of parliamentary sovereignty have earned him the admiration of red tories and the hatred of the New Right.

PRESTON MANNING -- It's not difficult to see the ties between Preston Manning's Reform movement and his father's Social Credit legacy. While the religious fervour with which Aberhart campaigned was missing from Preston's speeches, the latter attempted the same blend of populism, moralism and social conservatism. To this, Preston added a firm stance in favour of fiscal orthodoxy.

RALPH KLEIN -- Where to start? King Ralph is very difficult to pin-down in terms of his conservative beliefs, largely because he seldom spoke in ideological terms, and because his actions were often contradictory. Without a doubt, though, he was a social and fiscal conservative, with morally conservative tendencies. While his image was certainly one of a grass-roots politician, in touch with the 'real people' of Alberta, his iron grip on the Party spoke otherwise. (This is a common theme among populist Conservative leaders, from Aberhart to the Mannings to Klein: once in power, they often end up being more tory than grass-roots. This speaks more to the iron law of oligarchy than to their personal integrity, in my opinion.)

STOCKWELL DAY -- Wet-suit aside, Stock was a moral, social and fiscal conservative.

TED MORTON -- Ted is a conservative's Conservative. He promotes moral, social and fiscal conservatism, with a populist/republican concern for the little-guy, and a high tory aversion to judicial actism. I fail to see any libertarianism in Ted's beliefs, but I am bound to be corrected. If he has them, he's the ideal, pure conservative. (As a side-note: Ted Morton's great at promoting each of the conservative dimensions, but his willingness to leave hard edges is proving more divisive than Harper's approach, as outlined below. Some may fault Ted for being too uncompromising; others may fault Harper for being too compromising. It all depends on your perspective.)

JIM DINNING -- Liberal. Period. Someone tell me where Dinning fits in any of these categories of conservatism and I'll be glad to post it here.

ED STELMACH -- It's still too early to tell, but Ed's style and his team have heavy connections with Peter Lougheed's red tories. He seems a little less tied to fiscal conservatism than Klein, and has yet to display the same image as a social conservative. Moral conservatism? Not likely. The pressure to 'go green' while remaining close with business and putting Alberta-first may force Stelmach into the red tory mold.

STEPHEN HARPER -- I know, I know. Harper's not really from Alberta. But I can't leave him off the list, precisely because his persona (since becoming Conservative Party leader) has proven itself the most moderate mixture of all six forms of conservatism. As a strategist, his ability to interpret and frame policy in each of these areas is remarkable. As the person charged with uniting the old PC's and Alliance, his manoevering has been impecable.

Harper boldly put same-sex marriage back on the table, framing it in terms of a free vote in order to appease libertarians, and accepting its outcome to the relief of red tories. His law, order and security agenda has social conservatives on-side, without offending too many populists. His tax policies are strong enough to please fiscal conservatives, while his creativity on issues like income trusts and income-splitting are surprising many red tories and moral conservatives. His specific proposals for Senate reform -- while still in the works -- offer a little something for tories and populists, alike. Libertarians? You may have to wait for your piece of the pie, but Harper's proving better than the guys on the other side of the aisle. In short, Harper is proving himself as one of the best at balancing the various demands of conservatism.

The purpose of this discussion has been to highlight how not all C/conservatives are created equal, particularly in Alberta. The next time you hear someone painting us all with the same brush, think twice.

Health Care: It's not about beds, stupid

Recent debates about health care reform in BC and Alberta raise some interesting issues. BC is talking about farming out more surgeries to private facilities for lack of SPACE in their hospitals. Alberta is building a new mega-hospital in the south end of Calgary to accommodate the region's growth. (This comes in addition to the new Children's Hospital they just built, after closing down the old one.)

I'm not wading into the privatization versus universality debate here. I see merits on both sides.

