Great piece and it raises some very challenging dilemmas for mainstream conservatives in AB. Of course, my smart-ass instincts immediately came up with one option you didn’t really discuss -- you could always start a new political party! It’s been a week at least since AB had a new party register! More seriously, I really do think the rushed merger after the PC defeat was really the big mistake. Yes, they won the next election but they might have gone down a problematic past. If Smith wins (and that’s quite possible) it will really unleash a struggle inside the UCP over keeping the party on course and that will be very hard given Smith just got a mandate. Then the exit, voice or loyalty options will really come into play. One of the other problems is that given the 40+ years in power, the PCs were not just a conservative party, they were the vehicle for all sorts of people who wanted to do public service. I knew lots on non-conservatives in AB who were PC members because that was their access to power and influence. Access was granted through the party. Those people didn’t join to take part in the kind of ideological battles currently facing the party so will (or already have) exited ... but not sure where they went or where they’ll go.
Excellent piece. It encompasses the feelings and the dilemma that many of our conservative UCP friends are in.
Many have been completely silent since Ms Smith was elected leader. Good people who want the very best for Alberta.
I suspect many are now at a crossroads. The UCP rhetoric has become reality.
What may be left at the end of the day are those who depend on UCP largesse for their livelihood, those who committed to TBA, and those whose personal identity is defined by the political party that they support.
Virtually every Albertan supports the rule of law and democratic norms. The UCP’s destruction of these foundational principles to obtain power reveals their values. UCP and the PCs made exceptionally poor financial decisions. Most of the boom royalties are gone. So we get constant complaints about “Ottawa” and silly policy. That playbook has worked well for conservatives going back to the 1930s. Conservatives views of other parties are so partisan and poisoned their only choices are to reform the Conservative Party or not vote. It’s sad. There is no consideration of policy. Just mindless tribalism.
What’s a conservative-minded voter to do? Well, it depends on how conservative you are. Recent polls show there are enough undecided voters to swing the election either way. Is that you? Don’t dare to vote NDP, but really, really worried about Danielle Smith and the separatist, anti-vax crowd? You have to make a hard choice.
Today, we’re faced with a political crisis far too much like the US election of 2016. Danielle Smith is sucking up to the worst aspects of Alberta culture. She’s taking Jason Kenney’s 2017 playbook—the one he used to “unite the right” in his vanity project, the United Conservative Party. Kenney’s plan: make ‘em mad, make ‘em scared—and promise to save ‘em. It worked in 2017 and again in 2019 (mostly because conservatives were traumatized by the end of their Old Tory dynasty.
Kenney’s tactics worked again for Smith last year. She got elected by the angriest UCP party members as the leader of the new and improved UCP 2.0, which should be called the Take Back Alberta Party.
If you think the rule of law is important for everyone, the UCP is not for you. If you think rules are for the Other Guys, you’ll fit in with the “original” UCP. If you think rules suck and you’re not gonna take it, congratulations! Danielle Smith and the Take Back Alberta Party are the place for you.
Can’t stand Danielle Smith and her fellow crazies? Either the UCP/ TBA Frankenparty or the NDP will win this thing. For the upcoming election, your choices are limited. In no particular order, you can:
• Hold your nose and vote for the local UCP/ TBA candidate. Pray that Smith won’t totally trash the place if she wins. You must realize, though—this is the coward’s way out. You’re giving up.
• Stay at home. Boycott the whole mess. It isn’t your fault the lunatics have taken over the asylum.
• Swallow your pride and, for once in your life, vote strategically. Vote AGAINST Smith and the Take Back Alberta Party. You’re not voting “for Rachel,” you’re voting against Smith.
• Cast a protest ballot. Vote for ANY conservative party that’s not UCP/ TBA. In practice, the only moderate conservative party is the Alberta Party. Everything else is rabid-right fringe. It’s not a wasted vote; it’s a “Both of you suck!” vote against BOTH big parties.
• Spoil your ballot! Vent some spleen! Write “NONE OF THE ABOVE” on the ballot. It’ll still be counted. It’s your right and your decision.
Still can’t decide? Here’s some old advice from Robert Heinlein. There may be no candidates you want to vote FOR; but there will certainly be candidates you want to vote AGAINST. The choice, and the responsibility, are yours.
Splitting the vote ensures a UCP win. It appears that Rural is captured. Strategic voting is required. Unfortunately, voting in this election for the Alberta Party splits the vote and the margins are too thin.
