War Stuff: What if Russia Loses? A regional take

    With the disastrous Russian invasion of Ukraine a beefy 25 days old, and almost all their first day objectives yet to be met, serious leaders world wide are going to have to answer a deeply uncomfortable question: what if Russia loses? Is this a good thing? Yes... but how we handle the aftermath of this event could be more significant than the war itself. For good or ill, Russia is a cornerstone of the world political system. Given its economic weakness, its power and influence rested upon its significant military powers. Though their combat experiences often fell in the category of the shambolic, it is important to note that the Russians didn't lose anywhere or to anyone. In fact, their intervention in Syria was almost certainly effective and decisive. Yet, despite all their manpower, technology, weapons and planes, it appears a demoralized Russian army is marching to defeat in the fields of Ukraine. The world will not be the same because of it.

    I don't want to focus on why that is happening - the reasons why are quite plain. It's certainly not a miracle. Instead, I'd rather spend some time focusing on the ramifications of a Russian defeat in their near abroad, an event that could, ironically, create peace in Europe and new bipolar world divided between Chinese and western civilizations. 

    Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia has succeeded in maintaining a network of client and vassal states in territories either adjacent to it, like Belarus, Abkhazia or Kazakhstan, or further abroad in Moldova (Transnistria), Libya, Syria or Serbia. For the most part these states are small, dysfunctional and isolated, and could not survive without Russian power backing them. So what do they do?

    In the case of the European examples listed above, this will be a glorious and long awaited opportunity to normalize their internal politics and pivot towards the European Union, the world's third largest economic force. Russian interference prevented this from happening to Ukraine, Georgia, Belarus and Moldova, and thanks to the War these states (with the exception of Belarus) are likely to quickly see their relations with the West improve dramatically, with great effect on political and economic stability. Belarus, assuming Lukashenko falls in the wake of this conflict - which is likely - will also try to integrate itself further. Serbia, the only state which has willingly aligned itself with Russia, will be adrift and surrounded by potential enemies. Its people will have to accept that it is a part of Europe, and that they will be better off for it than trying to expand their territory. 

    The loss of Russian influence will be felt far and wide. Russian allies in the Middle East are now sending troops to Ukraine to help bolster the failing effort of their benefactor. It remains to be seen how many Libyan and Syrian mercenaries can and will be fielded by the Russians, but one can assume these forces will perform terribly.

Whither Texas?

 Social media is blowing up with accounts of the ongoing Texas GOP covention. In addition to eroding democracy and civil rights, the Texas Republicans are openly planning seccession. Now, I'm old enough to know that this isn't the first time. Even I, in distant Alberta grew up hearing that "they were allowed to." Regardless of the merits or demerits of this convention, which will no doubt be dissected by scholars of authoritarianism and fascism well into the future, I feel I can do what no one else is: what if they did it? What if Texas secedes?

1. It will be incomplete.

Everyone seems to think if Texas goes, the whole thing will go. Why? Why would Beto O'Rourke's homeland of El Paso join a sovereign Texas? Just look at a map, or voting patterns, or anything else. El Paso is closer to New Mexico politically, and geographically, than the heartland of Texas. Why would the Hispanic and Catholic Rio Grande want to stay in a WASP supremacist state? Imagine how Austin would react... If Texas breaks away, it would be much like the Upper South during the Civil War - there would be breakaway regions and rebel and loyalist areas within it. 

That's just accounting for areas that would never go along with it. This can't possibly be a popular policy, however dominant the Texas GOP is politically. One can imagine there's a multiplicity of of "moderate" Republicans who would never countenance such a disruptive move, and they would sit on the sidelines or remain loyal to the Federal government. A good example would be the US Army's 2 Corps, stationed at Fort Hood. Given that Texas would only secede with a Democratic victory in 2024, these soldiers would follow orders from Washington. 

