Speaking recently in Calgary, former Alberta Premier Ralph Klein had some words for Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff:
Kindly shut up.
"Ignatieff, I think he's playing a game," Klein speculated. "He says all the right things, especially when he's in Alberta and in British Columbia, he says whatever the population desires.
"So what I think he should do is keep his mouth shut," he added.
Klein insists that Ignatieff is talking out of opposite sides of his mouth on opposite sides of the country -- particularly as it relates to the Alberta oilsands.
"For instance, [in the West] he says the oilsands are a good thing," Klein later continued. "In Ottawa he says something different."
Yet when one examines Michael Ignatieff's actual statements regarding the oil sands, one finds a very different trend.
On January 22 of this year, Ignatieff spoke about the oilsands in Montreal, defending them to a Quebec audience.
"The stupidest thing you can do (is) to run against an industry that is providing employment for hundreds of thousands of Canadians, and not just in Alberta, but right across the country," Ignatieff said.
Ignatieff went on to explain the amount of influence the oilsands give us with our closest neighbour. "We provide more oil to the United States than Saudi Arabia. That changes everything," he mused. "It means that when the Prime Minister of Canada goes into the White House, he gets listened to, in ways that Canadian Prime Ministers have not been listened to before."
Before Ralph Klein starts denouncing Michael Ignatieff as duplicitous on the issue of the oilsands, the least he could do is actually get acquainted with what Ignatieff actually has to say on the issue.
When Ralph Klein stepped down as Premier of Alberta and leader of the Conservative Party of Alberta, I thought to myself “Thank god, that drunken asshole of a leader is finally gone.” Two years later I find myself thinking “Wow at least under Klein things were fun."
It’s difficult to admit that Klein is a better leader then Stemach. I mean, looking back on his history the honorable Klein had these gems under his belt.
-Barging into an Edmonton Homeless shelter, then telling homeless man, Mark Shea, to “get a job” while throwing money at him. It turned out Shea had a job, but was unable to afford a home in the Edmonton Area.
-Throwing a book at legislative paige Jennifer Huygen while yelling the immoral phrase “I don’t need this crap”. This incident becomes 100 times worse when people meet Huygen and realize that she is possibly the nicest person on the planet.
-Showing off a paper from a communications class in the legislature and bragged about the grade he received. Later people found out that Klein copied and pasted important sections of the paper from various sources. Since then Albertan students have had to deal with stricter anti-plagiarism laws.
Any one of these incidents would have ended most political careers, so it’s not surprising that Premier Stelmach acts as if Albertans will continue to vote for the Conservative Party till the end of time. However, Stelmach doesn’t seem to understand this simple truth about Albertans – they are a pragmatic people.
So long as his the books were balanced, cash continued to flow, jobs were created— Albertan’s would continue to support the Conservative Party. Klein could have sacrificed Jennifer Huygen to Satan on national television, then throw Mark Shea into a tailings pond and so long as he doled out another “Prosperity Bonus Check” he would have gained another majority government.
The thing when King Ralph began to indicate certain controversial political views such as private healthcare or banning gay marriage – he would eventually back down. He understood that while Albertans would support him on the managing of the economy, if he ever acted on his right wing rhetoric, he’d find a revolution on his hands. Ed Stelmach doesn’t seem to understand this fact. Since he has taken the reigns he’s managed to redo the royalty system in such a way that he’s managed to anger corporations that felt the increase was unfair AND people that wanted an increase in royalty rates in the first place. Instead of convincing Albertans that nuclear power is safe and emphasizing the economic benefits of it, it feels like the government is ramming it down Albertans' throats. And then there is Bill 44, a bill that is an embarrassment to the Albertan Education system.
The recently passed Bill makes it possible for parents to withdraw their children from classes if a “controversial subject” is brought up— sending fears down everyone’s spine that it will be used to allow parents to pull their children out of class when subjects like evolution, homosexuality, and others are brought up with the justification of protection “human rights”.
Environmentalists, The Teachers' Union, Gay Rights Activists, Athiests, The Oil Industry, all are amazingly being systematically infuriated by the Stelmach Government. And while an election is still years away, legislation like Bill 44 will only serve to rally people against their government.
