Jared Wesley and Ken Boessenkool want Alberta to retreat from referendums, recall and citizen initiatives. Their case rests on contradictions, selective evidence and a misreading of democracy, now Canadians trust their elites least.
Another insightful and thoughtful essay. Thank you for the time and effort you devote to defending the rights and freedoms of Albertans—and, really, all Canadians.
I believe there is a middle ground that could benefit Alberta within Canada, but it would require meaningful reform of how this country is governed. Unfortunately, too few Canadians seem to see the need for that reform. Perhaps the current system benefits them, perhaps its shortcomings don't directly affect them, or perhaps they simply don't care but without the willingness to make those fundamental changes, I see little prospect for meaningful reform. And so, I choose independence.
I am a former subscriber to The Line and their constant deferral to experts and carney adulation, condescension to the separatists and deliberate misunderstanding of our views caused me to quit paying them. I rarely read their nonsense any more.
I find you much more balanced and respectful of all citizens. Thank you
Marcie, I still (well, sometimes) read The Line but, quite honestly, I find their skilled writing (and it is skilled) is so often skewed. And, Jen Gerson's rants against we separatists!
In any event, my point is that, yes, I still read The Line but I am wondering whether I will renew; perhaps I will take your route and be a former reader.
"Seppies" is the new word Gerson coined. I like Jenn and I appreciate her talent, but she lost my respect when she called Eva Chipiuk a "seppie." That’s just disrespectful and unprofessional.
Hmmmm .... "seppies" ...... new one on me. But that is a demonstration of my reduction in attention that I give to The Line. Yes, young Jennifer can definitely be disrespectful. On the other hand, she clearly is a gifted writer.
It doesn't seem like they have thought out the implications of what they write. They're meant to be propaganda or hit pieces, insults and slurs against fellow Albertans, rather than throughful pieces.
I have read some of the scholarly pieces Wesley writes, and they don't possess the invective and shallowness that these "popular" pieces have. To me, that makes it worse.
Thank you, Marco Navarro-Génie. I always appreciate your objectivity and thorough treatment of a subject.
I think arguments about democracy become contentious because the concept is often presented as a package deal. Each side assigns it a different meaning, and those meanings become obscured in the resulting rancor.
It is useful to define one’s terms. In its essential political sense, “democracy” means mob rule, or the tyranny of the majority. The danger was demonstrated in 399 BC, when popular opinion led to Socrates being sentenced to death. For that reason, direct democracy should not form the structural foundation of the rule of law.
The democratic process, on the other hand, is useful for selecting political representatives. Yet some advocate leaving the “big issues” and complex problems to elected officials and their appointed “experts,” without any viable system of civic restraint. That position both insults individuals in society and contains a contradiction: if citizens are fit only to be ruled by the current elected elite, how can they also be qualified to choose that elite?
The essential choice in politics is between freedom and force. We expect government to use its monopoly on the use of force to protect us from foreign and domestic criminals. We also expect it to mediate domestic disputes arising from contracts through objectively determined laws. As individuals, we do not have to justify our freedom of action when it respects the right of others to act freely. Government, however, must justify its use of force against us. Our greatest challenge as a society is to restrain our government.
This position is often regarded as good in theory but not in practice. I disagree: if an idea is in fact good, which means that it is true, it should also be good in practice. If it is not, the flaw lies in the practice.
Canada was built on political compromise, including compromises over principles such as individual freedom, validated rights, private property, and economic freedom. The founders did agree on one point, however: Central Canada would be the locus of both political power and economic control. That arrangement established a regrettable tradition that continues to this day.
The intransigence of Central Canada in continuing to treat the prairies, particularly Alberta, as federal property to be managed and exploited for the benefit of the Laurentians is why I am supporting autonomy for Alberta.
Thank you for your kind words and support, Edward, it keeps this work going. I appreciate a thoughtful comment.
You have put your finger on the essay's central point more economically than I did: if citizens are fit only to be ruled by the elected elite, it is hard to see how they are qualified to choose it. That contradiction sits at the heart of the Wesley–Boessenkool case.
I also agree that definitions matter. Democracy cannot simply mean the unrestrained will of a majority. Constitutional government, the rule of law, divided powers, and protected rights all exist to place limits on political power, including power exercised with majority support.
Your Alberta point follows naturally from that. A federation also depends on limits, restraint, and confidence that its constituent parts retain a meaningful voice. When that confidence erodes over time, demands for greater autonomy will naturallyarise.
So their idea is that removing the direct democracy outlet for separation leaves only the representative option? Or no option?
