Anytime a fresh political movement begins to gain momentum and begins to enjoy a higher level of credibility in the critical eye of the media, not to mention the public, there grows a danger of attracting the more controversial members of society.
Radicals and single-issue fringe groups tend to seek out fertile opportunities such as joining forming political parties or leadership races with the hopes of using the occasion as a public platform by which to push their not-so-hidden agendas and ideologies.
Recent history shows this tends to occur more often on the conservative side of the spectrum. This is one area that the political left is ahead of the right. They gather their more outlandish and potentially embarrassing nutjobs in one convenient location. In Canada, this place is known as ‘The New Democratic Party’.
Alberta’s fledgling Wildrose Alliance party, in the midst of unprecedented exposure caused by a perfect storm of factors (an exciting leadership race, a governing Progressive Conservative party fumbling the economy, an aloof and mistake prone leader in Premier Ed Stelmach, etc.) should be reminded of the curse of the federal Reform party.
It only took a few kooks early in its tenure to tarnish its public image, causing damage that forever dogged that party and only came to an end after drastic measures including a name change and a re-merging with the federal Progressive Conservatives.
To this day in many corners of the country (outside of Alberta) the word ‘Reform’ is met with descriptive misnomers such as ‘racist’ and ‘fascist’ and ‘redneck’ and ‘Christian activists’.
To be sure, it will be a balancing act for the party – continuing to emit a positive image as a truly ‘big-tent’ alternative to the old and stale P.C.s while having the fortitude to turn away those who would only damage the party from within, at the risk of being portrayed as ‘elitist’ or, worse yet, ‘liberal’.
Making it more difficult is hearing of a leadership candidate who, not so long ago, became involved in a street-scuffle with gays at a Calgary Pride parade. While his supporters yell ‘free speech!’ and ‘they came at him!’ (what did he think was going to happen when he went there in the first place? Please – don’t insult our intelligence), the fact remains that this can only result in the perpetuation of damaging stereotypes in the minds of mainstream Albertans – the very voters the Wildrose Alliance must win over if there is to be any chance of shutting down the long-running P.C. machine.
When I learn of local religious activist Bill Whatcott (famous for such classy moves as distributing flyers showing aborted fetus’s, anti-gay propaganda, and other various examples of bastardizing the Word of God into garbage for his own purposes) publicly supporting a specific candidate for leadership, it makes me fearful for a party I have come to be a part of.
I certainly wouldn’t assume to tell anyone how to run a campaign, but for the sake of the well-being of the party overall perhaps a little ‘public-distancing’ is in order, no?
While I have every confidence in the membership of the Wildrose Alliance to do what is best for the party, we should keep the Reform example in mind. We must turn away the clowns at the door.
The reputation of the party – and therefore our chances of success – is at stake.
"#USGOV"
43 minutes ago













5 comments:
"We must turn away the clowns at the door."
While I understand your theory and agree with the view on the candidate, one of the key factors that keeps me in the party is the fact that everything is done democratically. I think the freedom to run in the party is essential, like you say the members will weed out the clowns. We don't want to turn it into the PC party where the party decides who will represent the constituents. Nice Post
Exactly, and I'll say this: the article isn't intended to be an attack on the social conservatives in the party - I believe they are as vital a part of the party as the libertarian side. The target is those few opportunists who only see the Wildrose Alliance as an expendable vehicle by which to push their special interest ideology.
Thanks for the comment!
- Leigh
"While I have every confidence in the membership of the Wildrose Alliance to do what is best for the party, we should keep the Reform example in mind. We must turn away the clowns at the door."
Don't forget that those nut jobs could be sent by opposition as trojan horses to try to destroy or discredit the party from inside out.
Regards,
TM
Your full of it Leigh. If the Wildrose Alliance would distinguish itself by becoming a party built on inviolable social principles, in other words if it were to stand for anything good at all, it will be attacked and disparaged continuously in direct proportion to it's popularity by leftists of all stripes.
Our real problem is not with the Whatcott's of the land, many of whom actually fight for an objective good. Our problem is with those, especially in the news media who would portray an objective good as "radicle" and "extreme" It is only the effect of liberal propaganda on our society which has consigned Mr. Whatcott to his isolated status.
A party too afraid to confront the controversial issues and do the right thing is just more of the same, and will be doomed to interminable mediocrity and is not worthy of my support.
Your's is the arguement of a liberal Leigh.
If Bill Whatcott is 'isolated', as you say, it is only because of Bill Whatcott himself. Blaming the liberal media boogieman for all of your problems is a cope-out.
Spoken like a true Whatcott apologist.
What is clear is this: I desire a big-tent party without the highjacking of policy by people who wish to use the party structure as a means to push their religious beliefs on the party members or the public. Am I right to assume you wish to see the opposite?
Post a Comment