fbpx
Connect with us

Opinion

FILDEBRANDT: Kenney’s problem with the base, and the base’s problem with Kenney

“The base has had a growing problem with Jason Kenney for some time. Now Kenney has a problem with the base.”

mm

Published

on

It’s been long known, but never said aloud by the man himself: Alberta Premier Jason Kenney has a problem with his base.

During a tense caucus meeting Sunday, a UCP MLA questioned if the leader of the party should so publicly and derisively attack the attendees of the ‘End the Lockdown Rodeo’ in Bowden, Alberta, since these people were the party’s core base.

“If they are our base, I want a new base” said Kenney.

Three UCP MLAs confirmed that the premier said this to the Western Standard’s Dave Naylor.

It’s a frank and sobering admission from the man that fired up that party’s base when he led the effort to fuse together the Wildrose and Progressive Conservative parties.

The UCP base is dominantly former Wildrose voters, concentrated in rural Alberta and the suburban neighbourhoods of Calgary. They are largely populist, anti-Ottawa, sometimes sovereigntist, and overwhelmingly anti-lockdown.

Long before Kenney put Alberta back under a third lockdown, this base has been increasingly unhappy with their man.

The man who railed against the Laurentian elites on his way to the Premier’s Office, hired Laurentian elites by the busload to staff said office.

A poll last month showed an incredible 75% of Albertans disapprove of how Kenney has handled the COVID-19 pandemic, down from an 80% approval the year before. Those 75% disagreeing with him are made up of left-leaning voters who want to see ever-harsher lockdowns and restrictions, and even more-so of right-leaning voters who believe that he has been far too harsh.

In fact, a clear majority of UCP voters oppose the UCP’s lockdown policies. Those numbers do not include the roughly 10% of voters who have already decamped the big blue tent for the upstart Wildrose Independence Party.

Kenney has admitted that he has a problem with his base, but the base has increasingly had a problem with him, spurred on by, but preceding COVID-19.

The re-election of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in October 2019 saw an outburst of support for independence in the province, which Mainstreet Research pegged at 35% in January of 2021. This 35% may not be a majority of Albertans, but it does make up the majority of the UCP voter base.

Kenney’s response to this movement amongst his base was to strike the ‘Fair Deal Panel’. He did talk tough and promise serious consideration of a series of firewall measures to keep Ottawa at bay, while remaining in confederation.

The traveling Fair Deal roadshow did much to work sovereignties up into a lather, but delivered relatively little in its final report.

This comes to the crux of Jason Kenney’s problem with his base.

For Kenney’s nearly 20 years in Ottawa, “the base” has mostly been made up of social conservatives. Canadian social conservatives are the democratic world’s most easy electorate to manage for a conservative party. With a few exceptions, most Canadian social conservatives do not demand action on their policy objectives in exchange for support; only respect and the right to be heard within the larger Conservative tent.

Learning at the feet of Stephen Harper, Kenney learned that by just listening to their frustrations, they would vote, donate, and volunteer in massive numbers, in exchange for relatively little.

This is “the base” that Jason Kenney believed he was coming to lead in Alberta. As he is learning now, it is not.

“The base” in Alberta provincial politics does contain social conservative elements, but overlaps in a Venn diagram with anti-Ottawa/sovereigntist, anti-establishment populists, agriculture and energy interests, libertarians, and landowners.

The former Wildrose Party was less a ‘party’, than a movement of largely independent-minded individuals who shared a common enemy: the Progressive Conservatives. This is why the Wildrose was always so difficult a task for Danielle Smith and Brian Jean to lead. It is not the low-maintenance monolith that Jason Kenney believed it to be.

Kenney is now appalled that “the base” in Alberta demands more than the lip service that normally did the trick in federal politics. They are not content with mere respect.

Now, even that respect appears to be gone. As the rogue rodeo in Bowden went forward despite his government’s best efforts, he blasted the attendees. The event itself was “disturbing”. The people there were “selfish”. The people there don’t care for the vulnerable.

Kenney’s declaration that he wants a “new base” – while not intended to ever be heard by the base – is an admission that he can no longer dance with the lady that brung’ em’. It is increasingly hostile to his policies and leadership.

Try as they might, “the base” is unlikely to succeed in pushing Kenney out of the party’s leadership. He is just too strong a political operative to allow that to happen. A leadership review vote demanded by angry UCP members will – come hell or high water – in all probability fail to dislodge him. And a potential caucus effort to remove him directly from the premiership could be met by his wild threat to them of an early election.