There are only two choices in this election…Take Back Alberta’s UCP or NDP…this conservative is running for the exit as good governance and democracy is at stake.
If you step back a bit, it's like your conservative friend is in a cult and so needs de-programming to regain perspective. I mean, how on earth is ANYONE still a "card-carrying" conservative? It's the same with Catholics; the obvious question for them is at WHAT point do you evaluate your affiliations if you haven't already? How much more proof of the banality of evil do you need for gawd's sake?!
And because this is your friend, you attribute high-mindedness around things like public service (with the UCP? come ON) or "loyalty" to their "movement?" HA! But you make no mention of the fact that being a MLA is a VERY good job to say the least, which isn't mentioned nearly enough considering how obsessed with money conservatives are known to be. And how cheap they are, and also how cheap runs deep....
Clearly, she should run, not walk to the nearest exit. Be on the right side of history instead of the political spectrum because let's face it, the right wing HAS lost its mind so has NEVER been more wrong.
Good accounting of the state of the political art, Alberta chapter. And I note, their "Take Back Alberta" "strategy" is a typically conservative knee-jerk, claiming they're trying to move forward with their eyes fixed on the past, and with the age-old ploy of trying to buy voters with their own money. I'm not by nature an NDP voter, but I think Smith's performance to date indicates she's no more cerebral or trustworthy than Kenney was. Which can't be good for the province.
Is there any evidence that Take Back Alberta is also taking over Conservative Party of Canada EDA’s as well? It struck me as odd recently to assume they wouldn’t
I was a "good conservative." An awful lot of us landing in the ABParty. Barry Morishita is the leader we injured PCs need, a thoughtful approach SO refreshing after the chaos. Not all are conservative but many are. I am finding great discussion and innovative solutions driven by that diversity. Led by party principles, but no whip, people like Angela Grace, whose Calgary Varsity riding differs greatly from, say Livingstone Macleod, can vote for HER constituents' needs. A big messy? Maybe. But it feels more like democracy to me.
I'm sorry but I think you have to face the fact that "good conservative" is now an oxymoron. Pan out a bit and look south where conservatives here are leaning; the conservative "brand" is completely trashed. The old PC's (which is the basically nostalgic Alberta Party) now look relatively good but in their 40 years of governance they mainly created a rigid petro-state; NOT good in a time of climate change but change is not exactly their strong suit is it? That makes them worse than just on the wrong side of history; now they're dangerous.
The federal conservatives voted that climate change isn't "real" at their convention, and conservative premiers keep reminding all of us that they just don't "get it." And look how they were/are with covid! Harper started the anti-science thing and it stuck as well. There's just something about the right wing that predisposes it to tribalism, making it more and more like a cult. It's also the only party that has the temerity to run a federal leadership candidate, Lewis, is openly "pro-life" which, with what's happening in the U.S. Supreme Court (captured at last by the religious right) is horrifying. Even in 2023, a time of dynamic evolution in our society, women are back in the sights of conservatives with LGBTQ people in the wings.
With all due respect there are a lot of assumptions here that echo the same partisan tribalism as well.
If you are well-informed in Canadian politics then you understand that party conventions do not always become adopted into a party’s platform. You also neglect to understand that there additional priorities that one can have in addition to those mentioned above.
There are many different kinds of priorities being balanced by a voter as they select a party to vote, and determining one’s personal calculus on such matters is very complicated.
Yes, people can explain their own normative methods of calculation on the matter, but we do ourselves and empirical social-scientific analysis harm when we purposefully refuse to believe in the existence of good-faith actors who understand the world differently.
The world is recalcitrant- it has zero obligation to behave the way we think it does or should. The ‘good’ of any political party or movement understands this- and prioritizes the search for, and communication of complex truth much higher than creating overly-simplistic narratives of “Us vs. Them”
So the climate change motion wasn't adopted into the party's platform? They certainly act like it was considering their complete LACK of a climate plan. And today in question period the usual complaint was made since it goes up tomorrow, completely ignoring as usual both the relevant, mitigating context of the REBATE AND the reason for the carbon tax. This despite it being a market-based idea originally suggested by THEM. But now they don't "believe" it any more than they did the pandemic, (who doesn't believe there's a pandemic for christ's sake, even with a MILLION dead in the States) but they DO believe there's a god and a devil and a heaven! Pfffffttttt.....the first, worst "big lie."
