The United Conservative Leadership race has been a challenge for me. The fact is that I would be quite happy with any of the three candidates. Of course there are four registered candidates, but it appears to me that Jeff Callaway is only in the race to make Brian Jean look bad. He has no intention of winning. Callaway should drop out now. He’s made his point. His name will not be mentioned again in this post. The three candidates who are in it to win it are all people I would be happy to vote for in a general election.
So how do I choose from among the three? My early favourite after the vote to unite the two parties was Brian Jean. I felt particularly indebted to Jean and to Jason Kenney for getting us to the point of unity, but Jean seemed to me to be the most likeable. Likeability translates into votes nowadays like never before. Consider Justin Trudeau. I don’t believe anyone considered him to be smarter or harder working than Stephen Harper. He won the election on the likeability factor. However, even though Jean is still the likeable one, my vote has moved away from him. There is another candidate who I now believe is more electable than Jean.
I considered supporting Doug Schweitzer. I like him too. He has performed well in both of the debates so far. His youth will be appealing to many. He represents a flank of our party which feels estranged and needs to be assured that it is still whole-heartedly included in this broad tent. He has great ideas about how to put our financial house in order. While he calls himself a centrist, he is not part of what I call “The Far Centre;” those who believe nothing other than public opinion. He is a committed and valued member of this party. In spite of all of this I have determined that I will support Jason Kenney in his bid to be the first leader of the United Conservative Party and the next premier of Alberta.
While I bristled at Kenney’s pragmatic approach to winning the Progressive Conservative Leadership, eventually I did support his campaign as I came to the conclusion that hostile takeover was necessary. (see: http://ucpthoughts.blogspot.ca/2016/12/why-i-have-decided-to-support-jason.html) I have predicted previously that Kenney had burned too much political capital in that first leadership race to be a serious contender to lead the united party. I went on to assert that his real purpose was to pave the way for his friend Rona Ambrose to take the helm of the United Conservative Party. (see: http://ucpthoughts.blogspot.ca/2016/12/prediction-rona-ambrose-will-be-alberta.html) I was very wrong! Support for Kenney is strong and getting stronger every day. As the campaign moves forward he is increasingly articulating a vision with cohesiveness and common sense that confounds his critics. He has not only endured a campaign of demonization, but has used this unfair depiction of him as an opportunity to clarify and fortify his positions.
Parental Right as the Defining Issue
As I see it, the distinction between Kenney and Schweitzer (beyond the relative ease of spelling Kenney’s name correctly) is one of philosophical consistency. Let me try to explain. The clearest area of contrast between the two candidates is on parental rights. Both candidates assert parental rights as it comes to expression in school choice. They both believe in the right of parents to choose a school which is a fit with their culture and educational priorities. However, they differ dramatically in terms of the rights of parents to be informed when one of their children is struggling with matters of sexuality.
The preamble of the School Act asserts that, “parents have a right and a responsibility to make decisions respecting the education of their children.” Elsewhere the Act indicates that parents are entitled to be informed when programs, materials, or exercises, “Include subject-matter that deals primarily and explicitly with religion or human sexuality.” Kenney correctly contends that parental rights are clearly established in Alberta law and Alberta culture. He has been made to pay a high price for this contention.
He has been labelled a homophobe and a dangerous man by his adversaries. The slanderers on twitter allege that he is a hateful man who is on a mission to ‘out’ LGBTQ youths before they are ready. Of course this is simply unfair. In the vast majority of cases, nobody loves a child more than his or her parents. Kenney asserts the rights of parents to come alongside the child facing the biggest struggle of his or her young life, and he demonstrates trust in the members of the teaching profession to make sound judgements to protect these young people in that small number of cases where parents do present a danger to a child.
The key question in this philosophical dilemma is, “What is the ultimate source of the authority that a teacher exercises in his or her role as an educator?” The School Act appears to be rightfully founded on the notion that it is parental authority which is delegated and entrusted to teachers. The primary responsibility for educating children belongs to the the parents. Teachers are to work in concert with parents for the wellbeing of students. When government asserts its authority over education, all Albertans need to be wary of the implications. If parents are to be routinely feared, we lose an essential component of the foundation of our education system. If educators are bound by legislation and their ability to judge a situation is no longer trusted, respect for their professionalism has been violated. The essence of professionalism in any profession is freedom of practice; freedom to make professional judgements. Teachers have a long and respected history of discerning when the affirmation of parental rights is unsafe for children. Kenney simply says there is no need for the government to flex its muscle here.
Herein lies the inconsistency in Schweitzer’s reasoning. Parents must be trusted to choose the best school for their children, but not trusted to act in the best interests of the child when sexuality, sexual expression, or even membership in a GSA is an issue. Kenney’s position, on the other hand holds together, and if the indoctrinated masses will listen to him before shouting him down, they may find that this is the case. It is this thoughtful reasoning and the courage to side with reason and common sense in the face of adversity that prompts me to support Jason Kenney to be the first leader of the United Conservative Party of Alberta.
Jean supporters will argue correctly that his position on this point is no different than that of Kenney. Where Kenney shines is in the communication of challenging concepts like this in language that can be understood by the general public. His experience and raw intelligence becomes evident when he is called upon to make common sense prevail over political correctness.
Disagreement is a Good Thing!
As voters approach this leadership vote and the next general election, it is worth noting and honouring the fact that Jean, Schweitzer, and Kenney do not only coexist in this party, but demonstrate mutual respect for one another’s positions in spite of considerable disagreement. That is the sort of party the United Conservative Party is intended to be. There is no need to fear being demonized because of your ‘crazy’ views. Ideas are listened to and debated. Sometimes people will be persuaded. Disagreement is considered to be fruitful and productive. This does not appear to be true of any other provincial party in Alberta. Should we not prefer that over the blackening of reputations we have seen too much of lately?
This leadership race includes three legitimate candidates to be our next premier. I like them all, but I’m voting for Kenney.