What is most concerning is the lack of knowledge about the real challenges facing the system. In most cases, regardless of the rate of growth in many cities like Calgary and Vancouver, THE MAIN ISSUE IS NOT ABOUT SHORTAGES OF BEDS. IT IS NOT ABOUT OPENING NEW HOSPITALS. IT IS NOT ABOUT RENTING MORE SPACE FROM PRIVATE CLINICS.

If you don't believe me, the next time you're at the hospital -- and goodness knows, with wait times the way they are, you'll have time to do this -- have a look around the wards. THERE ARE ENOUGH BEDS, JUST NOT ENOUGH DOCTORS AND NURSES. In many cases, entire hallways have been closed off -- beds and rooms effectively mothballed for lack of staff.

The problem is a shortage of healthcare professionals to staff these wards. Period.

(In my humble opinion, the #1 solution to the problem would be to move away from the fee for service structure embedded in our healthcare system. That would free up nurse practitioners, pharmacists and other professionals to perform the tasks they are trained to perform, alleviating stress on the system. The next step: train and certify more doctors and nurses to fill the positions currently left vacant. I'm sure there are others who disagree with me, but at least this is a good start.)

In the coming months, Manitobans are sure to hear debates over Doer's failed pledge to end "hallway medicine" in the upcoming provincial election. Thankfully, we don't hear the McFadyen Tories advocating the building of new hospitals the way BC Liberals and Alberta PC's are. Sure, Manitoba isn't facing the same growth problems as the other two provinces, but -- as in the other two provinces -- entire wards in the city, and entire hospitals in the country (e.g., Erickson), sit empty for lack of healthcare professionals to staff them.

Regardless of which side of the public/private debate you stand, please think twice when you hear politicians clamouring for increases in the number of beds and hospitals. Let's staff the ones we've got.

King Ed

I'll admit it: I was one of the (first?) people to predict that Ed Stelmach would spell the end of Tory rule in Alberta. If history was any guide, all signs pointed to disaster for the PC's.

As the story goes, Alberta government parties decline as suddenly as they rise. The pattern: an upstart party comes out of the wilderness, under a charismatic leader, to oust a long-standing governing party, sending the latter into oblivion (never to rule again).

In 1921, the UFA came out of nowhere to upset the Liberals, who have never fully recovered. In 1935, Social Credit did the same, governing the province for 36 years. The Tories dispatched the Socreds in 1971 and have ruled Alberta ever since. The "three leader rule" applied in each case (i.e., each government lasted precisely three premiers). In the last two cases, the governing UFA and Socreds had just replaced a charismatic leader with a 'dud', who languished in the shadow of his predecessors. (Most of us know John Brownlee and Ernest Manning, but has anyone heard of Richard Gavin Reid or Harry Strom?).

With the exception of the fact that Ralph Klein bucked the "three leader" rule -- like Lougheed and Getty before him, he retired without losing an election -- all signs pointed to the Conservatives' demise under Stelmach.

This won't happen. Stelmach will win the next election. Historically, there have been four factors that, when mixed in various combinations, have contributed to the fall of Alberta governments: a domineering opposition leader and a relatively underwhelming premier; a prevailing social movement; political scandal; and/or heightened political involvement by average citizens. Arguably none of these exists today. Here's what I mean.

(1) There is a real lack of alternatives... Granted, at the time, no one could have predicted that the UFA, Social Credit or PC's would have made their breakthroughs as dramatically as they did. But, with hindsight, at least we could see the rumblings of change in the air.

In the first case, the UFA was part of a larger 'progressive' movement that had caught the West by storm following WWI. Unless the Alberta Greens show dramatic improvement in the coming months, I don't foresee any social movements coalescing into a viable political party.

In the second case, Social Credit contested several elections before it made its breakthrough in 1935. Plus, it was aided by a scandal involving the UFA's leadership. Unless you forsee the Alberta Alliance emerging as a major force outside the rural south, and unless you think 'Honest Ed' has skeletons in his immaculately-kempt closet, Stelmach is safe.

