The “lake of fire” has dogged the Wildrose and its subsequent transformation into the United Conservative Party since 2012. It’s often been brought up in response to repeated attacks against the LGBTQ2S+ community, but I’ll posit it was actually about leadership, not hateful views. Danielle Smith didn’t learn from it the first time and that’s why she blundered her way into the fiasco that would be a separation referendum.
Political strategist Stephen Carter has recounted his experience of being on the Alberta’s Progressive Conservatives 2012 campaign. The party was headed for losses, potentially even losing government, to then-opposition leader Danielle Smith and her Wildrose party. The campaign had set every expectation they could but it wasn’t until the final week, when a blog post written by Wildrose candidate Alan Hunsberger was unearthed by Edmonton Journal columnist Paula Simons. The post claimed that homosexuals would “burn in a lake of fire”.
As leader, Danielle Smith said that she didn’t agree with her candidate’s views, but would stand up for his right to express them.
In the final three days before election day, as Mr. Carter tells it, momentum shifted away from the Wildrose and back to the PCs, delivering for the party what would become its last majority government. Ms. Smith, for her lack of leadership, was deemed not ready to be handed the reins of government.
After her loss, which saw the party retain many of its rural seats but was almost entirely shut out of seat-rich urban centres, Ms. Smith attributed it to the electorate’s gullibility.
“I didn’t think Albertans would fall for it,” Ms. Smith said of the “smear campaign” that followed the “lake of fire” post. “I thought that people would understand that having a couple of candidates who made controversial comments does not cast a pall on all 87.”
Whoops. Her solution?
“Next time we're going to be far more careful with our candidate selection.”
I’ve followed Ms. Smith for a long time; both directly and indirectly as she hosts a lot of conservative events I also follow. I’ve found that she is often on the cusp of understanding an issue but fails to follow it through to the logical conclusion; then, as now, it wasn’t about anyone else — it was her inability to acknowledge, and failure to demonstrate, the responsibility that comes with leadership.
Libertarians don’t make good government
If there was a more obvious statement than that, I haven’t written it since the last time I delved into Danielle Smith’s political leanings.
Alberta’s premier has, at best, a scattered political philosophy but she likes to be known as a libertarian who stands up for individual preferences over a collective benefit.
In some cases — like when she used her radio show to platform alternative science, contradictory theories, unproven and disproven “cures” during the pandemic, thought she could interfere in the administration of justice on behalf of agitators charged during the anti-mandate blockades, or welcomed back to caucus an MLA who targeted children with hate-filled rhetoric — it seems like a willful disregard for the public.
In others, it’s as if she is entirely incapable of understanding how her actions affect others; like how she justified immersing herself in U.S. political circles as advocating for the province even when it clearly did not benefit the province, her conservative cousins, or Canada generally.
All of those pale in comparison, however, to her recent gambit: reducing signature requirements for citizen initiatives and committing to allow a referendum on separation if a petition is successfully submitted.
As in the past, she claimed that neither she nor her party support a separation referendum — just the will of the people; if they can meet the reduced requirements initiated by her Justice Minister less than a week earlier.
First Nations Chiefs joined together Tuesday in opposition to the Premier’s proposed Elections Act amendments. One thanked the UCP for bringing them together in that opposition, and another called the Bill “garbage” before throwing it onto the floor.
The failure, once again, is not of individuals or the electorate, but of Danielle Smith’s leadership.
Shortsighted and narrow-minded
To a point, I can see how certain conservatives and “libertarians” in Alberta see the current political landscape as an opportunity they can’t afford to waste. The 2023 provincial election showed Albertans are divided. The recent general election only a week ago suggested they remain more united against Ottawa, which presented a unique opportunity for those so inclined.
In a province where some people have yet to relieve themselves of the resentment that arose from seeing a non-conservative party form government, there is still an undercurrent of punishment yet to be meted out fully on those who voted, and continue to vote for the NDP.
Similar to a host of other issues, support for separation is one that tends to fall along partisan lines. Angus Reid polling during the election showed some disturbing numbers; 1 in 5 conservatives supported annexation, and that number jumped to 1 in 3 if the Liberals formed government again.
As I wrote Monday, it’s a pretty rich complaint coming from Albertans who have had conservative provincial governments for 86 of the last 90 years.
Hypocrisy aside, a fourth liberal term presented Ms. Smith and her party with an opportunity to drive a wedge even deeper into the political divide that grew out of the takeover and destruction of the progressive conservative party and placed Albertans in the unenviable position of choosing between the “left” and “right” of what remained.
If Liberals are “the natural governing party” of Canada, conservatives have taken (and obviously earned) the title for themselves in Alberta.
When they were returned to power, Jason Kenney’s first order of business as Premier was to repeal almost everything the NDP had passed during their term. Some, like the film production tax credit, he had to reintroduce, but it was “conservative” policy then. The intention was clear; forget it ever happened.
Certainly, not everyone has.
Ms. Smith, in her desire to uplift those who have been carrying chips on their shoulders for years, or decades, is once again failing to prove she understands either the honour or duty that leading an entire province, not just the disgruntled few, necessarily requires.
In her shortsighted view, the threat of separation will give her leverage in her dealings with the new Prime Minister. In her narrowminded comprehension, the threat to Albertans, Treaty, First Nations, Metis, in addition to increased economic uncertainty, has nothing to do with her because she doesn’t personally support it — she supports the process.
That process isn’t just bringing a simple question to the public.
As Jean Charest said in 2020 of the experience of Quebec’s 1995 referendum:
It didn’t feel like a victory; there was no joy.
We all came out of it feeling that Quebec had gone through a life-threatening experience; so had the country.
It didn’t end the night of October 30, 1995, it was so close that it was just left hanging.
The real end of the referendum was in 1998 when I became Liberal leader and Lucien Bouchard was promising a third referendum. We ran against a referendum and ended up with a plurality of the vote.
But we all came out of it bruised. Everyone was bruised.
It created doubt.
It affected our confidence as a country.
Inviting that experience to Alberta, and to Canada, especially now, is more than a failure of duty and leadership; it’s a failure of character.
Thanks to everyone who reads, shares, and becomes a free subscriber. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber to support my work; to those who have, your support is greatly appreciated!
Deirdre, this is both astute and necessary commentary. I’m glad you also indict Kenney for having stoked fringe opinions, especially now that he’s backing away from his purported “lunatics.”
Apparently to be Conservative is to never learn from your past mistakes.