They obviously can't manage to grow up, these shit-disturbers of the highest order, this bunch of "proud boys" gone rogue to drag us all back to the fifties when they had easy societal dominance, before the feminist movement of the sixties reminded them from whence they all came. Somehow, they just can't accept that equality premise for half of humanity as valid any more than they can accept homosexuality, so the LGBTQ phenomenon makes them absolutely apoplectic of course.
And they are the ones who inspired the term HYPER-partisan. They're also the ones who introduced the whole fake news thing, and outright lying, the ones who will USE "deep-fake," are the ones with "a narrative," and the ones who spawned a TRUMP. They have no leg whatsoever and nothing to offer in governance of any modern society, especially when their mission is to dismantle it and democracy. They are emphatically NOT "good-faith actors who understand the world differently!" The fact that you even offer that under the circumstances that they have created makes me suspect that where you're coming from is the defensiveness of your own religious delusion, speaking of faith, that "complex truth." Preston Manning had that too when he started the "Reform Party" thirty years ago. When he said "the west wants in," he meant religion wants in. Believers are insecure so crave public affirmation via the back door of politics pretending that the economy is all they're interested in. So they're liars from the get go. In the States it was the Tea Party creating that unholy alliance with all the evangelicals down there. They bold-faced supported Trump, that exemplary Christian. Unparallelled hypocrisy.
Who is "They"? Who is the "you" and "your" that you are conversing with?
I am a gay Tory. I am an Atheist-Agnostic. I am a believer in both anthropogenic climate change and the need to combat it- which includes yes, a carbon tax. I am a social constructivist who knows the amorphous nature of the 'meanings' we attach to our words.
Foaming at the mouth and drawing accusations from assumptions, rather than analysis from evidence is explicitly contrary to the very social-scientific process of which this blog and its author engages in. One cannot have good faith discussions on how to rehabilitate and educate our misguided friends and family if we ourselves are unwilling to examine our own fallacious opinions and misguided behavior. Is there more work to be done by conservatives on the matter than those on the moderate or farther 'left'.
Yes. 100% and I say that as a conservative. The propensity for North American conservatism and many other conservative movements to fall into fascism rn is both worrying and very real.
It must be countered, and I remain actively engaged within that process. I have however little patience for pundits who abuse concepts beloved by me, such as the scientific process; secularism; and empirical non-essentialism- who themselves seem much too invested in creating the 'conservative orthodoxies' of tomorrow. Open secularism as opposed to Closed Secularism and interculturalism for example respects people's agency, women's rights, pluralism- and the understanding that science is a process- not an imaginary deity to be invoked so as to divide the world into absolute 'good' or 'evil'.
Were it not for your lack of intellectual rigor and poor assumptions as to my good faith, and discipline in 'doing the work' I would not quibble. While attempts at 'tone policing' are often banal, I believe that, in your vigorous attempt at making an 'all conservatives' argument, you forget to question whether such an argument is even necessary or empirically-informed.
Most 'Conservatives' and 'Conservatisms' need to be made accountable for their (and our) errors. I accept this and agree. yet the fact that Dr. Young has taken seriously the question at all should lend some pause to any rhetorical theatrics as to the impossibility of our existence. Engage with the evidence please. I challenge what conservative circles (including one party) I remain a member of. I also exist.
-I didn't just abandon the fallacious thinking of the high-demand religion I was raised in, just to become untethered to both rationalism and methodological-naturalism as a "None".
That's all rather abstruse and the very definition of "academic" under the dangerous circumstances we're currently facing with one party being science deniers, including the science of climate change. It's existential, and your generation is going to suffer.
I stand corrected on your religiosity but can't imagine any other reason why someone as apparently enlightened and progressive as you seem to be who has managed to get out from under religion would then identify as a "con." Do you just want the "challenge?" I also wonder why gay men choose Catholicism. Sounds like sheer perversion or pure martyrdom, and so quintessentially Christian, as in you can take the boy out of the religion but you can't take the religion out of the boy?
On the new name of "con" btw, that's just one of those new terms reflecting our new reality that have entered our lexicon with the "alt-right, extreme right, religious right." It was certainly more than just the word "progressive" that was removed from the party name because other new, key words are "misinformation, disinformation, and post-truth." Not a good look when truth is beauty, beauty truth, and it's all we really have. Fight all you want with conservatives, they're obdurate, obstructionist, and mean. Why in hell bother?
