There are few names in Alberta as famous as Lougheed. The statesman status of former Premier Peter Lougheed is one of the best antidotes to the stern hard line far right rhetoric of the Alliance cum “Progressive” Conservative candidates.
The halcyon mythology of the Lougheed time as Alberta’s “Camelot” is over blown by we Red Tories – just as much as “blaming the NEP and Ottawa” for all the past ills of Alberta is exaggerated by the Alliance folks. The partial truth of myths is both their strength and their weakness.
The Lougheed endorsement of Dinning is surprising to me. No surprise as to where his support would be. I am surprised however that he would break from his earlier commitment not to make any campaign endorsement. Doing so in such a timely and strategic way is good politics and a confidence boost for Dinning.
If resonance with the public sentiment is the test of a successful political position (and it is) Peter Lougheed and Preston Manning have been the most effective campaigners on “their issues” of anyone in this leadership contest. Frank, clear, blunt and forward thinking commentary from both men have added greatly to forming the current and emerging consciousness of Albertans. This is especially with the ascendance of the environment as the #1 issue in Albertan’s policy concerns. Their influence on making that happen is significant.
I think Peter Lougheed’s political instincts about what is happening in this leadership campaign are as sharp as ever. I believe he fears the potential ballot box strength of the republican-lite far right candidates and the collective indifference of the progressive and moderate elements in the leadership campaign.
So his engagement in the fray will help raise the attention level of the campaign amongst moderate and progressive Albertans. It will help Stelmach and Hancock garner support too I expect. Hopefully it will show progressive and moderate Albertans that they need to be involved in this leadership contest because the outcome can potentially define the future for all of us.
For years I used to sit back and roll my eyes at the statements and actions of the far right element in the PC Party. I viewed them as a minority that merely had to be tolerated in a free and democratic society. I sat back and did nothing to rebut the rhetoric, regardless of how ridiculous and rancorous it was at times.
Because most people like me in the PC party were also disengaging we left the policy and political field to the far right and they, to their credit, played the game well. They set the tone and temperament of the party and changed the public consciousness of what the PC party was all about. It had evolved from an amalgam of progressive plus conservative principles more into a big “C” conservative movement.
The new debt/deficit approach was a disciplined fiscal approach (for a while), but with a relatively harsh social agenda. It ended up being neither progressive nor conservative in the end just power-based pragmatic government with too much money to spend. The party had lost its way. This leadership campaign, we must remember, is about the future of the party and the province.
I few years ago I decided to re-engage and to stand up to the far right rhetoric when I thought it was destructive, discriminating and divisive. This Blog is just part of that personal re-engagement. I don’t know if Peter Lougheed is re-engaging for the same reasons, but given the circumstances and the timing, I would not be surprised.
You were surprised? Everyone knew he was supporting Dinning for the last 3 months. They just wanted to get the timing right for a public announcement - it just further illustrates that Dinning is the establishment candidate.
ReplyDelete"For years I used to sit back and roll my eyes at the statements and actions of the far right element in the PC Party. I viewed them as a minority that merely had to be tolerated in a free and democratic society. I sat back and did nothing to rebut the rhetoric, regardless of how ridiculous and rancorous it was at times."
They are not the minority - do you know who won the last federal election? Uhhh, Harper - and he currently has a 65% approval rating in Alberta. Nice try there, though.
Having said that, if Hancock makes the final 3 (as opposed to my prediction that he will sit in 5th or 6th), that would clearly demonstrate that the PC party has moved to a more liberal-lite far left approach. I would grudgingly accept this. If he won (which he won't), we'd probably call his reign the "Hancock Days".
If your points are factually correct, then Hancock sat back and did nothing as well. I heard nothing from him. For shame. Now that he wants our vote he is apparently changing his ways? No thanks. No establishment for me.
