Reboot Alberta

Thursday, October 05, 2006

Oberg "Sells" Himself

You gotta love Dr. Oberg’s view of democracy as captured in the cryptic comments of the “Benevolent Dictator” at Renewing the One Party State site. His posting says it all. “Dr. Oberg, it is one thing to lose and election it is another to lose your honour in the process.” The Edmonton Journal story headline captures the essence “Union Oberg backers buying memberships.”

The brain trust at the Alberta Building Trades Council has decided that as “Union Bosses for Oberg” they know best how their members should vote and are reported to be prepared to prepay for $10,000.00 of “free” PC party memberships for union members and have even hired staff to process the program. Gotta admire the efficiency of it all – don’t you?

What is the message here? Suspend your citizenship and do as you are told as a union member! “We a putting up the Five Bucks for you – and therefore you will vote Oberg.” What evidence supports the reports that the Union Boss is saying "Oberg…has been onside with the issues?” Do you think teachers and parents of students would agree?

Don’t ask why this top down directive to suspend independent thought and citizenship is happening. We are told why. The reason is clearly stated in the Journal story as because of someone’s “long standing relationship” with Dr. Oberg.

Who exactly is it that enjoys this “long standing relationship” with the good Doctor, and what is it based on - pray tell! What were the deals and the dealings that set up this “long standing relationship?” Ought we to be looking for “skeletons” as part of our questioning or is that too harsh?

Do the union bosses actually believe that individual members will do as they are told with a one person one vote secret ballot system? Are individual union members pleased that their funds are being spent in this way? Is it clear what benefits they will be getting if they play along in support of this “long standing relationship?”

Since we are selecting a Premier for the entire province as a consequence of this PC leadership campaign, is it unreasonable for the rest of us to ask what promises and preferences are being proffered to whom in exchange for what because of such an "investment" in the Oberg campaign?

I have no problem with groups getting organized to educate and engage members, networks and their spheres of influence and encouraging individual Albertans participation as citizens. What these “players” are doing however is nowhere close to passing the “sniff test” but it is within the financial “rules” of the game, such as they are.

So then it ought to be open to the rest of us to be free to inquire as to surrounding facts and get clarity on some details. We ought to feel free to pass some judgement about the motivation and appropriateness of this approach and its impact on an open and transparent democratic participation process (sic). Is there a "cost" if anyone steps out of line and does not pick up a "free" membership card? What is the consequence if someone steps over the line and openly supports someone other than the "anointed Oberg?"

Are we to surmise from this that we now know what Dr. Oberg’s wholesale price for access to him will be as Premier? Will this be the ante needed to get Oberg interest and engagement- the $10K range – or is that an early-bird special for this group only?

We Albertans need to think long and hard about this, especially the individual members of the various unions who make up the Alberta Building Trades Council. Do we want a PC Party leader and Premier of this province who is only interested in obeying the letter of the law and could give a damn about the spirit of it? Is that the kind society and leadership we want? If so, feel “free” to pick up your “free” membership and forget about the cost to your freedoms of thought, expression and perhaps even of association.

As Dave Hancock’s campaign slogan says, its Your Values, Your Alberta and Your Choice!

6 comments:

  1. You raise a good point. It's balony to claim that this is a democratic process. Only party members get to vote. That is inherently exclusionary and we should make no pretense that it is anything else. At most, perhaps 100000 people will vote in this election. That is fine, because a political party has to be free to decide its own decision making processes, but this is not real democracy. 100000 people will be deciding who will be Premier for the next ten years unless the unthinkable happens and another party wins the election. This is unlikely because electoral financing and rural-urban distribution of seats is skewed in the Tories favor, and there is a high level of apathy that something extraordinary will have to happen before we have two functioning political parties in Alberta. Give the above reality, the PC Party should step-up-to-plate and show some leadership on the issue and allow everyone to vote. What are party members afraid of? Losing their privileged position?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous8:39 pm

    Andy,
    I respectfully disagree with some of your analysis. As a PC, I am truly worried that if the wrong leader is selected, that person will not "be Premier for the next ten years". There are a couple of individuals in the running - considered some of the "frontrunners", that I believe could lead the party to defeat. Probably not in the next election, but it is certainly possible in the one to follow.
    Plus, everyone can vote. Anyone 16 years of age and older, with $5 in their pocket. Not exactly exclusionary in my view.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Andy - love your energy not you premise.

    Got $5 - been here 6 months, old enough to smoke - get off your sanctimonious ass and show up to make a difference.

    Citizenship not cynicism!

    If only 100K decide who the next Premier is it not the fault of the PC party - it is on the heads of those people who are self-styled superiorists, cynics or pathological passive aggressives who take it to the point they feel vaidated in defaulting such decisions to "lesser beings."

    Wanna buy a membership - it is easy - email me ken@cambridgestrategies.com or go to virtually any candidate website and DO IT. Otherwise save your sophisms for some other audience of fawning indifference.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous11:43 pm

    Here's what I think of this whole Oberg story:

    http://www.wernerpatels.com/musings/2006/10/albertan_freefo.html

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yeah, thanks for calling me a sophist, but I don't think that my argument is any way specious. Nor is my ass anywhere near sanctimonious last time I checked. I am an active citizen, I was in Edmonton, I was in Montreal, I am now in Vancouver. I love your call for a more active citizenry, but at the same time I recognize that the tone needs to be set from the top. Alberta's governing party has not done the greatest job of promoting an active citizenry nor has it excelled at providing us with the information we need to make informed choices. Want a great example Ken - go to Alberta Elections website. Can you find out who donated to which political party last year? No. Go to almost any other Election authority website in the western world, and you can get that information. It is a lot harder to be an active citizen when you don't have access to that much information. You accuse me of being cynical. I respond that I'd love to not be, but I'm hearing these claims that the process is open and democratic from the same people who won't publish on the internet, for easy reference, who donates to their political party. There is one hell of a disconnect there.
    So, I just don't see how you can complain about what Oberg is doing. It is not against the rules. It should be, but it isn't.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Andy - I sense more overlap in our ideas than real differences - the expression of them may differ but the points and conclusions are so similar.

    Inadequate donations disclosure - totally agree but the level of dollars is usually not the problem. But we have the right to know ALL the information on that score.

    How do we change that? Use the power of the political marketplace and "invest" our votes in ways that candidates who are covertly or overtly beholden - beyond reason - are simply not supported.

    So lets be overt in NOT supporting candidates like Dinning, Oberg and Norris. Norris' is to be applauded for disclosure of how many businessmen and how much they paid for him.

    They apparently are not donors - they are clients. They pay him for consulting fees so they claim a tax deduction and the get "intelligence reports" from Mark.

    Sweet, don't you think? This puts Mark beneath the ethics bar becasue it does not pass the sniff test.

    My experience dollars buys political access but not acquiescence. Big undisclosed dollars however would likely change everything.

    ReplyDelete

Anonymous comments are discouraged. If you have something to say, the rest of us have to know who you are