By identifying as “Conservative” but remaining ‘progressive’, I work to steer politics away from its most dangerous conservative forms, while validating its existence in modest review of alternative ideological constructs.
As Dr. Young has implied here and elsewhere, the presence of checks & balances, and ‘loyal oppositions’ are important for society as a whole.
The fact that the validity of my existence remains always in question also keeps me humble, as I often feel the constant need to ensure my actions reflect the underlying ‘progressivism’ I profess.
I sometimes find that political actors (parties, individuals) associated with Liberalism or Socialism (which again are are not necessarily illegitimate constructs in my view) sometimes fail to act in ways consistent with their social commitments. This is not a problem unique to these constructs ofc, but by being the devil’s advocate of conservatism within conservatism itself, I find my own self-awareness strengthened rather than taken for granted.
While Social Constructivism and Post-Modernism both may appear antithetical to common conceptualizations of ‘science’, the post-positivist turn over the last century has actually had a positive influence upon the social sciences, by demonstrating the limitations within our epistemologies, methods, and claims.
Social constructivism meanwhile remains a powerful theoretical approach for its ability to demonstrate how social constructs are created, evolve, interact with our non-anthropogenic world.
Curiously, and on a different matter, your own polemic and personal attacks against me seem to have been continued rather than abated. I acknowledge that I have zero control over what you can or cannot imagine, and I’d prefer not to continue our dialogue unless it is grounded upon good-faith.
Win or lose, one thing is clear about the UCP: it has become, and will continue to be, a rural party. They have lost Edmonton, and most of Calgary. It will continue to be dominated by politicians who do not represent Alberta's urban middle class. This will be compounded by generational change and the accelerating decline of the oil industry. The transformation of the conservative party into the Social Credit is nearly complete.
What we have now in Alberta, and in Canada, that is masquerading as a Conservative government, is like Reformers, their precursor, the Socreds, Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and Donald Trump. It's a stark contrast to what we used to have.
Excellent analysis. I hope the Conservatives who don't support the extremist takeover of their party read and think about this.
Great piece and it raises some very challenging dilemmas for mainstream conservatives in AB. Of course, my smart-ass instincts immediately came up with one option you didn’t really discuss -- you could always start a new political party! It’s been a week at least since AB had a new party register! More seriously, I really do think the rushed merger after the PC defeat was really the big mistake. Yes, they won the next election but they might have gone down a problematic past. If Smith wins (and that’s quite possible) it will really unleash a struggle inside the UCP over keeping the party on course and that will be very hard given Smith just got a mandate. Then the exit, voice or loyalty options will really come into play. One of the other problems is that given the 40+ years in power, the PCs were not just a conservative party, they were the vehicle for all sorts of people who wanted to do public service. I knew lots on non-conservatives in AB who were PC members because that was their access to power and influence. Access was granted through the party. Those people didn’t join to take part in the kind of ideological battles currently facing the party so will (or already have) exited ... but not sure where they went or where they’ll go.
Excellent piece. It encompasses the feelings and the dilemma that many of our conservative UCP friends are in.
Many have been completely silent since Ms Smith was elected leader. Good people who want the very best for Alberta.
I suspect many are now at a crossroads. The UCP rhetoric has become reality.
What may be left at the end of the day are those who depend on UCP largesse for their livelihood, those who committed to TBA, and those whose personal identity is defined by the political party that they support.
Virtually every Albertan supports the rule of law and democratic norms. The UCP’s destruction of these foundational principles to obtain power reveals their values. UCP and the PCs made exceptionally poor financial decisions. Most of the boom royalties are gone. So we get constant complaints about “Ottawa” and silly policy. That playbook has worked well for conservatives going back to the 1930s. Conservatives views of other parties are so partisan and poisoned their only choices are to reform the Conservative Party or not vote. It’s sad. There is no consideration of policy. Just mindless tribalism.
We need to stop referring to TBA as "conservative" and call it what it is: right wing extremism.
But that is what conservative means today, and not just in Alberta.
What’s a conservative-minded voter to do? Well, it depends on how conservative you are. Recent polls show there are enough undecided voters to swing the election either way. Is that you? Don’t dare to vote NDP, but really, really worried about Danielle Smith and the separatist, anti-vax crowd? You have to make a hard choice.