Hancock can go and take his far-left social agenda to another party. Hancock scares me as a leader (as his social agenda does not represent even a slim slice of the AB population). However, he's been a somewhat competent minister. After making a deal with Dinning (formal or otherwise), he'll be a Minister again. I don't think he ever thought he had a chance of winning, but being a candidate almost ensures him a cabinet position.
With respect Anonymous, I don't think you know Dave Hancock very well. He is not running just to make cabinet next time. Simply put, he doesn't need to. Good ministers are often kept in cabinet through leadership changes.
ReplyDeleteIt is some of the hangers-on that have attached themselves now to Dinning that are the ones to worry about, because they are only in it for themselves. The Gene Zwozdesky's of the world. Maybe you don't agree with Hancock's policies - and that is your right - but I don't think you can fairly question his motives like this.
And by the way, a Morton government - while "pure" in your estimation I take it - would not withstand the next election without a possible relegation to the opposition. There are enough PC voters for which Morton is a bridge too far.
Anon 1:44: With a Calgary premier that has the full backing of the Calgary MLAs, Hancock might have bene turfed in favour of those from ED that supported Dinning.
ReplyDeleteHancock is politically astute and has been great for the province. That said, he wants a cabinet position if he says in politics. This might not happen if the Gene's of the party get those positions (which would be really sad, I admit).
I didn't mention Morton or "pure". Having said that, you think that someone who has similar viewpoints as the Reform Party did would lose to the Alberta Liberal Party? I think any one of the candidates would defeat the liberals. You are probably right that Morton won't win - Dinning is the man to beat.
Yes I was surprised - he said he would not endorse anyone...glad he stepped up all the same.
ReplyDeleteMy surprise is the same kind of surprised as when Harper abolished income trusts when he campaigned hard that he would never do that.
I beg to differ that Harper won the last election. The Liberals lost it and deserved to. We have withheld our judgement on the CPC when the county chose a MINORITY Harper government. Yes 65% in Alberta - but my Alberta includes Canada - how is he doing in the rest of the country? He meed a broder base if he want to stay governing.
Hancock did not sit back as you suggest. Nice try are re-framing the issue and attention. People just need to look at his website for his accomplishments in government and his bio for his service to the Party at the same time.
As for changing the establishment -yes I agree we need to do that. Who do you think will be Dr. Morton's Chief of Staff and senior advisors...some of his old Calgary School Firewall frineds and old Reform/Alliance establishment?
Please tell me we would not be just trading one establishment for another.
To Anonymous 1:07PM:
ReplyDeleteYour hope that Canada will embrace the demagogy of the far right is seriously misguided. Canadians voted in a minority CPC government last January because they were angry with the Liberals and not because they were eager to embrace a severe and reactionary ideological shift. Had a more moderate choice existed (read, the old Progressive Conservatives), I doubt Mr. Harper and his Reform-Alliance chums would be poorly governing our country as they are today.
As for Dave Hancock being "far-left," I think you're way out in right field! Dave is a classic Canadian conservative, in the mode of John Diefenbaker and Peter Lougheed. He is a statesman with vision, integrity and compassion. Just because he refuses to be co-opted by the virulent and exclusionary populism of the neo-conservatism we find in vogue today south of the forty-ninth Parallel and in the Political Science department of the U of C, doesn’t make him a leftist radical. Dave talks about wise and long-term investments; economic diversification; intelligent and responsible spending; environmental conservation (and I know “conservation” and “conservatism” are cognates originating from the same Latin root); grassroots democracy; and equality for all Albertans. I don’t know about you, but these ideas strike me as highly indicative of Dave’s Canadian conservatism.
Sean
PS. As for the “slim slice of the AB population” who support Hancock, I guess you have either failed to or refuse to take into account the many teachers, university educators, nurses, doctors, farmers, craftspeople, pharmacists, scientists, artists, literacy and cultural advocates, volunteers, not-for-profit staff, police officers, trades people, lawyers, recreational and environmental workers, students, accountants, businesspeople, engineers, et cetera, who strongly believe in Dave’s Progressive Conservative vision for our province. Perhaps in your Draconian right-wing estimation, the voices of these people don’t matter. Maybe your vision of Alberta doesn’t have room for teachers, university educators, nurses, doctors, farmers, craftspeople, pharmacists, scientists, artists, literacy and cultural advocates, volunteers, not-for-profit staff, police officers, trades people, lawyers, recreational and environmental workers, students, accountants, businesspeople, engineers, et cetera.