In the third case, the Conservatives were re-born under the leadership of Peter Lougheed, who --from the moment he assumed the party's leadership in 1967 -- was seen as a threat to the established order. By all accounts, Lougheed was seen as a visionary, charismatic leader -- in stark contrast to Premier Strom (selected in 1968). Sure, Stelmach has Strom-like qualities, but so do his competitors. I don't care which stripe you wear: No one can compare Brian Mason or Kevin Taft to William Aberhart or Peter Lougheed. Standing on soapboxes in empty warehouses and writing books doesn't compare with a fire-side chat or barn-storming leader's tour.

(2) The federal Liberals have stacked the deck against their provincial cousins by putting the environment at the top of the political agenda. And Grits in Ottawa and Edmonton know it. As the Leader of the Official Opposition in Alberta, Kevin Taft still can't shake his party's association with the National Energy Policy -- memories of which have only been rekindled by Stephane Dion's provocation of the Oil Patch. The Alberta Tories -- like the UFA and Socreds before them -- were most successful when they portrayed themselves as the defenders of Alberta's interests. (Fights against Ottawa were the major catalysts for Greenfield's election in 1921, Aberhart's rise in 1935, and Lougheed's consolidation in 1975.) In short, the federal Liberals have handed Ed his first election by pushing him to the podium in defence of Alberta. If he were facing a formidable foe in Ottawa, the story might be different. But he's got a friend in Stephen Harper. Ed won't lose on this count, either.

(3) Stelmach is not a mere 'continuity' premier.... Neither Reid nor Strom had anything 'new' to offer voters following the resignations of Brownlee and Manning. Theirs were 'stay the course' platforms, and neither was any match for the ambitious platforms unveiled by Aberhart and Lougheed. Even if he wanted to do the same, Ed doesn't have that option. Bluntly put, there is no 'course' upon which he can stay. Ralph Klein has admitted, himself, that he had no long-term vision for Alberta, no plan to deal with growth. Ed's vision -- outlined in today's Throne Speech -- was the first real blue-print for Alberta's future since Klein's own 'revolution' in the early 1990s. In some ways, this offers Ed an opportunity to do precisely what Ralph did: to reinvent the party in his own starkly-different image. This is how Klein broke the "three-leader rule", and Stelmach can't help but continue the tradition of discontinuity. Any plan is a change from 'no plan', and Ed didn't have to do much to better Kevin Taft's lackluster "alternative throne speech" from last week. Again: advantage Ed.

In short....

Unless the Green movement or some Alberta-first/western separation party (the WCC2?) emerges to capture the public's attention... Unless Ed is embroiled in some massive scandal.... Unless Kevin Taft or Brian Mason are replaced or have personality make-overs.... Unless there's someone lurking in the political wilderness with the organizational and motivational skills to build a political party from the ground-up.... And unless any of this happens within the next 12 months.... Premier Ed Stelmach will win his first election.

Chances are, judging from recent opinion polls, most Albertans wouldn't be paying attention if any of that happened, anyway. Long live King Ed. The dynasty continues.

Les amis d'Harper

On the surface, things are looking great for Harper in Quebec. "Led" by their new chief, the federal Liberals are retreating to Montreal. The Prime Minister's personal popularity is rising, and his party is quickly emerging as the voice of Quebec federalists in Ottawa. Provincially, the Liberals and ADQ -- #1 and #2 in the polls heading into this month's election -- are clamoring to convince voters who is Harper's best friend: Charest or Dumont. Things couldn't be better, right? Hang on...

To his credit, Harper has done well to stear clear of personal involvement in the Quebec election. He hasn't picked sides, apart from opposing the PQ on principle and appearing in a photo-op with Charest just prior to the campaign. As for choosing between the PLQ and the ADQ, however, the PM has remained neutral. Let's hope it doesn't come back to hurt him.

