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...

Smith's approach is foreign to the conservative sensibilities of the old PC coalition here in Alberta. Architect of s.33, Lougheed was a champion of the legislature's role in democracy. Smith walked away from those traditions long ago. drjaredwesley.substack.com/p/alberta-ne...

.... 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.

But far right populists don't always get their way. They fall short when the public pushes back on the false projection of "the people's interest," revealing it as a myth. And when real conservatives and libertarians say enough is enough. drjaredwesley.substack.com/p/taco-meet-...