Alberta: the new, latest, and last political “North American” frontier.

Image taken from Unsplash, ‘Banff National Park in the Summer of 2017,’ by Miguel Carraça.

In politics, the term progressive [or progressivism] is misleading since it has little to do with achieving progress in any of its facets. As a rule of thumb, progressives tend to be lobbyists because they are vague about where on the political spectrum they belong. I also attribute this -ISM to the chameleonic opportunism implemented by ambitious career politicians who are unable to make a living outside the government.

I remember my history teacher’s definition of politics, which I think applies to most, if not all, progressives: POLITICAL, as in the combining form multi, and TIC, as in that bloodsucking parasitic arachnid that slowly sucks the blood out of its host while potentially transmitting disease. Although I tend to think of most politicians as leeches living off taxpayers’ money [taxes being a form of theft, especially with how excessive it’s grown], progressives are the Gemini of public servants: two-faced, self-serving, egotistical, dangerous, [please, feel free to add your adjective or insult of choice].

Many readers might think of most of my views on politics, political science, and political theory as oppressive, old-fashioned, narrow, cold, etcetera; however, I am currently residing [and yes, by choice] in a part of the world where all you require to serve is to meet a minimum age requirement. What I see in Congress here in Peru are what many call “functional illiterates” since the only thing all of the 130 members of this chamber have in common is that they are over the age of twenty-five. That’s it! One look at those who identify as progressives in my adoptive nation, and you’d lose the ability to hold your lunch.

A brief look at Canada and calling oneself a progressive conservative is not only an oxymoron [if one were still to believe in this whole left-right viewpoint on politics] since it implies allegiance to two distinct ideological masters, but this compound term [which is part of a narrative that sickens me to the pit of my stomach] should also raise several red flags. The Premier of Alberta, Marlaina Danielle Smith, a former lobbyist and columnist, seems to fall into this vacuous [or empty] term.

I apologize if I had to leave you, dear reader, on a journalistic cliffhanger; my ambiguity was meant to give you sufficient respite to reach your conclusions. You are probably asking yourself now why I used the 3rd person present of seems at the end of the previous paragraph. Following the elections in Canada last week, we are now going to find out who the real Danielle Smith is… or which master on the political spectrum she is going to obey!

At the moment, I see Smith’s lowering of the number of signatures required to bring to public consultation whether or not the inhabitants of Alberta should separate from Canada as simply trying to gain as much political leverage [and noteriety] in her region as well as worldwide. In other words, her theoretical referendum is a power move meant to consolidate greater power in her home country while also making her the front-runner for the leadership of a potential independent Alberta.

Progressives think they can “play the field” without anyone noticing the intent behind their every move, but power moves do not fool most. On the contrary, her right-left approach might end up hurting her constituents, whatever the result, as she cannot serve both Carney and Albertans sick of not having their voices heard [especially the independentists]. Hence, that is why I used the word seems in previous paragraphs, as only Smith will show in due time her true colors, as the adage goes.

All this talk about Smith and a possible referendum brings back memories of Scotland’s latest attempt to secede from the United Kingdom, thus nullifying the Act of Union of 1815. I write “attempt” because, after both the UK’s departure from the European Union and Westminster’s failure to grant Scotland devolution to the max, next time, Scottish voters will not hesitate to leave. Why? Being fear mongered on the one hand and fuelled with rage on the other is a recipe that can only cause greater division, dislike, and instability.

I chose not to add poor decision-making to the last sentence of the previous paragraph because that’s inherent [and beyond whether Smith is a progressive or not]. Objectivity is a necessity. So, casting aside whatever Trump might say or any interference from China/Russia, the Premier of Alberta will be starting this “political race” on Pole Position. I am curious as to how this will play out for her and, most importantly, for the citizens of Alberta who want a solution to decades of not having their voices and needs met by Ottawa.