The article, written by Murray Mandryk and published in the Saskatoon Star Phoenix and Regina-Leader Post, asks an interesting question: how did Alberta and Saskatchewan become so cozy in the first place?
"Here's one of the more intriguing "chicken or the egg" type of argument you'll hear on coffee row:
"Did this province elect a Saskatchewan Party government because we were already becoming more like Alberta, or has the election of a Saskatchewan Party government made this province more like Alberta?"
Regardless of which side of he debate you support, what's indisputable is the premise is that Saskatchewan has become more like Alberta."
Some residents of Saskatchewan may find the very premise to be alarming. In the same vein as Canadians who cry foul every time Canada inches too close to our southern neighbours for their liking, many of those who feel Saskatchewan's unique character -- as it were -- is threatened by too closely associating with the cowboys west of Lloydminster, they'll insist that too closely associating with Alberta somehow diminishes Saskatchewan.
Of course, there are some traits that Saskatchewan shouldn't be so eager to share with Alberta.
"More like it, mind you. Not exactly alike.
The outcome of elections in Saskatchewan, after all, are still not a foregone conclusion and will remain so for some time. This province also still has significantly deeper agricultural and small-town roots and significantly less urban pull than does Alberta (or any other province, for that matter)."
Indeed, democracy in Saskatchewan is much healthier than in Alberta.
During the 2007 provincial election, 76% of eligible voters reported to the polls, compared to the absolutely dismal figure of 41% in Alberta's 2008 election.
Saskatchewan does maintain a largely rural character, but a newfound determination to develop the province's considerable energy resources -- including oil sand reserves that may rival those in Alberta will inevitably change that. The kind of building projects necessary to support such development will require increased manufacturing capacity throughout Saskatchewan, particularly in the urban centers.
"Most significantly, Saskatchewan is the birthplace of the CCF-NDP and its social democratic influence isn't about to disappear anytime soon. Even at one of its historically low ebbs, the NDP still has 20 seats in the legislature and something close to 40 per cent of public support.
But it's also telling that on the very week that the NDP is celebrating the 75th anniversary of the Regina Manifesto, which urged the eradication of capitalism, the most exciting speculation within New Democratic ranks is the possibility of the return of a conservative-minded capitalist such as Dwain Lingenfelter to lead the party."
Certainly, being defeated after 16 years in power must certainly be deflating for the provincial NDP. Likewise, the party's federal prospects in the province are less than encouraging.
"That Saskatchewan's affinity for Alberta actually might have started under an NDP administration is more than a little ironic.
It was under former NDP premier Roy Romanow that deficit control, a curtailing of public investments and even income tax cuts really began. Romanow's successor as NDP leader and premier, Lorne Calvert, extended this agenda with cuts to the province's sales, business and corporate taxes."
Certainly, this would seem ironic if it weren't entirely in line with the political trends of the time.
Consider that Jean Chretien, one considered a stalwart of the liberal wing of the Liberal party, led a government that reduced the country's deficit drastically, and posted some of the only surpluses of the day in the Western World.
Chretien was responding to pressures being exerted upon his government by Preston Manning's Reform party, just as Roy Romanow -- and Lorne Calvert after him -- were responding to pressure being exerted by the upstart Saskatchewan party.
"This change under NDP governance happened at the same time that Saskatchewan's economic interests became more closely tied to the oil economy. The prospect of oil at nearly $100 a barrel was something that even an NDP government from this province could share eagerly with the Progressive Conservative government in Alberta.
It can be argued that Saskatchewan grew that much closer to Alberta with each dollar that a barrel of oil increased in price over the past four years. What's been bad for everyone else's economy has been great for ours, especially since the Saskatchewan Party's election win last November that has coincided with the price hike in a barrel of oil by $50."
It should be considered only natural that Saskatchewan and Alberta would grow closer considering the number of interests they hold in common. Both economies have constantly strengthened with the increasing value of oil and gas. Thus, as goes oil and gas will go the economies of Alberta and Saskatchewan -- although with some creative government and appropriate investment, this need not always be so -- and as goes the economy of Alberta or Saskatchewan will almost inevitably go the other.