It seems they are begging for the grievances to grow worse until Alberta births its own PQ/BQ parties and then what? Under the “democracy is for losers” framing, is a separatist government still permitted to convene a binding popular referendum or does a separatist party merely holding majority power in the chamber imply the separatist MLAs have been given the sole authority to decide?
And as to following the proper rules for secession… to Americans this is hilarious. If Alberta gets to the point of negotiating a divorce, and finds Ottawa’s terms unreasonable, then Alberta will hold a lot better cards for telling the faraway parliament to pound sand than we did in the 18th century.
First, I must offer a comment that I so, so often offer about your essays: Well done, Sir!
I previously read the Boessenkool/Wesley screed published on The Line and found myself annoyed at it. In fact, I identified some of the particulars that you identified - not all, but some. In particular, I was annoyed, no, make that indignant, that two supposedly skilled pamphleteers would either miss or deliberately obscure the difference between asking for direction in developing a policy and the absence of a detailed policy.
The truth is that I concluded that their supposed "analysis" was deliberately meant as a hit piece. I absolutely accept that one can have differing opinions. Indeed, I know that my opinions are different than those held by Boessenkool and Wesley and that neither upsets me nor causes me concern that I am in some sense deficient. Simply put, we have differing opinions, something that is allowed in a democracy; or, perhaps, B and W do not believe in that - one doesn't know.
In any event, my annoyance/indignation was such that I simply did not bother making a comment on The Line. Further, unlike my normal course, I did not review other comments for potential aspects that I (as is often the case!) may not have adequately considered; I was simply too annoyed.
I am very impressed with your comment about the idea that democracy is of losers insofar as, in a legitimate democracy, losers must accept a loss and consider that they, too, might win in the future. And, as you correctly point out, the recall and referenda options are ways for such a future "win" but, obviously, B and W don't want "my kind" to ever win; so much for democracy, I guess.
I have other comments but, rather than simply be tiresomely verbose, I will close with one point. Over the years, I have read The Line with interest and found the writing to obviously be skilled. The editors are, simply put, skilled journalists. They are, in a very general sense, mildly conservative (small "c" to be sure) but are terrifically pro-Canada. Indeed, Madam Gerson habitually offers a rant to that effect on their Friday podcase.
My point is that I suggest that you might offer your piece herein as an op-ed of sorts to The Line.
Another insightful and thoughtful essay. Thank you for the time and effort you devote to defending the rights and freedoms of Albertans—and, really, all Canadians.
I believe there is a middle ground that could benefit Alberta within Canada, but it would require meaningful reform of how this country is governed. Unfortunately, too few Canadians seem to see the need for that reform. Perhaps the current system benefits them, perhaps its shortcomings don't directly affect them, or perhaps they simply don't care but without the willingness to make those fundamental changes, I see little prospect for meaningful reform. And so, I choose independence.
I am a former subscriber to The Line and their constant deferral to experts and carney adulation, condescension to the separatists and deliberate misunderstanding of our views caused me to quit paying them. I rarely read their nonsense any more.
I find you much more balanced and respectful of all citizens. Thank you
Marcie, I still (well, sometimes) read The Line but, quite honestly, I find their skilled writing (and it is skilled) is so often skewed. And, Jen Gerson's rants against we separatists!
In any event, my point is that, yes, I still read The Line but I am wondering whether I will renew; perhaps I will take your route and be a former reader.
"Seppies" is the new word Gerson coined. I like Jenn and I appreciate her talent, but she lost my respect when she called Eva Chipiuk a "seppie." That’s just disrespectful and unprofessional.
Hmmmm .... "seppies" ...... new one on me. But that is a demonstration of my reduction in attention that I give to The Line. Yes, young Jennifer can definitely be disrespectful. On the other hand, she clearly is a gifted writer.
It doesn't seem like they have thought out the implications of what they write. They're meant to be propaganda or hit pieces, insults and slurs against fellow Albertans, rather than throughful pieces.
I have read some of the scholarly pieces Wesley writes, and they don't possess the invective and shallowness that these "popular" pieces have. To me, that makes it worse.
Thank you, Marco Navarro-Génie. I always appreciate your objectivity and thorough treatment of a subject.
I think arguments about democracy become contentious because the concept is often presented as a package deal. Each side assigns it a different meaning, and those meanings become obscured in the resulting rancor.
It is useful to define one’s terms. In its essential political sense, “democracy” means mob rule, or the tyranny of the majority. The danger was demonstrated in 399 BC, when popular opinion led to Socrates being sentenced to death. For that reason, direct democracy should not form the structural foundation of the rule of law.