Building alliances with Charest should be of little concern to most red tories. Sure, he's fiscally conservative, but his tight-fistedness is tempered by the left-leaning Quebec political culture. (His early attempts at tax relief and program cuts fell flat, and he's since retreated from his plan of fiscal restraint.) All in all, Charest's last budget and his handling of social issues (like healthcare, immigration, religion, education and tolerance) and the constitutional file are a real model for red tory governance. Plus, with the ADQ outflanking the Liberals on the right, all signs point to a more centrist PLQ in the future. (Left-wing soft nationalists may be looking for a viable party to support, with the decline of the PQ.)

Conservatives should be more concerned with the Mario factor. Try as he might (and I'm not convinced he is trying) the ADQ leader just can't seem to keep social conservatives (read: outright biggots) from popping up in his ranks. Their anti-ethnic and homophobic comments -- as candidates and sympathisers -- are a throwback to the Union Nationale days. (The party is cultivating its support in many of the same rural regions as Duplessis did.) Equally concerning, the ADQ's soft stance on federalism leaves a lot of room for a drift toward brinksmanship-politics with Ottawa. Dumont's personal involvement with the 'oui' campaign in 1995 has been written off as political opportunism, but it's no less disquieting.

As the ADQ continues to surge, Conservatives ought to be cautious about their association with a volatile party with biggoted and sovereigntist tendencies. The PM has done well to avoid photo-ops with Dumont (which, in a decade's time, could be akin to the pictures of Mulroney and Bouchard arm-in-arm). He might do a better job of discounting Mario's claims that he is part of the Harper team, or at least offering advice to Dumont about how to keep the radicals under wraps. Who better to offer such guidance?

Power Trip-Wires

With all the buzz around Broadway and Queen's Park, you'd think big changes are on the way following Harper's EcoTrust announcements. Specifically, Doer and McGuinty are hearalding Harper's $586M downpayment on the much-hearalded "East-West Power Grid" as the first big step toward creating a hydro-pipeline between Manitoba and Ontario. There are reasons to be wary, however:

(1) This is by no means the first time we've heard these promises. Manitoba governments from Schreyer to Filmon (and now, Doer) have trumpeted agreements with Queen's Park in the past, only to have Ontario pull-out when the costing has been completed. If memory serves me, Filmon had a similar Conowapa deal with Pederson; then Harris was elected. The Ontario Tories are known for their pursuit of Ontario-first policies and -- quite understandably, considering the Commonsense Revolution -- they immediately quashed plans to develop the grid. It remains to be seen whether John Tory would pursue the same Ontario-centric policy, although the Conservatives' focus on provincial nuclear energy suggests this is most certainly the case.

(2) This leads to a second concern: election outcomes. Most major policy announcements and funding commitments take place around election time, as governing parties attempt to leverage popular projects into re-election. In this case, all three governments -- Manitoba, Ontario and the Feds -- will make their commitments known in their upcoming budgets. While each is ahead in its respective polls, there's no guarantee that Doer, McGuinty or Harper will be around next year to fulfill the Conowapa promise.

Ever an optimist, I'm keeping an open mind. This time around, the "grid" is being framed as an environmental issue, and not one focused on Manitoba's economic interests or Ontario's electrical sovereignty. This may help Ontario politicians sell the idea to the electorate. Plus, this is the first time that Ottawa has stepped in to offer funding (a full third of the cost). This said, we should all be a little more wary of the obstacles still in place.

Please don't kill the budget...

Yesterday's recommendation by the House of Commons finance committee has raised the stakes of the March 19th budget... and they're much higher than partisan interests.

The committee believes the federal government should provide funding ($300M over 3 years) for a series of new immunization programs -- including a vaccine that prevents human papilloma virus (HPV), a leading cause of cervical cancer.

While currently unapproved for public consumption in Canada, the vaccine is pegged at $400 and is most effective when administered before women become sexually active. Presumably, the federal government will follow the Americans' lead, and make the vaccine available to women aged 9 to 26. Our program sounds like it would involve the vaccination of all female Grade 6 students, with voluntary vaccination available for others.

Let's not play politics with women's lives. Pass the budget so that we can make the vaccine available as soon as possible.