"That said, Saskatchewan and Alberta today appear to be as closely bonded by political ties as economic ones. At least that's what some recent developments suggest.
The first ministers meeting in Quebec last week, where Premier Brad Wall and Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach found themselves at odds with their counterparts who were promoting cap-and-trade system on carbon emissions, was only the latest evidence of this emerging alliance.
We saw pretty much the same reaction from the two provinces to federal Liberal Leader Stephane Dion' Green Shift strategy, which takes square aim at Alberta and Saskatchewan's energy resources.
Stuck in the same foxhole and dodging bullets from eastern critics eager to portray Alberta and Saskatchewan as greedy, selfish and environmentally irresponsible, it's only natural that the two provinces would become that much closer.
That said, it's highly unlikely that an NDP government in Saskatchewan would have jumped into that same foxhole on the Green Shift or perhaps even on a cap-and-trade scheme."
Of course not.
It's easy to get along with your neighbours when you see eye-to-eye. And it would simply be less than reasonable to expect a Progressive Conservative government -- particularly one led by an individual like Ralph Klein -- to see eye-to-eye with an NDP government.
Likewise, there's nothing like an external threat -- say, that posed by a federal party with a history of confiscatory tax policies and a habit of breaking its promises -- to bring two provinces even closer together.
"The latest evidence of the bi-provincial political link came Monday with the Saskatchewan Party government signing on to Pacific North West Economic Region (PNWER) -- something the New Democrats of this province not only wouldn't do but would vigorously oppose, because they see it as precursor to joining the Trade and Investment Mobility Agreement reached by Alberta and British Columbia."
Then again, considering the vehemence of the NDP's opposition to NAFTA, it should be considered unsurprising that the NDP would decline to join an organization such as PNWER.
It's also less than surprising that a Saskatchewan party government -- considering that the Saskatchewan party was founded out of a coalition Progressive Conservatives and conservative-minded Liberals -- would be so eager to join.
It's also less than surprising that Alberta -- looking for any dance partner it can find in an effort to resist a potential replay of the infamous National Energy Policy -- would be so eager to get Saskatchewan on board.
"Lest there be any doubt about this newfound closeness, consider what deputy Alberta premier Ron Stevens said about sponsoring Saskatchewan's application to join the private-sector organization his province helped to create:
"I can tell you, as a neighbouring sister province, (Alberta has) seen under Premier Wall a change in attitude," Stevens said during Monday's PNWER press conference.
"The province now has a outward looking, engaging, active attitude and I think that Saskatchewan is going to be a robust, full member of this organization. We are all going to be beneficiaries of that."
Maybe the close bond with Alberta wasn't forged quite overnight. But make no mistake that Alberta and Saskatchewan have become closer than they've been in decades."
Certainly, Alberta and Saskatchewan have grown closer -- more than simply economically or politically.
Numerous residents of either province have migrated to the other over the past numerous years. In particular, there has been a strong trend of Albertans moving to Saskatchewan. And anywhere Albertans are moving in such numbers is almost inevitably due for a conservative resurgence.
In other words, it's no surprise that Alberta and Saskatchewan have become so cozy. Furthermore, it's about time.
In a recent post at his new blog, Bruce Stewart seems to have formulated what is at least a partial explanation for why so few voters (41% in 2008) bother reporting to the ballot box.
"All the incessant posturing, pre-electioneering, shouting, etc. that is modern politics in the age of the twenty-four hour news cycle, the spinmeisters, political consultants, and so on — all of which is focused on hard, fast, negative sound-bites — has alienated the electorate. The parallel to this, for those of us who have worked in and around the computer industry, was the late 1980s, when then “no one ever got fired for buying” giant IBM was almost universally disliked, mistrusted, yet (when a decision needed to be made) rewarded, for lack of an alternative. Alternatives are not a substitution of one company for another; they are a shift in the paradigm of use. When it came — with LANs, Windows 3.1, and the client/server computing model in and around 1992 — an earthquake occurred. IBM was rocked and spent years reinventing itself. (There are those who think this is about to happen to Microsoft in turn. We shall see.)