The democratic process, on the other hand, is useful for selecting political representatives. Yet some advocate leaving the “big issues” and complex problems to elected officials and their appointed “experts,” without any viable system of civic restraint. That position both insults individuals in society and contains a contradiction: if citizens are fit only to be ruled by the current elected elite, how can they also be qualified to choose that elite?
The essential choice in politics is between freedom and force. We expect government to use its monopoly on the use of force to protect us from foreign and domestic criminals. We also expect it to mediate domestic disputes arising from contracts through objectively determined laws. As individuals, we do not have to justify our freedom of action when it respects the right of others to act freely. Government, however, must justify its use of force against us. Our greatest challenge as a society is to restrain our government.
This position is often regarded as good in theory but not in practice. I disagree: if an idea is in fact good, which means that it is true, it should also be good in practice. If it is not, the flaw lies in the practice.
Canada was built on political compromise, including compromises over principles such as individual freedom, validated rights, private property, and economic freedom. The founders did agree on one point, however: Central Canada would be the locus of both political power and economic control. That arrangement established a regrettable tradition that continues to this day.
The intransigence of Central Canada in continuing to treat the prairies, particularly Alberta, as federal property to be managed and exploited for the benefit of the Laurentians is why I am supporting autonomy for Alberta.
Thank you for your kind words and support, Edward, it keeps this work going. I appreciate a thoughtful comment.
You have put your finger on the essay's central point more economically than I did: if citizens are fit only to be ruled by the elected elite, it is hard to see how they are qualified to choose it. That contradiction sits at the heart of the Wesley–Boessenkool case.
I also agree that definitions matter. Democracy cannot simply mean the unrestrained will of a majority. Constitutional government, the rule of law, divided powers, and protected rights all exist to place limits on political power, including power exercised with majority support.
Your Alberta point follows naturally from that. A federation also depends on limits, restraint, and confidence that its constituent parts retain a meaningful voice. When that confidence erodes over time, demands for greater autonomy will naturallyarise.
Many thanks again
So their idea is that removing the direct democracy outlet for separation leaves only the representative option? Or no option?
It seems they are begging for the grievances to grow worse until Alberta births its own PQ/BQ parties and then what? Under the “democracy is for losers” framing, is a separatist government still permitted to convene a binding popular referendum or does a separatist party merely holding majority power in the chamber imply the separatist MLAs have been given the sole authority to decide?
And as to following the proper rules for secession… to Americans this is hilarious. If Alberta gets to the point of negotiating a divorce, and finds Ottawa’s terms unreasonable, then Alberta will hold a lot better cards for telling the faraway parliament to pound sand than we did in the 18th century.
First, I must offer a comment that I so, so often offer about your essays: Well done, Sir!
I previously read the Boessenkool/Wesley screed published on The Line and found myself annoyed at it. In fact, I identified some of the particulars that you identified - not all, but some. In particular, I was annoyed, no, make that indignant, that two supposedly skilled pamphleteers would either miss or deliberately obscure the difference between asking for direction in developing a policy and the absence of a detailed policy.
The truth is that I concluded that their supposed "analysis" was deliberately meant as a hit piece. I absolutely accept that one can have differing opinions. Indeed, I know that my opinions are different than those held by Boessenkool and Wesley and that neither upsets me nor causes me concern that I am in some sense deficient. Simply put, we have differing opinions, something that is allowed in a democracy; or, perhaps, B and W do not believe in that - one doesn't know.
In any event, my annoyance/indignation was such that I simply did not bother making a comment on The Line. Further, unlike my normal course, I did not review other comments for potential aspects that I (as is often the case!) may not have adequately considered; I was simply too annoyed.
I am very impressed with your comment about the idea that democracy is of losers insofar as, in a legitimate democracy, losers must accept a loss and consider that they, too, might win in the future. And, as you correctly point out, the recall and referenda options are ways for such a future "win" but, obviously, B and W don't want "my kind" to ever win; so much for democracy, I guess.
I have other comments but, rather than simply be tiresomely verbose, I will close with one point. Over the years, I have read The Line with interest and found the writing to obviously be skilled. The editors are, simply put, skilled journalists. They are, in a very general sense, mildly conservative (small "c" to be sure) but are terrifically pro-Canada. Indeed, Madam Gerson habitually offers a rant to that effect on their Friday podcase.
My point is that I suggest that you might offer your piece herein as an op-ed of sorts to The Line.
Again, Sir, terrific work!
Thank you, Ken. I share your sentiment. I could try to send them a shorter version, and see what happens. I appreciate the suggestion.