In the end, Kenney isn’t likely going anywhere until he faces voters in 2023.

The base will have to make a decision: hold their noses and support their perceived lesser evil, or leave the party and join a new conservative civil war.

The base has had a growing problem with Jason Kenney for some time. Now Kenney has a problem with the base.

Derek Fildebrandt is the Publisher of the Western Standard

Derek Fildebrandt is the Publisher, President & CEO of Western Standard New Media Corp. He served from 2015-2019 as a Member of the Alberta Legislative Assembly in the Wildrose and Freedom Conservative Parties. From 2009-2012 he was the National Research Director and Alberta Director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. dfildebrandt@westernstandardonline.com

Continue Reading
6 Comments

6 Comments

  1. Claudette Leece

    May 7, 2021 at 7:44 am

    Not that we didn’t know Kenney lies but thank you to his secretary for proving to us, what we believed was true. Pick up Kenney traded his truck for a Cadillac and needs to take it and drive back to Ottawa, he’s a fish out of water in Alberta, his MLA better realize if the wait and support him, they will go down with his sinking ship

  2. David

    May 5, 2021 at 8:09 pm

    I moved away in 2017 for economic reasons, and I’m homesick every day. Thing is, today’s Alberta is so badly screwed up compared to just a few years ago. Back when Kenney rode in on a wave of revulsion for the NDP fiasco. When “Strong and Free” meant something. These days…

    … gotta be a better way. A Western Way. Coming home again soon, God willing.

  3. Baron Not Baron

    May 4, 2021 at 6:41 pm

    So.. Kenney was thinking that he’ll find champagne socialists in Alberta, like he was used to see in Ontario.. This imbecile must get the hell out of Alberta and ship his own ass back right where he came from and serves. Fast! This deceiver’s got blood on his hands and he’s got the audacity to keep screwing around with arrogance ?
    I have only one problem – he needs to be held accountable and punished for lying to the people who put him in his damn seat and for destroying Alberta, while showing us his ugly and full of fake grin. And only after he served the sentence he can go back east, and we don’t have to care further about this one.
    WILD ROSE INDEPENDENT PARTY is Alberta’s right choice!

  4. Steven Ruthven

    May 4, 2021 at 4:40 pm

    I second that motion. A leadership review in Oct 2021 for Jason Kenney.

  5. Jody Dahrouge

    May 4, 2021 at 2:51 pm

    If Jason wants a new base, then he should be willing to hold a leadership review sooner rather than later. Let’s see what the base has to say.

  6. originalkmiller

    May 4, 2021 at 2:49 pm

    This is excellent news for the Wildrose Independence Party. I hope we see a significant gain in membership over the next few weeks.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Opinion

WAGNER: The prominent Toronto political scientist who called Communism ‘democratic’

As it turns out, some members of Canada’s Left have a fairly positive view of communism.

mm

Published

on

Some commentators have noted the silence of Canada’s Left in the face of anti-government protests in Cuba. Why the reluctance to condemn a communist dictatorship?

Well, as it turns out, some members of Canada’s Left have a fairly positive view of communism. One such prominent Canadian leftist was C.B. Macpherson (1911-1987), an internationally-renowned political scientist who taught political theory at the University of Toronto. Among other things, he was especially known for his critiques of capitalism and individualism.

Interestingly, Macpherson also defended Soviet Communism as genuine democracy in action. This can be seen in a series of CBC radio messages he delivered in 1965 that were subsequently published as a book entitled The Real World of Democracy. These lectures argued there were three forms of government that could be legitimately called democracies: the liberal democracies of the West, the Soviet bloc countries, and the one-party states of the Third World. 

As Macpherson put it, “democracy is not properly to be equated with our unique Western liberal-democracy.” Instead, “the clearly non-liberal systems which prevail in the Soviet countries, and the somewhat different non-liberal systems of most of the underdeveloped countries of Asia and Africa, have a genuine historical claim to the title democracy.”

Macpherson explained the meaning of democracy has undergone some change over time. It hasn’t always referred to the kind of constitutional system common in the Western countries: “Democracy originally meant rule by the common people, the plebeians. It was very much a class affair: it meant the sway of the lowest and largest class.” Thus, Macpherson argued Soviet Communism and other one-party states can legitimately be called democracies, based on this definition. That is, he used this conception of “democracy” to describe some of the world’s most brutal and repressive regimes. 