What this means is that the problem with politics has practically nothing to do with who the leaders are! The Liberals, for instance, will see no real gain by dumping Stéphane Dion for another leadership choice. Alberta PCs may be led by a less than stellar leader in Ed Stelmach — I expect the negative comments about him and his actions to begin again immediately — but that’s not the point.When the problem is the way we handle politics in the public arena, leaders are irrelevant."
While it seems counter-intuitive (in fact, Canadian politics seem to be obsessed with party leaders) a quick overview of recent Canadian political history actually demonstrates precisely the opposite.
Consider, in particular, the federal Conservative party. Then consider the criticisms directed at Preston Manning when he was leader of the Reform party, and Stockwell Day when he was leader of the Canadian Alliance. The criticisms directed against the three are essentially the same: "too right-wing, too religious, racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-French and will dismantle our cherished social programs".
This despite the fact that Harper and Day both speak fluent French, all three led the most diverse caucuses in Parliament of their time, and Preston Manning once paid for an African immigrant's wedding -- after helping him find his plane to Edmonton (he almost accidentally boarded a plane to Winnipeg instead).
Yet none of that mattered. Racism, sexism, homophobia and religion (there are still a number of ideologues about who throw a shit fit if Stephen Harper so much as says "god bless Canada") remain the tired old predictable epithets hurled at conservative leaders in Canada.
During this week's elections in Alberta, the predictable negative campaigning model was predictably at the forefront.
Albertan opposition groups have refined negative campaigning down to an art. Consider the following ads:
The idea, apparently, is that the now-defunct Albertans for Change spoke to every Albertan in the province, and found that none of them trust Ed Stelmach.
And if you believe that, the same people probably have a house in Fort McMurray they'd like to sell you -- a real bargain, too.
Likewise, it's funny that a group calling itself "Albertans for Change" would criticize Stelmach's plan for wanting to change too much. They really should have called themselves "Albertans for Change... not so much".
Previous ads for the group (seemingly no longer available via YouTube) actually went a step even further and seemed to suggest that oil and gas royalties were not merely uncollected, but had "gone missing" (read: were stolen).
Add all of this to the ludicrous episode in which a former U of A Student's Union executive misappropriated Stelmach's name in order to promote his blog, and the prevalence of negative political campaigning and political stunting in Alberta becomes prevalent.
But then compare that to the criticisms of Stelmach's predecessor, Ralph Klein: he, too, was accused of having no plan.
Different leaders, same criticism. Then again, having invested so much time and effort in formulating these criticisms in the first place, why would these individuals want to go back to the drawing board?
But the inherent laziness of these individuals does more than simply save them the trouble of matching a new criticism to a new leader. It also results in stale politics, wherein the same old, same old campaign is continually trotted out, just with some new window dressing.
Maybe Albertans aren't voting out of sheer boredom with the process.
Clearly, something new is needed. Bruce Stewart elaborates:
"I sometimes think the Green Party has it precisely backward (and I speak of them here because Green is as much a movement beyond normal politics as it is an attempt to enter the fray in the chambers of government). It’s not that we need another party. Instead we need a new politics. Part of the mania for Barack Obama that we see south of the border — and the original Tony Blair in Britain — and recently, Nicholas Sarkozy in France — and ever (malheursement) Pierre Trudeau in 1968 — is that they didn’t need to campaign from the sound-bite, negative, “my opponent est un gros enmerdement” point of view. They could strike out positively and say nothing about their opponents. (”Vote for us because of a, b & c” is so much more appealing than “Vote for us because we’re not those lying, cheating, stealing cretins”. So is treating the electorate as thinking, rational adults who are capable of responding to a sense of history, of vision and of direction rather than scaring them into taking action to avoid their fate.) That’s not to say that at various points in the campaign the experts didn’t create negative views, and the sniping didn’t begin — clearly it has — nor that the public is fooled with the leader keeping to high road while his or her entourage gets down in the mud (it is not; merde can be smelled even when the front-man’s shoes don’t stink)."
Of course, a lot of this helps dispel a myth regarding politics: that once upon a time politics was about ideas, and that voters were treated as adults. Politicians campaigned based on ideas, principles and policy, and refrained from smearing their opponents.
The old politics, however, are often mythologized as more refined and more mature, and the new politics as dirty, vicious affairs wrought with muckraking.