Today, we’re faced with a political crisis far too much like the US election of 2016. Danielle Smith is sucking up to the worst aspects of Alberta culture. She’s taking Jason Kenney’s 2017 playbook—the one he used to “unite the right” in his vanity project, the United Conservative Party. Kenney’s plan: make ‘em mad, make ‘em scared—and promise to save ‘em. It worked in 2017 and again in 2019 (mostly because conservatives were traumatized by the end of their Old Tory dynasty.
Kenney’s tactics worked again for Smith last year. She got elected by the angriest UCP party members as the leader of the new and improved UCP 2.0, which should be called the Take Back Alberta Party.
If you think the rule of law is important for everyone, the UCP is not for you. If you think rules are for the Other Guys, you’ll fit in with the “original” UCP. If you think rules suck and you’re not gonna take it, congratulations! Danielle Smith and the Take Back Alberta Party are the place for you.
Can’t stand Danielle Smith and her fellow crazies? Either the UCP/ TBA Frankenparty or the NDP will win this thing. For the upcoming election, your choices are limited. In no particular order, you can:
• Hold your nose and vote for the local UCP/ TBA candidate. Pray that Smith won’t totally trash the place if she wins. You must realize, though—this is the coward’s way out. You’re giving up.
• Stay at home. Boycott the whole mess. It isn’t your fault the lunatics have taken over the asylum.
• Swallow your pride and, for once in your life, vote strategically. Vote AGAINST Smith and the Take Back Alberta Party. You’re not voting “for Rachel,” you’re voting against Smith.
• Cast a protest ballot. Vote for ANY conservative party that’s not UCP/ TBA. In practice, the only moderate conservative party is the Alberta Party. Everything else is rabid-right fringe. It’s not a wasted vote; it’s a “Both of you suck!” vote against BOTH big parties.
• Spoil your ballot! Vent some spleen! Write “NONE OF THE ABOVE” on the ballot. It’ll still be counted. It’s your right and your decision.
Still can’t decide? Here’s some old advice from Robert Heinlein. There may be no candidates you want to vote FOR; but there will certainly be candidates you want to vote AGAINST. The choice, and the responsibility, are yours.
Splitting the vote ensures a UCP win. It appears that Rural is captured. Strategic voting is required. Unfortunately, voting in this election for the Alberta Party splits the vote and the margins are too thin.
There are only two choices in this election…Take Back Alberta’s UCP or NDP…this conservative is running for the exit as good governance and democracy is at stake.
If you step back a bit, it's like your conservative friend is in a cult and so needs de-programming to regain perspective. I mean, how on earth is ANYONE still a "card-carrying" conservative? It's the same with Catholics; the obvious question for them is at WHAT point do you evaluate your affiliations if you haven't already? How much more proof of the banality of evil do you need for gawd's sake?!
And because this is your friend, you attribute high-mindedness around things like public service (with the UCP? come ON) or "loyalty" to their "movement?" HA! But you make no mention of the fact that being a MLA is a VERY good job to say the least, which isn't mentioned nearly enough considering how obsessed with money conservatives are known to be. And how cheap they are, and also how cheap runs deep....
Clearly, she should run, not walk to the nearest exit. Be on the right side of history instead of the political spectrum because let's face it, the right wing HAS lost its mind so has NEVER been more wrong.
Good accounting of the state of the political art, Alberta chapter. And I note, their "Take Back Alberta" "strategy" is a typically conservative knee-jerk, claiming they're trying to move forward with their eyes fixed on the past, and with the age-old ploy of trying to buy voters with their own money. I'm not by nature an NDP voter, but I think Smith's performance to date indicates she's no more cerebral or trustworthy than Kenney was. Which can't be good for the province.
SM, Calgary
Excellent analysis, Lisa! Time for the progressive Light Blues ( Hi Mr, Lougheed!) to join and vote for Rachel.
Is there any evidence that Take Back Alberta is also taking over Conservative Party of Canada EDA’s as well? It struck me as odd recently to assume they wouldn’t
I was a "good conservative." An awful lot of us landing in the ABParty. Barry Morishita is the leader we injured PCs need, a thoughtful approach SO refreshing after the chaos. Not all are conservative but many are. I am finding great discussion and innovative solutions driven by that diversity. Led by party principles, but no whip, people like Angela Grace, whose Calgary Varsity riding differs greatly from, say Livingstone Macleod, can vote for HER constituents' needs. A big messy? Maybe. But it feels more like democracy to me.