Karl Marx’s proposed “dictatorship of the proletariat” was an expression of genuine democracy in Macpherson’s view. He noted many people would find it outrageous to consider the dictatorship of the proletariat to be a form of democracy. “But,” he wrote, “to call it democracy was not outrageous at all: it was simply to use the word in its original and then normal sense.”

Macpherson’s analysis gets even worse. Lenin extended Marx’s theory by arguing a revolution would need to be undertaken by a relatively small group of class-conscious people he called the vanguard, which is to say, the Communist Party. 

From the Communist perspective, since the vast majority of people in any society are debased by the structures of capitalism, they cannot be trusted to participate in political decision-making. To allow their participation would just perpetuate the problems of the old, capitalist society. Only the vanguard could bring about the necessary reforms. As Macpherson explains: “Lenin, building on Marx, came out for a seizure of power by a vanguard who would forcibly transform the basic relations of society in such a way that the people would become undebased and capable of a fully human existence, at which point compulsive government would no longer be needed.” 

In Macpherson’s view, this rule of the vanguard to “forcibly transform” society is democracy in action, despite the fact that it involves politically motivated executions and concentration camps. Democracy, it seems, becomes indistinguishable from dictatorship.

Macpherson evokes what he calls the “broader concept of democracy” to legitimize the Marxist-Leninist state: “Wherever the circumstances are such that no motion towards this kind of society is possible except through the action of a vanguard, then the vanguard state, so long as it remains true to its purpose, may be called democratic.” Thus, in his view, an outright communist state can be legitimately called a democracy. Many of the most brutal, bloodthirsty, and repressive regimes in the 20th Century were democracies in this sense. Who knew?

Using a similar line of argumentation, the one-party dictatorships of the Third World can also be justified as democracies. Invoking Rousseau, Macpherson wrote one-party states can be legitimately called democracies because “there is in these countries a general will, which can express itself through, and probably only through, a single party.” As a result, “opposition to the dominant party appears to be, and sometimes actually is, destructive of the chances of nationhood. In such circumstances opposition appears as treason against the nation.” Thus, a one-party state, where opposition to the ruling party is punished as “treason,” can be a legitimate form of democracy. (Don’t tell Justin Trudeau.)

Macpherson was an internationally known and respected political scientist. The views he expressed were not the rantings of a black-clad activist running wild in the streets. Some elements of the intellectual Left truly believe that a Marxist-Leninist state (or any other Left-wing single-party state) is a genuine democracy. Despite the inescapably violent and murderous nature of communism, some Canadian leftists view it favourably. 

The lessons of the 20th Century have not been learned. Ideas that inspired inhuman tyranny – what C.B. Macpherson happily calls the “broader concept of democracy” – seem to be making a comeback.

Michael Wagner is a columnist for the Western Standard

Continue Reading

Opinion

MORGAN: COVID has shown the need to overhaul Canada’s health care system

“We need to stop pretending the American and Canadian models of health provision are the only ones on earth. In fact, only two other countries on the planet explicitly ban private health care insurance: Cuba and North Korea.”

mm

Published

on

After his retirement, Ralph Klein was quoted expressing regret for having backed down on his “third-way” health care reform plan. We are paying the price today for the government’s lack of will of yesteryear.

Canada’s health care system has long been considered a sacred cow. We have been taught since childhood that it’s the best health care system on the planet; it’s the very thing that defines what it means to be Canadian. Any efforts to reform the system are immediately framed as potentially moving us towards the dreaded American system.

The most politically expedient way to deal with health care challenges has been to blindly toss more money into the system without changing how anything is being done. Government reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic has devastated our finances and exposed massive shortcomings in the health care system. Both these problems are good cause to undertake a serious overhaul of the status quo.

Alberta has 11,120 physicians and 32,000 nurses. We have 161 hospitals and spend more per capita on health care than most other provinces. At the peak of the pandemic, the number of COVID-19 patients in hospital beds was just over 500 people. Why did this volume of patients seemingly bring our system to the brink of collapse? If we don’t ask ourselves some tough questions and begin to make some serious changes to our system, we could find ourselves vulnerable to a true systemic meltdown if a more serious pandemic hits us down the road.