So what it turns out that what we really have is a bizarre vicious cycle in which the old politics masquerading as the new politics, making us long idealistically for the old politics.
Stewart is precisely right: what we really need is newer politics which, ironically, would finally be the new politics.
Politicians who deliver us this new political paradigm should almost certainly be rewarded -- if the electorate still cares enough to reward them when they finally come along.
And in Canada, we need this rather badly. The Alberta election may just turn out to be the greatest evidence of we have seen of this in a long time:
"Periodically institutions need reform. This is because, as Thomas Langan showed in his book Tradition and Authenticity in the Search for Ecumenic Wisdom, the institution takes on a life of its own separate from the tradition that gave it life. The faith yields the Church, and by so doing people in charge of the churches have interests in their roles separate from those required of them by the faith. The desire for societal self-government yields parliaments and assemblies, and those who sit in them have interests (for their factions, as the first American President, George Washington, noted) that diverge from what the process of governance requires of them. So it goes, everywhere.
Our political institutions are in advanced decay. They have been subordinated to parties, and those who cling to the apron-strings of power these represent.
What this electorate — and I care little whether we speak of your municipal government, your provincial government or institutional Ottawa — is most waiting for is the person who will come to politics to reform the system. Reform, in this sense, need not mean “a new political faction”: it could come just as easily by working within an existing party. But it would be a reform, indeed, of how politics is conducted. They would take the Kinsellas with their “ass-kicking”, and the Carvilles and Morrises with their “triangulation” and “it’s (just) the economy, stupids”, and others of their kind and boot them overboard. They would stop playing to the polls, or even worrying about them — pollsters need not apply for work here. They would treat their counter-parts with respect and speak firmly but quietly about matters of import rather than seizing upon the “issue of the day” or seek to blow up the scandal du jour (really, what’s the difference between that and the pumping and dumping which our Securities Laws say is illegal around the stock market?) in their place. They would assume in everything they do that their potential voters are capable of following complex issues with complex argumentation and rational (i.e. not simplistic) solutions on offer.
They would, in other words, offer an adult in place of the schoolyard bullies we must listen to today."
Unfortunately, even those who have the acumen to offer us such change can all too often go astray. As, sadly, was the case with Preston Manning:
"Would they win at first? Oh, heavens, no! — for staying the course is part of proving that this is reform and not merely a dash of lipstick on the same old street-walking. But there comes a tipping point, and then the whole structure from before comes tumbling down. When they do, it will wipe much of the past out of existence.
This is what Preston Manning didn’t know and lost sight of (and why I could not support his Reform Party). This is what is yet to be born. This is why Albertans told pollsters they wanted change and then voted for more of the same. This is why Federal politics remains deadlocked; why BC’s politics are frozen almost to the point where Gordon Campbell could do anything and not fear returning to the other side of the House; why Dalton McGuinty exists in the face of Caledonia, incredibly bad economic management and the destruction of a province and why, in the face of everything, Vancouver will probably return Sam Sullivan and Toronto David Miller to continue their reigns of error."
Manning, with his demotic political philosophy -- the belief that all disagreements can be amicably resolved if only the common sense of the common people is trusted -- was willing to offer a bridge between left-wing and right-wing ideologies in Canada. He offered precisely the kind of alternative that Canadian politics desperately needs.
But in time, the carrot and stick of Canadian politics, power, and the ability to enact his agenda turned Manning away from this path. At the end of the day, Manning all too often appeared to be an ordinary run-of-the-mill politician.
Bruce Stewart is precisely right: when Canadians are finally provided an alternative to the old-as-new politics, the results will be undeniable.
Alberta could prove to be an ideal testing ground for such an alternative, but the question remains: is anybody willing to take the risk of offering it?
If one believed the poll numbers, the vocally disgruntled Progressive Conservative voters, the opposition parties and the labour unions, one would have thought that, yesterday, Ed Stelmach's governing Tories were in for an unpleasant surprise.
Instead, it was the allegedly growing legions of opponents of the government that got the surprise, as Ed Stelmach and the PCs claimed a stunning 73-seat majority government.
