Since Jean would oust me from the party, how can I vote for him?

What Alberta’s Tories urgently need now is proven competence, and that means vote Kenney

Whenever I try to be “clever,” I get into trouble. So I won’t try; I’ll come right out and confess. I have two biases in favour of Jason Kenney becoming leader of the new United Conservative Party. For one. he is the godfather of our granddaughter, Elise Byfield, fourth child of our son Link who died two and a half years ago. How can I vote against him?

And why would I want to? He’s a very good politician. I spoke at his nomination meeting in 1997 in Calgary when he first ran for Parliament. He won that election and six more. In fact he’s never lost one. In Ottawa, under the Harper government, he handled three top cabinet posts, all risky — employment, defence and immigration– and succeeded eminently in all three.

However it was in an adjunct to the third one — labelled “multiculturalism” — a burden at best to most incumbents, where Kenney’s success was simply remarkable. He turned the office into an election gold mine for the Tories, addressing every possible New Canadian group across the land with the same message — “Vote Your Conscience.” He knew that New Canadians were probably the most natural social conservatives in Canada. They logically had little in common with the social agenda of the Liberals and even less with that of the NDP. In the 2011 election, he is credited with adding more than a dozen Tory seats in the Toronto area, helping mightily to achieve a Conservative majority government.

His skills are much needed right now in Alberta. Throughout this calendar year, we have begun to suffer the dire consequences of what seems, to inexpert people like me, an agenda of flawed environmental policies. On top of this, we must sustain the effects of new technologies that vastly expand the reserve of fossil fuels– meaning there’s a crippling oversupply of what we sell. Construction, I’m told, has come near a dead halt in Calgary, empty office space is everywhere evident, and Edmonton can expect to be hit just as hard next year. The outlook, in other words, is grim. Not since the ‘Eighties. or perhaps even the ‘Thirties, of the last century have our prospects looked so bleak.

So what we urgently need at the helm of the provincial government is sound, proven competence. And in Kenney, that is precisely what is being offered to us. In terms of experience, aptitude, and governmental background, nobody in the province comes anywhere near him. “Folksiness” just won’t cut it. We’ve already got our fill of that in Ottawa. So that’s one reason I urge people to make Kenney leader of the UCP, of which he himself is the central architect. After that, the job will be to make him premier. And make no mistake about it: it’s Kenney that the NDP really fear, and well they should.

Then there’s the other reason I’m backing Kenney. I really like the way this new conservative movement is taking hold, and I honestly do not want to be expelled from it. But nevertheless that’s what the other leading candidate for the leadership, Brian Jean, promises he’s going to do to me if he gets elected leader. Why? Because I’m one of those awful “crazies,” as he calls us, whom Mr. Jean so bitterly denounces. I’m a social conservative.

He gets quite nasty about us. When the Calgary Sun reporter asked him to explain the “homophobia” in the old Wildrose Party, he had a ready answer: “There are nuts in every party. Everybody has these people in their party who others would classify as nutbars. What do we do with them? Well, at first, we can try to manage them and then we get rid of them. That’s the truth of it. Our reaction will be quick. It will be ruthless.”

When I first read that word “ruthless,” I found myself smitten with Jeanophobia. Oxford provides some synonyms: “merciless, pitiless, cruel, hard-hearted, cold-hearted, cold-blooded, harsh, unmerciful, unforgiving, uncaring, inflexible, implacable, brutal, inhuman, barbarous, barbaric, savage, sadistic, vicious.” This is how Mr. Jean sees himself treating us social conservatives if he becomes leader. It’s his way, as he explains, of uniting the party– “ruthlessly” throwimg everybody who disagrees with him out of it. Perhaps, however, he didn’t actually realize what that word means, and perhaps it doesn’t really matter, and might even help. It will make him sound folksier than ever. Purists would doubtless object. It’s not good, they would say, for a premier to use words without knowing what they mean. But they are plainly out of touch with the new realities.

In a Global Television interview Mr. Jean sought to explain his phobia for homophobia: “I have no tolerance whatsoever for any kind of hate or abuse,” he declared. (Unless, apparently, it’s directed at social conservatives.) “I don’t think those people belong in any party, to be honest. (Is he actually suggesting that we social conservatives be denied the rights of citizenship? Surely not.) “But I do believe in freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to pursue what you want to do, and I protect that, but that doesn’t mean you can hurl hate and abuse on people.”

The Global interviewer struggled to extract from Mr. Jean the dimensions of the group he was planning to expel. How many social conservatives did he have in mind? Obviously there were thousands of people in the new party who probably considered themselves social conservatives — doubtless many of the 25,000 parents who signed a petition demanding greater participation in curriculum planning and other educational policies would place themselves in that category. Were they all to go? Or are there to be permissible degrees of social conservatism with allowable bounds on what criticisms could and could not be made publicly. Would there perhaps be a party censorship commission to police all comments by members offered on the social media?

