I agree with everything you say, Prof. Wesley, as does everyone with whom I have any kind of close relationship. It seems to me that of your 3 critical questions, the first two are, in a sense, implicitly contained in the third. And it is the answer to that third question that defines the political landscape in Alberta. While it is undoubtedly the case that if you ask any random Alberta whether they agree that government should strive for the "greatest good for the greatest number", where it breaks down is how each such person defines "the greatest good".
I suggest that for a significant portion of the Alberta population, that definition is found, in their minds, in the US constitutional imperatives of "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", rather than the Canadian constitutional imperatives of "Peace, order, and good government". The social/cultural influence of the US on Canada cannot be ignored.
What that means (to me) in practical terms, is that "the greatest good" becomes "the greatest good for me". If it's good for me, well then it must be good for everyone. And as long as whatever the government is doing (or not doing) is something I perceive as benefiting (or not hurting) me, then I'm fine with that.
Whether it's democratic or "good government", is irrelevant.
As the American Sociologist, Robert Merton, noted in 1938, the American dream is the pursuit of wealth and status/power. Those who have already attained that ferociously advocate for its continuance. Those that haven't, aspire to it so support what they see as the process by which they too will attain that.
I can conceive of no other reason that explains why so many voters actually vote against their own best interests. "Once I attain that wealth and power, the present system will be in my best interest". "Democaracy? We don't need no stinkin' democracy."
I truly appreciate your writing and the work you do. Vital to informing those of us stymied by the 'flood the zone' strategy and the frames employed.
Dr. Wesley: Practically speaking, is there any issue with joining / supporting all groups seeking to counter the separatists and power consolidators (e.g., joining Forever Canadian, supporting NDP initiative, supporting "Liberal party", other groups)?
And are personal emails still important (even though I get the feeling they just get a 'tick' in the opponents' category)?
Thank you for the excellent article. I will also use those three simple questions when needed. Although I don't really have many UCP supporters in my circle, thank goodness
This is awesome, Professor Wesley. It's exactly what is needed in this toxic media landscape about what government is and what it's not or shouldn't be. I hope this way of looking at it gets distributed far and wide, well before the coming referendum.
Excellent analysis and conclusions. The three questions are non-partisan and applicable not only in Alberta. #2 and #3 especially apply here in Ontario, where the direction is less accountability and more breaking of norms every day by the Ford government.
You are dead on with everything you covered. But as one reader said, we need a more simplified way of talking to people. The 3 questions are a good start, but more simple talking points would be very helpful. 😊
Your astute questions put me in mind of the litmus test to determine if a government's turning authoritarian, as outlined in ' How Democracies Die ' by Levitsky & Ziblatt. A lot of overlap there.
Thank you. You've offered another handrail for all Albertans to understand how the present (UCP) government cares only about keeping power and shows very little interest in public service.
I agree with everything you say, Prof. Wesley, as does everyone with whom I have any kind of close relationship. It seems to me that of your 3 critical questions, the first two are, in a sense, implicitly contained in the third. And it is the answer to that third question that defines the political landscape in Alberta. While it is undoubtedly the case that if you ask any random Alberta whether they agree that government should strive for the "greatest good for the greatest number", where it breaks down is how each such person defines "the greatest good".
I suggest that for a significant portion of the Alberta population, that definition is found, in their minds, in the US constitutional imperatives of "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", rather than the Canadian constitutional imperatives of "Peace, order, and good government". The social/cultural influence of the US on Canada cannot be ignored.
What that means (to me) in practical terms, is that "the greatest good" becomes "the greatest good for me". If it's good for me, well then it must be good for everyone. And as long as whatever the government is doing (or not doing) is something I perceive as benefiting (or not hurting) me, then I'm fine with that.
Whether it's democratic or "good government", is irrelevant.
As the American Sociologist, Robert Merton, noted in 1938, the American dream is the pursuit of wealth and status/power. Those who have already attained that ferociously advocate for its continuance. Those that haven't, aspire to it so support what they see as the process by which they too will attain that.
I can conceive of no other reason that explains why so many voters actually vote against their own best interests. "Once I attain that wealth and power, the present system will be in my best interest". "Democaracy? We don't need no stinkin' democracy."
You nailed this, Jared.
Now I finally know what I'll say the next time I end up in conversation with someone from the other side.
Mr. Wesley’s ability to communicate these vital concepts while cutting through the crap is so greatly appreciated. Extremely well done , sir.
I truly appreciate your writing and the work you do. Vital to informing those of us stymied by the 'flood the zone' strategy and the frames employed.
Dr. Wesley: Practically speaking, is there any issue with joining / supporting all groups seeking to counter the separatists and power consolidators (e.g., joining Forever Canadian, supporting NDP initiative, supporting "Liberal party", other groups)?
And are personal emails still important (even though I get the feeling they just get a 'tick' in the opponents' category)?
Thank you for the excellent article. I will also use those three simple questions when needed. Although I don't really have many UCP supporters in my circle, thank goodness
This is awesome, Professor Wesley. It's exactly what is needed in this toxic media landscape about what government is and what it's not or shouldn't be. I hope this way of looking at it gets distributed far and wide, well before the coming referendum.
Excellent analysis and conclusions. The three questions are non-partisan and applicable not only in Alberta. #2 and #3 especially apply here in Ontario, where the direction is less accountability and more breaking of norms every day by the Ford government.
You are dead on with everything you covered. But as one reader said, we need a more simplified way of talking to people. The 3 questions are a good start, but more simple talking points would be very helpful. 😊
I think it needs a bit more simplification to be readily understood by the person on the street?
Agreed. Here is my attempt. The UCP = Power not Public Service.
Your astute questions put me in mind of the litmus test to determine if a government's turning authoritarian, as outlined in ' How Democracies Die ' by Levitsky & Ziblatt. A lot of overlap there.
Thank you. You've offered another handrail for all Albertans to understand how the present (UCP) government cares only about keeping power and shows very little interest in public service.
Excellent article, thank you.
A very comprehensive article. Thank you.