April 13, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – My original, too rapidly dashed off opinion piece responding to Wildrose leader Danielle Smith’s statement, that “a Wildrose government will not be legislating in areas of morality”, was certainly not one of my better writings.
My apologies to the many good folks who don’t share Smith’s pro-abortion, pro-same sex “marriage” views, but are working their hearts out through the new party to try to replace the oppressive PC government and make the best of the Wildrose opportunity. I in no way meant to undermine their efforts.
I have been emphatically advised that there are many good, salt-of-the-earth party supporters and members and solid Wildrose candidates who are determined to make a Wildrose government, if elected, far more broadly representative and responsible than the current Tory regime. For that they deserve encouragement and support.
However, the point intended by the opinion piece was that this is likely going to be a tougher than understood assignment, given leader Smith’s very liberal personal views on key social conservative issues, but more because of her statement indicating that she will block democratic efforts to even introduce and pass bills related to controversial subjects.
That has been the ruthless Stephen Harper, Mike Harris, Dalton McGuinty and various Quebec premiers’ approach for some time now. They have said they were going to do that - and they did. Will Smith be different?
Maybe, and I really do hope so, but that will depend on a lot of factors. Politics is real hardball stuff - not for the faint of heart or naive. Temptations to compromise or to get too enamoured of the leaders, or to put loyalty to the party and the leader above one’s principals, are nearly irresistible for honest folks who have a natural propensity to trust others. I have seen very many such persons gobbled up and lost to party machines over the years.
Still, Wildrose could be an exception, since it has made some significant promises and it cannot afford to alienate its large social conservative base. If it remains open to lots of respectful discussion, presentation of well documented evidence and, above all, full representative democratic freedom for all its MLAs - much good can happen.
It will take sustained and very determined effort to keep it from going the dictatorial ways of other Canadian governments. It will also take building relationships and constantly trying to educate and bring about personal growth among those who do not yet understand the great value of our traditional Canadian principles regarding life, family and fundamental freedoms of religion and conscience.
It would be a win-win for all Albertans if all this can be brought about, since the benefits would be huge for all of Albertan society. Wildrose might be the wild card that achieves what others have so far failed to accomplish.
One thing I do have a strong leaning to however, is to encourage voters to only vote for candidates of any party who are pro-life, pro-family, rather than just for candidates for one party. Some people strongly disagree with that strategy, but you know, except for a relatively small number of Canadians, it has not really been tried by most Canadian social conservative voters as long as I have been involved in elections. Like other Canadians, they tend to always vote mainly according to party and/or only on economic issues. So, we get what we have gotten.
In the case of this election, I suspect the majority of genuine traditional principals candidates will be running for Wildrose. It therefore might not be such a tough voting decision in many of the ridings, especially considering how many PC MLAs have so badly betrayed Albertans trust in them to stand for what is right.