Obviously, Mr. Jean had nor directed his thoughts to any of these problematic questions, though he did mention he had five people in mind for expulsion, and later without explanation changed this number to three. Meanwhile, his emails cite dubious polls showing he’s a sure winner, and reflecting that more and more people are coming to his cause. Among those hoping against hope for his victory, one can dependably believe, is the entire caucus of our socialist NDP government

Ted Byfield was founder and publisher of Alberta Report news magazine, general editor of Alberta in the Twentieth Century. a 12-volume history of the province, and general editor of The Christians: Their First Two Thousand Years, a 12-volume history of Christianity. His column on education appears in The Christians.com, a web journal. He has recently authored two little books on modern pedagogy: Why History Matters and The Revolution Nobody Covered. You can order both copies here.

 

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “Since Jean would oust me from the party, how can I vote for him?

  1. Could not agree more!
    Brian does not represent democracy at all, and his centralist leanings are only becoming more pronounced. He will lean whichever way the wind blows, and the are plenty who want to stay him to their cause. There goes the beliefs and budget (again!).

    Jason has earned our respect over a long career. If ever there was a need for someone with provincial and federal experience, it is now. One could almost call him a God-send!
    #voteforJason

    Like

  2. Pray pray that the scenario of a split vote between Kenny and Jean does not allow Schwartz to take the leadership as his millennial support is probably stronger than that of Kenny or Jean’s.
    Schwartz, I think, would be more damaging as premier than Jean.

    Like

    1. I’m a millenial, and let me tell you, Doug will not ever get a ranking on my ballet. He is just an NDP agent that has not crossed the floor yet. Kenney is the last best hope of turning this province around.

      Like

  3. Fiscal conservatives, who want rational, responsible stewardship of their tax money, should not fear social conservatives, who want the same but also protection from attacks from the state and narrow interest groups on their morality. Indeed, fiscal conservatism without social conservatism is mere selfishness. So the well-rounded conservative will be voting for Kenny.

    Like

  4. None of the political parties offer a viable solution to our economic and social problems. In order to maintain government services, the NDP are submerging us evermore in debt to the Banking system through deficit borrowing. The Conservatives would cut back on the deficit thereby to restrict the flow of new credit, leaving costs and prices hanging unliquidated in mid-air, thereby permitting the banking system to foreclose on the assets of the community.

    The Left and the Right are both subservient to the faulty, parasitical and dysfunctional Banking System. We are offered the fraudulent choice of being “shot or boiled in oil.” A balanced budget is a mathematical impossibility because the price-system itself is non- self-liquidating: It generates financial costs and prices at an ever increasing rate of flow than it simultaneously generates consumer incomes–increasingly as labour is rapidly replaced by technology as a factor of production.

    An additional and increasing flow of effective purchasing-power is absolutely essential to maintain a functioning economy. That flow is provided today, when and to the extent that it is provided, by new money in the form of bank credit (i.e., debt) which allows past production to be purchased, but only by an increasing mortgage on future production. This allows producers after a fashion to recover their financial costs at point of retail sale. However, it does not liquidate these costs of production at point of sale because it merely carries them forward as a charge against future production.

    The physical costs of production are fully met when the product emerges finished from the production line, at which time we pay financially once for these goods but are then required to pay for them a second time in the price of future goods. The problem, and it is a fatal problem, arises from the fraudulent claim of the banking system to actual ownership of the credit which they issue to monetize the community’s real wealth–upon which they will foreclose in the case of loan default, although they have played no role in the actual creation of these assets.

    This is legalized counterfeiting–legalized because incompetent or corrupt governments issue a Charter to the banks to hold a monopoly of credit issue–which they issue only as debt owing to themselves.

    The new money required to bridge the spiralling deficiency of consumer purchasing-power relative to final consumer prices absolutely must be issued–but not as debt owing the the Banking system. It should be drawn from a properly constituted National Credit Account (being an actuarially determined, and regular revised, valuation of the physical real capital of the nation) and paid out to all citizens as consumer credits, without being accounted as debt, in the form of universal National (Consumer) Dividends and payments to retailers enabling them to sell at reducing, i.e., Compensated (Retail) Prices.

    The physical costs of production are fully acquitted when it is completed and ready for use or consumption. There should exist no residual financial debt. The financial system should faithfully reflect this irrefutable fact. There should be no need for consumer debt whatsoever. Financial ignorance is the Achilles Heel of the Conservative movement and accounts for its continuing inability to mount anything but ineffective rear-guard action against the steady growth of the power in the hands of the State–under governments of all political labels.

    Like

  5. I think that whatever else Jason Kenny has done in the past, he has made patently clear his allegiance to a foreign power whose policy is entirely antithetical to, and contemptuous of, Christian values and policies. His evidenced fundamentalist extremism and threats to restrict freedom of speech when he was a Federal Cabinet Minister should pose a major concern to all “conservatives” and other freedom-loving citizens. I will refrain from commenting on the other candidates.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s