I'm sorry but I think you have to face the fact that "good conservative" is now an oxymoron. Pan out a bit and look south where conservatives here are leaning; the conservative "brand" is completely trashed. The old PC's (which is the basically nostalgic Alberta Party) now look relatively good but in their 40 years of governance they mainly created a rigid petro-state; NOT good in a time of climate change but change is not exactly their strong suit is it? That makes them worse than just on the wrong side of history; now they're dangerous.
The federal conservatives voted that climate change isn't "real" at their convention, and conservative premiers keep reminding all of us that they just don't "get it." And look how they were/are with covid! Harper started the anti-science thing and it stuck as well. There's just something about the right wing that predisposes it to tribalism, making it more and more like a cult. It's also the only party that has the temerity to run a federal leadership candidate, Lewis, is openly "pro-life" which, with what's happening in the U.S. Supreme Court (captured at last by the religious right) is horrifying. Even in 2023, a time of dynamic evolution in our society, women are back in the sights of conservatives with LGBTQ people in the wings.
Their time is over.
With all due respect there are a lot of assumptions here that echo the same partisan tribalism as well.
If you are well-informed in Canadian politics then you understand that party conventions do not always become adopted into a party’s platform. You also neglect to understand that there additional priorities that one can have in addition to those mentioned above.
There are many different kinds of priorities being balanced by a voter as they select a party to vote, and determining one’s personal calculus on such matters is very complicated.
Yes, people can explain their own normative methods of calculation on the matter, but we do ourselves and empirical social-scientific analysis harm when we purposefully refuse to believe in the existence of good-faith actors who understand the world differently.
The world is recalcitrant- it has zero obligation to behave the way we think it does or should. The ‘good’ of any political party or movement understands this- and prioritizes the search for, and communication of complex truth much higher than creating overly-simplistic narratives of “Us vs. Them”
So the climate change motion wasn't adopted into the party's platform? They certainly act like it was considering their complete LACK of a climate plan. And today in question period the usual complaint was made since it goes up tomorrow, completely ignoring as usual both the relevant, mitigating context of the REBATE AND the reason for the carbon tax. This despite it being a market-based idea originally suggested by THEM. But now they don't "believe" it any more than they did the pandemic, (who doesn't believe there's a pandemic for christ's sake, even with a MILLION dead in the States) but they DO believe there's a god and a devil and a heaven! Pfffffttttt.....the first, worst "big lie."
They obviously can't manage to grow up, these shit-disturbers of the highest order, this bunch of "proud boys" gone rogue to drag us all back to the fifties when they had easy societal dominance, before the feminist movement of the sixties reminded them from whence they all came. Somehow, they just can't accept that equality premise for half of humanity as valid any more than they can accept homosexuality, so the LGBTQ phenomenon makes them absolutely apoplectic of course.
And they are the ones who inspired the term HYPER-partisan. They're also the ones who introduced the whole fake news thing, and outright lying, the ones who will USE "deep-fake," are the ones with "a narrative," and the ones who spawned a TRUMP. They have no leg whatsoever and nothing to offer in governance of any modern society, especially when their mission is to dismantle it and democracy. They are emphatically NOT "good-faith actors who understand the world differently!" The fact that you even offer that under the circumstances that they have created makes me suspect that where you're coming from is the defensiveness of your own religious delusion, speaking of faith, that "complex truth." Preston Manning had that too when he started the "Reform Party" thirty years ago. When he said "the west wants in," he meant religion wants in. Believers are insecure so crave public affirmation via the back door of politics pretending that the economy is all they're interested in. So they're liars from the get go. In the States it was the Tea Party creating that unholy alliance with all the evangelicals down there. They bold-faced supported Trump, that exemplary Christian. Unparallelled hypocrisy.
They're the worst among us, hands down.
One question:
Who is "They"? Who is the "you" and "your" that you are conversing with?
I am a gay Tory. I am an Atheist-Agnostic. I am a believer in both anthropogenic climate change and the need to combat it- which includes yes, a carbon tax. I am a social constructivist who knows the amorphous nature of the 'meanings' we attach to our words.
Foaming at the mouth and drawing accusations from assumptions, rather than analysis from evidence is explicitly contrary to the very social-scientific process of which this blog and its author engages in. One cannot have good faith discussions on how to rehabilitate and educate our misguided friends and family if we ourselves are unwilling to examine our own fallacious opinions and misguided behavior. Is there more work to be done by conservatives on the matter than those on the moderate or farther 'left'.
Yes. 100% and I say that as a conservative. The propensity for North American conservatism and many other conservative movements to fall into fascism rn is both worrying and very real.