Ken:
ReplyDeletePremier Lougheed's endorsement is really no real surprise to me, the fact that he went public was mildly surprising, however
I admire and respect the Premier, and he will always be known as the Premier to me.
He is the first Premier that I remember growing up and his exploits taking Alberta into the 20th century are legendary.
But I'm not sure whether the Premier's endorsement of Dinning carries as much cache as it would have 13 years ago. Alberta's political culture has changed markedly since 1985 as has the PC Party.
And there are many PC voters who are simply too young to really remember Premier Lougheed's tenure in office.
No respect to Premier Lougheed, but he does carry some baggage with his endorsement.
He was the father of big spending which resulted in structural deficits when the economy tanked in 1986.
And I'm not sure that the Premier would have done anything different than Don Getty did between 1986-1992 to address the structural deficit.
His economic diversification strategy of 1984 planted the seeds for over $3 billion in loan and loan guarantee losses, which unfairly all get pinned on Don Getty's shoulders.
Establishing the Heritage Savings Trust Fund was the major accomplishment of the Premier's tenure, but let's not forget that the real brainchild behind that initiative was Dr. Allan Warrack.
So in sum, I believe that the Premier's endorsement is a two-edged sword for Jim Dinning and reflects the fundamental contradiction of Dinning's Red Tory past, his deficit hawk stance of the mid 1990s, and his Red Tory future.
Jim Dinning is very much a
political chameleon.
I still don't know why you were surprised Ken. He was actively and publicly helping in the campaign for the last 3 months. Your happiness that he endorsed Dinning is confusing. Wasn't it Dinning's people who straigharmed Mrs. Hancock - ... yet Dinning (or Stelmach) has your second vote. What an odd contradiction.
ReplyDeleteOk Ken, the Conservatives didn't win but the Liberals lost. Whatever way you want to put it is fine with me.
Sean, you could say a lot of "what if" and "could have" but the fact of the matter is that the Conservatives (with a Reformer leader) won the last election and made dramatic inroads in Quebec. They have maintained their lead in the polls and a polarizing (and weak as the LPC candidates are) liberal leader will only increase that lead. Once the gov't falls in March, the CP will win again (albeit a minority).
Hancock is very very far-left. This radical left-wing stance is quite consistent with liberals within the province buying memberships and voting for him (as well as union members). This would be a dramatic sift not only for AB but the country. Comparing Hancock to John Diefenbaker and Peter Lougheed ... ahhhhhh, no. I don't think I'll go into all the differences as they heavily outweigh any similarities.
Sean, the "slim slice" that Hancock represents will be illustrated on Nov. 25th. He will not make the top 3 and prove my initial statements were correct.
Oh yeah, Sean, okay, since I support a more right-wing candidate I "obviously" don't care about anyone in the province. Please re-read your statement to highlight how ridiculous (and insulting) it really sounded. It's also basically saying that anyone in the country that voted for Harper(about 35%) don't care about all those you listed.
Anonymous - my dear fellow or dear lady,
ReplyDeleteI am very much enjoying our discussion here – it strikes me as being quite Socratic. I would enjoy speaking with you over a beer or coffee about our different views regarding the similarities or dissimilarities between Dave Hancock, John Diefenbaker and Peter Lougheed, as well as about the fragmented political-cultural ethos of Albertans and Canadians. If you are amenable to this, Ken has my contact information and if it is alright with him, I would ask that you communicate with him for my e-mail address, etc. Or, perhaps you can provide Ken with your contact information and I can procure it from him.
Sean
PS. Only if you’re ok with this Ken.