Exit, Voice or Loyalty

What's a good conservative to do?

After I published yesterday’s post, a conservative friend poked at me in the DMs. The question, essentially, was: what should a good Alberta conservative do? What does the party (or the movement, as it’s sometimes called) need to right itself?

I think these are important questions, and ones that deserve serious thought, because the province is better off if it has two parties that offer meaningful alternatives and the promise of good governance to the electorate.

If you’re a conservative who believes in rule of law and the importance of maintaining democratic norms, Danielle Smith’s party is an uncomfortable home. If you’re a conservative alarmed by Take Back Alberta’s agenda, you must be desperately worried about where your party might be headed.

So what to do? Political scientists often look to economist Albert Hirschman’s classic book, Exit, Voice and Loyalty to frame their answer to questions like this.

In the current context, for a true conservative partisan, exit is both the easiest and the most difficult choice. Following Toews and Savage out of the political arena offers joy of returning to ‘civilian life’ and the relief of no longer having to pretend to support a leader or policy agenda you disagree with. But for many loyal partisans, it’s a difficult choice to make. For someone deeply committed to public service, it may feel selfish as it means abandoning political life and (perhaps) the opportunity to help guide the party onto a better path.

Which brings us to voice. If you’re at the table, or in the caucus, you can use your voice. Reading the tea leaves from outside, it certainly seems that some in the UCP have tried to use their voices to moderate and contain their new leader. If not for voice, there would be no “within a united Canada” in the title of the Sovereignty Act, and the past few months might have been devoted to passing legislation protecting the unvaccinated and otherwise re-litigating the COVID response.

But what voice will establishment conservatives have in a Smith government after the election? If the party wins, Smith will be able to claim that the party’s mandate is hers. There will be no looming election to focus attention on the political consequences of radical actions. With TBA mobilizing to hold the government ‘accountable’ to its version of conservatism, establishment voices may well be marginalized.

That said, if the party loses the election, opportunities for voice will be significant. Smith’s tenure as party leader will surely end, and there will be a fight for the soul of the UCP. A place in caucus might be helpful for amplifying that voice.

The third alternative is loyalty, the glue that holds Canadian political parties together. Under these circumstances, loyalty is difficult. Demonizing the opposition is helpful: “Yes, my party’s a disaster. But the other guys, they’re worse!”

A dilemma for the good conservative in Alberta today is the potential cost of loyalty. Choosing loyalty in the hope that you will have a meaningful voice is risky, and might lead to several uncomfortable years of service to a party that has lost its way. But choosing exit really means gambling that the electorate will put the party in the penalty box and create the conditions for a serious conversation about what conservatism should mean in contemporary Alberta.

So what should a good conservative do? The only outcome that offers an opportunity to have a meaningful conversation about the future of the party or the movement is time in the penalty box. The old PCs didn’t have the opportunity to use their time in the box to think about why they ended up there and where they might go because they were rushed into a merger with Wild Rose. Perhaps the UCP could use time in opposition to reflect on what went wrong and where they want to go. So perhaps the good conservative has to bet against their team in May in the hope of a better future.