The provincial Liberal party -- who made a point of repeatedly announcing that they were out to win -- found themselves reduced from 16 seats to nine. The NDP fared even more poorly, winning a mere two seats in the legislature.
With the polls favouring them, another PC government is no big surprise. However, with the political momentum being clearly against them, such an overwhelming majority (one seat short of Ralph Klein's biggest majority) absolutely should not have been in the cards.
So what happened?
Well, first off, the Liberals and NDP, collectively, ran the same-old same-old campaign. While rolling out a few promising policies, they focused mainly on negative campaigning, whether on their own or through proxies.
Collectively, their campaign fell just short in terms of sanctimony of the "Ralph Klein is the devil" campaign they essentially ran in 2004.
Beyond that, it stands as support that Alberta's opposition parties just don't learn, and they've internalized their inability to learn on very deep levels.
When Kevin Taft lost the 2004 election, he essentially responded by writing Democracy Derailed, which accused the provincial Tories of undermining democracy in the province. That's why the Liberals can't win in Alberta. Not because their ideas and policies don't appeal to the Albertan electorate, but rather because democracy has been undermined. By the villainous Tories. Right.
While a few aspects of Alberta's democratic system certainly are in need of a tune-up (the selection of returning officers to name just one example), for Taft to scapegoat the system for his inability to win is simply way too far off the mark.
Of course, there is one other factor, and it's an important one.
Alberta's positively depressing voter turnout seems to have reared its ugly head again. Early estimates suggest that perhaps as few as 40% of registered voters actually showed up to cast ballots.
One can't help but wonder how many Liberal, New Democrat and Wildrose Alliance voters decided to stay home out of the hopelessness deeply ingrained in so many opposition voters. If they had shown up, one can only wonder what could have happened.
Perhaps yesterday's Alberta election could have been the starting point for long-term change in the province.
Perhaps Alberta's opposition parties will have to search for a new way to make that happen.
In the meantime, Stelmach's landslide victory has left a lot of people scratching their heads, wondering, "what the fuck just happened?"
Alas, it's another election season in the province of Alberta. In Edmonton, we've been inundated with them recently. We've had our mayoral election, which ultimately resulted in the extinction of Bill Smith, the perrenial political dinosaur, and of course there was the exercise in democratic futility that was the American Presidential Election (Locutus would be proud).
Just as with the American election, I'm noticing a trend amongst left-wing political forces in the province: that is, they have a platform of exactly one point: Ralph Klein is an asshole.
Ralph Klein is apparently the devil. Fuck me, I thought my first grade teacher was. But apparently, I was wrong. Ralph Klein has taken Alberta's incredible amount of revenue and put down payment on all seven rings of hell, and is currently building himself a pretty nice beach house on the lake of fire.
What I'm bascially referring to here is the lack of will amongst the left-wing to contest the actual issues regarding Ralph Klein and the PCs chokehold on governance for the past 12 years. While there are many weak points and black marks on Ralph Klein's record that can be looked at, there is very little attention being given to these matters. What seems to be sucking up all of the attention is Ralph Klein himself. Ralph the man. It seems that the supporters of the NDP and Green Party in particular (although I would exempt the Liberal party from this) want to contest this election on the question of whether or not Ralph Klein is an asshole.
That makes for some pretty weak politics.
Why is so relatively little attention being paid to Klein flirting with the ideas of de-regulation, and so much being paid to his less admirable personality traits?
The answer is rather simple: a belief has emerged that Ralph Klein is the lord and master of right-wing politics in the province of Alberta, and that right wing politics must be destroyed and supplanted entirely by left wing politics. There is even a poem in Songs of the Street Vol. 5 that tells us this. The right wing is evil, the left-wing is good, and evil must be destroyed. Period.
But what is necessary here is a time-out to remember what the right wing and left wing actually represent, not what we would be made to believe they do by those who are allowing their passions to get the better of them. We are told that right wing politics is all about money, and all about personal gain. Which is, as the left wing expects us to believe, why King Ralph is noticably friendly to corporations (those evil, evil corporations) and the interests of the wealthy.
We would also be made to believe that left wing politcs are all about human rights and equality -- in other words (at least those of the left wing) all that is good and true in the world. This explains why the NDP believe that it is wise to tax citizens into debt in order to fund social welfare programs that will ultimately drive any state into debt as well. Everyone wins!!!