In the event of a widespread medical crisis, a system needs to be able to pivot in order to meet sudden new pressures. Our socialized system has led us into centralizing our treatments and procedures into hospitals. Many services and procedures are being performed in hospitals when they could have been done in outside, specialized clinics. When something like a pandemic occurs, entire wings of hospitals can be closed off while large blocks of staff are placed under quarantine. This leads to procedures deemed as being non-essential being deferred which leads to long backlogs of medical procedures which could take months, or years, to catch up on. If we had more health facilities outside conventional hospitals, our hospitals could focus on acute health care needs while elective and non-urgent procedures continue unhindered in clinics.

In order to get these specialized clinics, we will need to allow more private investment into health care provision. We have to set aside that ingrained prejudice against profit-based models in health care provision. Private clinics for general practitioners haven’t crushed the system. Private facilities for everything from hip replacements to dialysis won’t either. This is not a matter of reinventing the wheel. Most European nations allow for private health provision within a publicly funded, universal model. Entire private hospitals are integrated within public systems. We need to stop pretending the American and Canadian models of health provision are the only ones on earth. In fact, only two other countries on the planet explicitly ban private health care insurance: Cuba and North Korea.

Many other systems are outperforming Canada’s in both outcomes and in cost. It does not deserve the status of sacred cow.

We will also need to take on the public sector unions. Organized labour has traditionally battled every form of health care reform every step of the way. How many years have we battled back and forth over something as simple as the outsourcing of hospital laundry services?

How many stories have we heard about nurses who game an incredibly generous overtime system to the point where some have earned over $200,000 per year? Alberta’s nurses are the highest paid in Canada yet they immediately started rumbling about striking when the Kenney government proposed a modest 3% pay reduction. We are in an economic crisis as well as a pandemic. If we can’t even get modest concessions from unions in times like these, we won’t be able to sustain our service levels for much longer. Seniority systems and contract clauses make it difficult to schedule staff based on surges leading to sporadic shortages and over staffing at times. It’s going to take some strong will and it will take some labour disruptions, but the union stranglehold on health care provision needs to be ended.

We need to look beyond the politics of envy and let people pay out of pocket for enhanced services. They wouldn’t be jumping the queue. They should be jumping out of one queue, and into another, allowing both to receive quality services faster.

Let’s face it, people have been leaving the country in order to “jump the queue” for decades. These people aren’t always rich, but they are desperate. If a person is given a choice between suffering or potentially dying on a waiting list for treatment or selling their home and seeking treatment in another country, most will sell the house. Let’s keep those dollars here and have regulated pay-for-service models that allow for private insurance. It will lead to shorter wait times for all. Don’t look at it as if it is a person cutting the line ahead of you, look at it as if a person wants to spend their own money in order to shorten the line for all of us.

Canada’s health care system is rigid and obsolete. The pandemic has shown us we are always teetering on the brink of overrunning our capacity despite constant increases in health care spending. Our economy is in shambles and government deficits are unsustainable. If we want to have a strong, universal health care system we can rely upon during times of crisis, we need to dramatically reform our current one. There’s no better time than right now to begin that process. Let’s hope our political leadership can find the will and courage to take on this difficult but essential task.

If they can’t stand their ground on a modest wage reduction for nurses, they won’t be able to do what really needs to be done in the long term.

Cory Morgan is the Alberta Political Columnist for the Western Standard and Host of the Cory Morgan Show

Continue Reading

Opinion

CONROY: Biles did the best she could under the circumstances

Simone Biles has just as much of a right to take a break, step back, or make any other choice for her career which she sees fit.

mm

Published

on

Simone Biles’ choice to withdraw from the remaining Olympic events is respectable when you look at her reasoning.

Characters like bombastic TV personality Piers Morgan would disagree, but Biles’ choice to withdraw from the remaining gymnastics competitions in this year’s Olympics is not only honourable but, sadly, predictable. The lives of professional athletes have always been caught up in a sporting culture that has only grown more and more toxic with the years.

The modern world of competitive athletics places values of unachievable proportions onto its athletes. Theories have been offered pointing to the rampant doping in athletes being largely because of unrealistically high expectations for their performance. These unrealistic expectations can lead people on both sides to do crazy things.

It’s no secret larger organizations like the International Olympic Committee (IOC) — an entity historically known for openly partaking in corruption — not only allow these smaller entities to get away with abusing their athletes, but go so far as to create a culture encouraging it. The IOC has long since been turned from an organization valuing athletics over all else into a business seeking profit.

