Post

A lot of questions today about how Danielle Smith -- the "libertarian" and "conservative" -- could use closure & the notwithstanding clause to remove Albertans' Charter rights. The answer: she's neither libertarian nor conservative. Is the province or her party, though? We'll soon find out.+

In opposition, Smith cultivated an image of as a small-government conservative. In government, she's proven anything but. From the outset, I've raised concerns about this. And I was joined by other conservatives. www.readtheline.ca/p/jared-wesl...

Instead, Smith is best considered a populist, both in the strategic sense.... www.cbc.ca/news/canada/...

.... and in the philosophical sense. When it comes to freedoms, she views these as privileges not entitlements -- to be granted to the most deserving as judged by her government (which is the embodiment of "the people"). drjaredwesley.substack.com/p/the-ucp-is...

Like most far right populists today, Smith places more emphasis on outcomes (ends) than processes (means). Policy is legitimate, in her eyes, if it conforms to her worldview (which is, again, the embodiment of "the people"). Institutions that put brakes on her power must be removed or sidestepped.