Fuck all that.
Because it isn't true. Strictly speaking, what left wing politics are ultimately about is change. Why have human rights and equality become so closely associated with the left wing? Because these have been the great battle of the past three hundred years. And these things required change. Take the civil rights movement in the United States. Civil rights in the United States. Especially in the southern states, this required tremendous amounts of change. This is where the right wing comes in.
The right wing represents maintaining the status quo. It isn't about oppression, it's about an idea: things are alright as is. Which, of course, is rarely the case. This is why the status quo becomes so associated with some of the redneck ideals that the province of Alberta is known for. People don't tend to like change. In fact, they fear it. Everyone knows this, we have known it since forever.
Was segregation and inequality in the United States right? Hell, no. As with feminism world wide, the civil rights movement (world wide) accomplished things that were necessary for the world to become a better place. God bless them. But here comes the rub:
If the current reality of the world is equality (which it isn't, but let us assume that it is), we still have the problem of the Neo-Nazis and the KKK. If human rights and equality are the norm and the world is a wonderful place in which everyone is sooooo happy, then the Neo-Nazis and the KKK have just become proponents of left wing politics. After all, change is the domain of the left wing.
Clearly, moral and ideological divisions of the left wing from the right wing are nearly impossible. Believing that the left wing is all about equality and social welfare is putting the cart in front of the horse. For the industrialized world to go from being an oppressive capitalist monopoly on freedom to being a completely egalitarian state, something must be done. If we consider this to be a horse, well, somebody has to pull that fucker. What pulls the cart? Change is the horse that pulls the cart. A similar idea applies to the right wing. If maintaining the status quo is what we wish, then something has to pull that cart back the other way. After all, as Newton's laws of physics tell us, while an object at rest stays at rest, once somebody gets it moving, it's going to stay moving until somebody stops that bitch. So what to do? We attach a horse to the other side of the cart, and pull the other motherfucking way.
Thus we have the problem with "us vs. them" partisan politics. At the end of the day, little (if anything) gets done. Dividing ourselves along lines of the left and right ends of the political spectrum is counter-productive. We may make progress from time to time, but how do we know if it is in the right direction?
In Alberta, we will be debt-free in 2005. That's a pretty big accomplishment. How has this happenend? Ralph Klein's PC government tightened its belt for a few years, and cut spending to social programs. Now, as long as our politicans are able to maintain a balanced budget, we should have a surplus for a long, long time. The world is now literally our Oyster.
So, what do we do? Do we give the tories the boot? "Thanks for paying the debt. No good deed goes unpunished." Do we turn over the Alberta legislature to a Liberal party that has proven themselves to be just as corrupt and morally unaccountable as any "evil conservative fascist regime"? Do we roll the dice on the NDP, knowing that the use of Saskatchewan as a testing ground for their theories on government has been such an unmitigated failure?
Hopefully, the answer will be none of these.
I'd like to quote Fritz Lang, the director of Metropolis (the 1927 silent film version, not that bad ass Tezuka version): "the mediator between head and hands must be the heart". What I mean by this is, the hands and head cannot really get along without each other. The hands will toil in vain without the head to guide it, and without hands, the head's designs will go for naught.
The left wing and right wing need each other. Each are indispensible. To quote so many Arby's commercials, "change is good". But while we're caught up in the ideal of revolutionary change, let us learn the lessons of the 1917 Russian Revolution: while we're changing things, let's not fuck them up worse than they were in the first fucking place.
The change the left wing so desires must be tempered by the pragmatics of the right wing.
So I have a message for all the ultra-left wing douchebags who would rather demonize Ralph Klein than talk real politics: the province of Alberta is much better off with a Conservative majority government with a strong NDP/Liberal/Green Party opposition. Furthermore, this is a much more realistic goal than complete left wing dominance of provincial politics.
The future of politics lies not with the left wing or the right wing. It lies with the moderates. It is us who shall be the mediators.
"Ignatieff, I think he's playing a game," Klein speculated. "He says all the right things, especially when he's in Alberta and in British Columbia, he says whatever the population desires. 
