They've jumped the shark
How the UCP has become anything but conservative
Conservatives are by definition nostalgic. So many will appreciate the reference in the title of this post.
In a 1977 "Happy Days" episode, Arthur Fonzarelli accepts a challenge to jump over a shark while on water skis. Clad in his iconic leather jacket over his swim trunks, “Fonzie” makes the daring leap. This episode is widely regarded as the point where the series began to stray from its original, more realistic storylines, embracing outlandish plots instead.
The term "jump the shark" has since become shorthand for the moment when something begins a decline in quality and veers off from its initial course.
When it comes to abandoning bedrock conservative principles, the UCP has been jumping sharks with increased frequency since the 2023 election.
Readers familiar with my work won’t be surprised by this assessment. I’ve been raising alarm bells about the UCP’s drift away from conservatism and toward authoritarianism for many months. I won’t rehash those arguments here.
Instead, I draw your attention to two of the most recent policy initiatives launched by the Smith government: Bill 18 (Provincial Priorities Act) and Bill 20 (Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment).
I will leave aside the fact that neither was part of the UCP’s election platform, which is barely a year old. The party used to call moves like that evidence of a “hidden agenda” or “the biggest lies in Alberta political history” when they were in opposition. But that doesn’t make them anti-democratic.
Nor does the fact that the moves are unpopular at best, and solutions in search of problems, at worst. Governments are free to introduce legislation that they feel meets changing circumstances, even if it means putting the public good ahead of public opinion.
No, it’s the content of the bills and the government’s rhetoric around them that makes them so democratically disturbing and affront to conservative values.
Combined, Bills 18 and 20 amount to a massive intrusion on the authority of arms-length agencies, local governments, and academic institutions. More than a power grab, they chip away at some core democratic foundations that conservatives hold dear:
Local autonomy: Conservatives typically support the decentralization of power, allowing people closest to policy areas to make decisions. These bills do the precise opposite, giving provincial cabinet unprecedented power over local matters, including the ability to remove councilors, repeal bylaws, and nullify agreements with other governments.
Rule of law: Conservatives stand by this principle, which includes having clear, predictable legal processes that are applied evenly. The bills’ lack of legislative guardrails leaves us with little protection against arbitrary and politically-motivated decisions. And the fact that the two largest cities are subjected to a different set of rules than others in the province is suspicious.
Limited government: These bills will require a lot more government, not less. From vetting thousands of intergovernmental agreements and overseeing peer-reviewed academic grant processes, to creating a whole new electoral bureaucracy to police big city elections, fiscal conservatives and libertarians must be left scratching their heads.
Checks on concentrated power: One of the central tenets of conservative governance is the balance and separation of powers, which includes checks on the executive branch's authority. Granting the provincial cabinet the unilateral power to remove municipal councillors and repeal bylaws is executive over-reach, undermining this balance and allowing for potentially unchecked government action.
Respect for voters intent: The ability to override local election results by removing elected officials can be seen as disrespecting the intent of the voters, a fundamental aspect of democratic governance that conservative philosophy tends to respect. This could undermine the legitimacy of local governments and erode public trust in the electoral process — again, both anathmatic to conservatism.
Respect for timeworn institutions and stability: Among many institutions under attack in Bills 18 and 20, academic freedom may be most in peril. What’s more, stability and predictability are key components of conservative governance, as they foster a conducive environment for both economic growth and public trust in government. The potential for high levels of provincial intervention in municipal affairs could lead to the sort of instability and unpredictability that chases away investors.
In the coming days, the UCP may argue that these bills are constitutional. Given the courts’ general treatment of municipalities as creatures of the provincial government, those arguments may well prove valid.
But constitutional governance is not necessarily conservative governance.
And here, again, the UCP has jumped the shark. The only question now is: how long will Albertans continue to sit by and watch before demanding a change of channel?
Jared, please keep up the analysis and the warning of how dangerous Ms. Smith is to Alberta and Canada.
The media are treating her as "normal politics, if a bit skewed" much as American media did with Donald Trump. In actuality, both are outside the norms of our culture. As I see her, she is conditioning Albertans to see her use and abuse of power as "it's just what all politicians do." (in fact they don't and haven't. But most folks don't pay enough attention to know this.) She is slowly corrupting the normal consciousness of Albertans. By the time we figure this out, we will find she has a lock on our throats and our future. Joni Mitchell got it right, "You don't know what you've lost 'til it's gone."
RE checks on concentrated power: Danielle Smith constantly accuses the Feds of interfering with provincial authority. Talk about projection!
How’s this for a comparison? Think of a corporation with national, regional and local offices. Smith is the manager of a regional office. She demands complete independence from the head office—but is utterly abusive to any local manager who tries to do something Smith doesn’t like. This, even if Smith herself is defying the national CEO.
Don’t like that one? OK, let’s try a family simile. Imagine a grown man with a family of his own. He says “My old man can’t tell me what to do!” But his own kids damn well better do what HE says, “because I still have the strap—and I will use it!”
This should be no surprise. From Smith’s earliest days in elected office—that school board in Calgary—she’s been disruptive, obstructive, obstinate, impulsive and ignorant. Nothing has changed. She still has “no crazy radar”—a phrase Smith herself attributed to a Wildrose staffer during her spell as Opposition leader. (Smith seems to be proud of her credulity. Why am I not surprised?)
Oh wait, maybe one thing has changed. Danielle Smith has thrown herself even further to the right, into crazed QAnon territory. She is heavily influenced by Barry Cooper and Rob Anderson, two authors of the “Free Alberta Strategy.” FWIW, there’s a website, if you want to bother. Much of Smith’s legislation is intended to implement Cooper’s agenda. Much of that will be declared unconstitutional, if they ever dare to try it. Most of it is very unpopular with Albertans; destroying AHS, and implementing the Alberta Police and the Alberta Pension Plan, for starters.
That won’t stop Danielle “No Crazy Radar” Smith. She know what she wants, and now—at long, long last—she’s in a position to do it. We’ll have to rely on the Supreme Court, and lots of public outcry, to force her to back down.