Why The WAP Is Doomed To Be Another Reactionary Party

I won't go into a deep analysis of Danielle Smith's bio in the Globe and Mail - readers familiar with the 'fend for yourself' world of Ayn Rand's 'Atlas Shrugged' should have a pretty good idea what she's about already.

However, she said one key thing that tells me that the WAP is doomed to be overrun by the social conservatives that are in its midst:

Ms. Smith believes they can: “There is a tension, but I believe that part of being a libertarian leader is allowing for MLAs to be able to express themselves freely on issues,” she says.

If her party is elected, she said she would hold “citizens referendums” on “morally contentious” issues at the community level to settle disputes.

“I don't think there would be that many of them,” she says.

Really? She thinks that there's a possibility for quiet coexistence with the wingnuts, it seems. I hate to point it out, but that isn't the case. The shrieking insanity of those who would legislate on issues of 'moral conscience' doesn't have room for either rational discussion or compromise. "Live and let live" is not in their lexicon. Live and let live (or laissez faire) politics of the libertarians is anathema to the social extremists. Unfortunately, it tends to degenerate into a 'tyranny of the majority' situation which ends up diminishing the ability of minorities to participate fully in society.

Unless Ms. Smith chooses to become a more decisive, and clear, leader on these matters it is only a matter of time before yet another party in this province is overtaken by the unreasonable extremists.

There Goes The Credibility

One of the challenges for the Wildrose Alliance in Alberta is to avoid looking like they are the new home of political extremism in Alberta.

The cautious first steps in that direction happened when they selected Danielle Smith as the party's new leader. Today, Rob Anders just undid that step by taking out a WRA membership.

So ... Forsyth Found Her Spine

Today she crossed the floor in the Alberta Legislature.

It has been a long time since I heard anything out of Ms. Forsyth that impressed me - but today she sounded like she is actually has started thinking a bit. This is a distinct improvement on the response I received from her when I approached her about Ted Morton's bill 208, when she left me with the impression she had been ordered to vote for the bill, so vote for it she did.

Isley cautioned, though, the Wildrose Alliance must present itself as a viable governing alternative that is just slightly right-of-centre on the political spectrum. The party also must be careful how it manages the crossovers so as not to be painted as a protest party, he argued.

“We need to be moderate ... We can’t be viewed as just a protest fringe movement if we hope to form the government,” he said. “I don’t think they want to just throw their arms open and say that anybody that wants to come can come.”

Interesting ... it shows an awareness within the WRA that they have to show themselves to be something other than a reactionary party.

Thinking about it further, Forsyth has to be getting closer to retirement - she's been a part of the Alberta political scene for a long time - it wouldn't surprise me at all if Forsyth sits until next fall and then steps aside, to allow Danielle Smith to run in a byelection.

Although today's floor crossings are really a warning to Stelmach, and provide a glimpse into the cracks in the PC's foundation in Alberta, I have yet to be convinced that Stelmach and his inner circle will get the message.

I will reserve my judgment for now on the WRA - they haven't convinced me yet that they are mature enough to form a government - much less whether they represent the kind of government that I would support.

New Wildrose Leader

Okay, the Wildrose Alliance party picked Danielle Smith as their new leader.

Certainly, I consider Smith a far more constructive choice than Dyrholm - the closeness of Dyrholm to Craig Chandler was enough to make me uncomfortable with Dyrholm (in fact Dyrholm's campaign team was more or less the same bunch of suspects that show up around Chandler every time Chandler tries to stick his oar into the politics).

The vote numbers are interesting:

Ms. Smith garnered 6,295 votes to 1,905 for Mr. Dyrholm.

That means that around 25% of the party voted for Dyrholm. Interesting. Once again, it shows us that there is a sizable body of reactionary conservatives that have taken up residence in the Wildrose Alliance. This is not unlike the Reform/Alliance/Conservative parties on the federal scene - a significant, and likely very vocal, faction exists within the party.

The challenge now will be for Danielle Smith to bring this faction to heel without alienating the remaining 75% of the party. We know what happened with the ReformaTories - the extreme took control (and has control today - do not be deluded by Harper's apparent shift towards the "center").

I know that Danielle Smith has some strong libertarian beliefs. I will be very curious to see how this influences the party policies, and how - if at all - it differentiates itself from the reactionary element that Dyrholm would represent. (What I have seen of libertarianism expressed in the US, I'm not sure it's that much different in its end result - except perhaps for less religion-centric commentary.

Merger Or Takeover?

It's hard to say just what really was going on with this weekend's merging of Alberta Alliance and Wildrose Parties. Did the Alliance simply subsume Link Byfield's latest pet project? Or was the Alliance so troubled internally that the Wildrose Party's backers were able to grasp control of the larger entity and the money that it has?

There are, of course, other possible reasons for this weekend's marriage of far right wing and farther right wing parties. I've never been overly impressed with the Alberta Alliance - the party always struck me as little more than a provincial knock-off of the old Reform party. As for the Wildrose thing, there's no secret about what kind of "conservatism" the Byfield patriarchs represent, and it's a pretty hardline view on a lot of topics.

For quite some time, I've been hearing grumblings that the PC's aren't "conservative enough" from various corners, which no doubt fuels the spawning of parties like either the Alliance or Wildrose, but only seems to represent a fairly sparse minority of the province.
[Correction 21/1/08]:
The original version of this post incorrectly attributed a comment to Jane Greydanus from Daveberta's blog. I have removed the incorrect attribution, and extend my apologies to Ms. Greydanus.
[/Correction]
There's just enough to get a party started, but they seem to be of the ideological ilk that doesn't quite understand why their views aren't more broadly held by the electorate .

I do not begrudge the existence of these parties - it gives an ideological home to the far right, and lets the rest of us recognize the hardliners for what they are. But the history in Alberta (and much of Canada, really) is that such parties seldom last long enough to gain any real traction.

However, in Alberta today, you need to get a significant amount of traction with the voters in the urban areas - especially Calgary and Edmonton, but Red Deer, Lethbridge and Grande Prairie all have a fair bit of weight now. Both Calgary and Edmonton have experienced huge population growth in recent years (with Calgary cresting over 1 million residents - somewhere on order of a 10%-15% change since last election). No matter how you look at it, that has the potential to substantially change the character of the electorate.

Had the Ralph Klein resigned in the 1990s, and the Alberta Alliance visible at that time, they might have gained significant electoral traction. Alberta today is nowhere near the same province that it was back then. Today, they represent a tiny fraction of voters, and the Wildrose an even tinier fraction.

Ask yourself this - if the Alberta Alliance was the natural home for "conservative" voters disaffected with the PC's, why did Link Byfield go starting the Wildrose Party a year or so back? He couldn't find a home in the Alberta Alliance? It had already drifted too far left for him?

I suspect that this "merged party" will quietly fade into the political background in Alberta after an election expected this spring.

I've Seen This Pattern Before

Chandler's nothing if not consistent. It seems that Chandler tried to run a slate of candidates for the executive of the newly merged "Wildrose Alliance" party (Formerly the Alberta Alliance and Link Byfield's Wildrose Party.

We've seen this pattern before - he used more or less the same tactics when he went after the PC nomination in Calgary Egmont. He tried to get enough of "his people" (e.g. David Crutcher) to take on high profile/controlling positions in the board, and then went after the nomination

What it tells me is that Craig and his band of allies (mostly "senior" members of PGIB) don't actually have much traction within Alberta's political parties, as they flit from party to party trying to find a place where they can be in control. Perhaps in a few years they'll learn the base concept of party politics - namely that it is a game of compromise.