It must be countered, and I remain actively engaged within that process. I have however little patience for pundits who abuse concepts beloved by me, such as the scientific process; secularism; and empirical non-essentialism- who themselves seem much too invested in creating the 'conservative orthodoxies' of tomorrow. Open secularism as opposed to Closed Secularism and interculturalism for example respects people's agency, women's rights, pluralism- and the understanding that science is a process- not an imaginary deity to be invoked so as to divide the world into absolute 'good' or 'evil'.
Were it not for your lack of intellectual rigor and poor assumptions as to my good faith, and discipline in 'doing the work' I would not quibble. While attempts at 'tone policing' are often banal, I believe that, in your vigorous attempt at making an 'all conservatives' argument, you forget to question whether such an argument is even necessary or empirically-informed.
Most 'Conservatives' and 'Conservatisms' need to be made accountable for their (and our) errors. I accept this and agree. yet the fact that Dr. Young has taken seriously the question at all should lend some pause to any rhetorical theatrics as to the impossibility of our existence. Engage with the evidence please. I challenge what conservative circles (including one party) I remain a member of. I also exist.
-I didn't just abandon the fallacious thinking of the high-demand religion I was raised in, just to become untethered to both rationalism and methodological-naturalism as a "None".
That's all rather abstruse and the very definition of "academic" under the dangerous circumstances we're currently facing with one party being science deniers, including the science of climate change. It's existential, and your generation is going to suffer.
I stand corrected on your religiosity but can't imagine any other reason why someone as apparently enlightened and progressive as you seem to be who has managed to get out from under religion would then identify as a "con." Do you just want the "challenge?" I also wonder why gay men choose Catholicism. Sounds like sheer perversion or pure martyrdom, and so quintessentially Christian, as in you can take the boy out of the religion but you can't take the religion out of the boy?
On the new name of "con" btw, that's just one of those new terms reflecting our new reality that have entered our lexicon with the "alt-right, extreme right, religious right." It was certainly more than just the word "progressive" that was removed from the party name because other new, key words are "misinformation, disinformation, and post-truth." Not a good look when truth is beauty, beauty truth, and it's all we really have. Fight all you want with conservatives, they're obdurate, obstructionist, and mean. Why in hell bother?
By identifying as “Conservative” but remaining ‘progressive’, I work to steer politics away from its most dangerous conservative forms, while validating its existence in modest review of alternative ideological constructs.
As Dr. Young has implied here and elsewhere, the presence of checks & balances, and ‘loyal oppositions’ are important for society as a whole.
The fact that the validity of my existence remains always in question also keeps me humble, as I often feel the constant need to ensure my actions reflect the underlying ‘progressivism’ I profess.
I sometimes find that political actors (parties, individuals) associated with Liberalism or Socialism (which again are are not necessarily illegitimate constructs in my view) sometimes fail to act in ways consistent with their social commitments. This is not a problem unique to these constructs ofc, but by being the devil’s advocate of conservatism within conservatism itself, I find my own self-awareness strengthened rather than taken for granted.
While Social Constructivism and Post-Modernism both may appear antithetical to common conceptualizations of ‘science’, the post-positivist turn over the last century has actually had a positive influence upon the social sciences, by demonstrating the limitations within our epistemologies, methods, and claims.
Social constructivism meanwhile remains a powerful theoretical approach for its ability to demonstrate how social constructs are created, evolve, interact with our non-anthropogenic world.
Curiously, and on a different matter, your own polemic and personal attacks against me seem to have been continued rather than abated. I acknowledge that I have zero control over what you can or cannot imagine, and I’d prefer not to continue our dialogue unless it is grounded upon good-faith.
I'll just point out that Angela Grace is not on the ballot in Calgary-Varsity.
Win or lose, one thing is clear about the UCP: it has become, and will continue to be, a rural party. They have lost Edmonton, and most of Calgary. It will continue to be dominated by politicians who do not represent Alberta's urban middle class. This will be compounded by generational change and the accelerating decline of the oil industry. The transformation of the conservative party into the Social Credit is nearly complete.
What we have now in Alberta, and in Canada, that is masquerading as a Conservative government, is like Reformers, their precursor, the Socreds, Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and Donald Trump. It's a stark contrast to what we used to have.
Is it though? Ralph Klein wasn't very far removed from what you're describing.
That's correct. He was much like those other politicians I mentioned.