In 2018, Biles bravely came forward saying she had suffered abuse at the hands of Larry Nasser, the former doctor for the American women’s national gymnastics team. Biles was among dozens of other gymnasts who accused Nasser of sexual abuse. He later pleaded guilty and is currently serving a 60-year prison sentence.

Biles said the abuse she suffered under Nasser during her teen years left her with trauma and thoughts of suicide. The athlete was told by her coaches and superiors at USA Gymnastics to trust Nasser, which is why she rightfully places the blame on USA Gymnastics for the suffering she went through.

It wasn’t Biles who let the team, the Games, America, or anyone else down, it was Biles who was abandoned by the establishments meant to protect her.

Simone has handled this situation with a level of grace and maturity very rarely seen in someone so young. It’s amazing to watching her take on criticism from the likes of Morgan and others who feel entitled to her and her career.

They seem to be taking it as a personal attack of sorts because Biles has chosen to put her mental health above her career for seemingly the first time ever. Biles has recently been open about her history of sexual and other forms of abuse during her athletic career.

With an autobiography already under her belt, word she will be attending virtual college soon for business administration, and even placing fourth on a season of Dancing with the Stars, Biles is already more accomplished at 24 than most of her critics can say at twice her age. She deserves to pursue whatever she wishes to, and while gymnastics maybe her passion it is healthy to maintain a sense of well-roundness.

Biles has competed in five gymnastics world championships and games already, and won four gold medals at the 2016 Rio Games alone. Biles holds an impressive portfolio and is objectively known as the most accomplished American gymnast in the world right now.

Achievement like that doesn’t come cheap. Athletes like Biles give up every other aspect of their life in order to put the full focus, energy, and time into their sport. She switched from public school to homeschooling in 2012, allowing her to up her training hours from 20 hours to 32 hours weekly.

She currently maintains a schedule of full seven-hour practices Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Fridays and allows herself half practices on Thursdays and Saturdays.

Gymnastics is one of the most dangerous sports one can compete in. With increasingly intricate moves now being completely banned by many athletics organizations for their potential to cause damage to the person performing them, completing many of these tricks requires full mental engagement. When one’s head isn’t in a positive, stable enough place to engage fully, disaster can easily strike.

The vault routine incident many believe led to Biles’ withdrawal from the team and other remaining events have been described by those in the community as Biles “losing herself in midair.” This short drop in focus apparently almost ended tragically, she failed to complete a double and-a-half turn which could have left her with “career-ending” and “life-threatening” injuries according to former gymnast Andrea Orris.

Biles’ choice was probably one of the most difficult of her life, and for the world to weigh in and criticize what she believes is best for herself is entitled and ridiculous. For Biles to receive such aggressive backlash for openly choosing to honour her mental health and take what she believes is a needed step back from her career is disappointing in a day and age where mental health is touted as the latest buzz words.

At the end of the day, Biles’ gymnastics career is just that — a career, a job. Just because the general public has been let into her life to watch her perform and compete, she’s still completing a job which, like any other career, allows one to leave it if the situation becomes undesirable.

Biles has just as much of a right to take a break, step back, or make any other choice for her career which she sees fit. Perhaps social media has played a large part in allowing people to believe they do have the right to offer their opinions to someone they’ve never met before.

Is this what we as a society want? To watch someone for solely our own amusement — it’s not like any of us have stakes in Team USA — even if it means the person is mentally breaking herself just to perform?

Biles has obviously accomplished so much in gymnastics by her own volition and desire, but now it should be left in her very capable hands to decide what she’ll do next.

She doesn’t need career advice from anyone right now.

Jackie Conroy is a reporter for the Western Standard
jconroy@westernstandardonline.com

Continue Reading

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Share

Petition: No Media Bailouts

We the undersigned call on the Canadian government to immediately cease all payouts to media companies.

170 signatures

No Media Bailouts

The fourth estate is critical to a functioning democracy in holding the government to account. An objective media can't maintain editorial integrity when it accepts money from a government we expect it to be critical of.

We the undersigned call on the Canadian government to immediately cease all payouts to media companies.

**your signature**



The Western Standard will never accept government bailout money. By becoming a Western Standard member, you are supporting government bailout-free and proudly western media that is on your side. With your support, we can give Westerners a voice that doesn\'t need taxpayers money.

Share this with your friends:

Trending

Copyright © Western Standard New Media Corp.