2. It will be copied

What everyone has picked up on is that Texas secession drives the final death nails into the viability of the Republican Party (imagine how unpopular they'd be be association, too!). So, look at another map: why would Texas leave by itself? Wouldn't Louisianans rather be a part of a new "conservative" Texas nation? Wouldn't Arkansas? Oklahoma sure as hell would, and adjacent counties in neighbouring states will wish the same, just like the "Greater Idaho" movement in the Pacific Northwest. These states will experience the same issues though with loyalist regions, particularly cities and probably Indian reservations being unwilling to leave. 

Depending on the success of secessionists in other states, the rebel wave coming from Texas may just wind up recreating the old Confederacy.

3. It will not be sovereign

Given the factors explained above, or implied, a new Texan Republic poses a threat to both of its much larger and stronger neighbours. To the USA, a new Texas Republic would be destabilizing, to the body politic, economy, and population. If it is allowed to be a success (however unlikely that would be), one would assume its influence and borders would spread outward. Further, a disrupted border in Texas (as if they could secure it) would pose even bigger risks to American sovereignty and security. Accordingly, it is in American interests to support local loyalists and reimpose the authority of the Federal government as quickly as possible. 

The Americans won't be alone. It will be irresistible to the Mexican government to intervene to the north. The population of Latinos in Texas is too large, and too proximate to ignore. Especially should these separatists do what everyone fully expects: ethnic cleansing (I'm not sorry, but "deportations"), exclusion from citizenship, property and political rights, not to mention the collapse of the state economy and food supply. They will be morally and politically motivated to send support and aid. But there is worse to come...

4. It will be a narcostate

For, you can bet when those Federal border guards don't get paid, they will either be compromised by bribes or desert their posts. Worse, they may face the fate of many border guards along the opiates highways of Asia: intimidation and murder. Mexican drug cartels will flood across the border like a breaking dam. Racist, armed volunteers "guarding the border" won't stand a chance against whichever hardened killers strike north. The world will laugh at them as they bleed out; but this will be a serious handicap to either an independent Texas or restored state. 

For here is the fallacy of the separatists exposed: they are small government absolutists. They will form a weak state that will be exploited and compromised swiftly by aggressive cartels. They are also so ignorant they'll have no idea how to fight back. Volunteers roaming unsupported out in the deserts of West Texas will be hunted down, and given the mess the secessionists would make of the state, the Cartels might even be welcomed by bringing stability and predictability back to the south - maybe even prosperity, too. Don't laugh. That was Afghanistan, more than once. 

5. Conclusion

So, what is transparently a last ditch effort to secure the power of a shrinking White, Christian minority would almost certainly implode with disastrous consequences. At best, they would crater the Texan economy and become a pariah state. At worst, they'd be a drug-ridden narcostate in the middle of the USA with no laws, peace or security. 

Red Deer: 3 Scenarios for the UCP

 In a mere 30 days, the membership of the UCP will decide the fate of Jason Kenney, and in all likelihood, the fate of their party as well. Kenney has gamed the leadership convention to the best of his ability, setting it in Red Deer, closing it to anyone (ie the vast majority of members) who can't afford to show up in person (at cost of hundreds or thousands of dollars and a weekend), and no doubt used his organizational skills to buttress his flagging support. Nonetheless, 4900 people have registered to vote, a sign most political junkies interpret to indicate his doom. However, this should not be seen as just another moment in the history of an Alberta dynasty, but a watershed moment that could break the UCP, possibly forever. 

I want to explore the scenarios which will arise from the vote on April 9th. Most of my assumptions and conclusions will come from a simple heuristic of "then what?" Based on what I have observed of the Alberta conservative movement, I will do my best to anticipate the likely outcomes of each scenario, and more implausibly, their long-term impact.

Scenario 1: Jason Kenney's Decisive Victory

    I'm beginning here as I believe this is the least likely scenario. What is a Jason Kenney decisive victory? It is one where a) he wins, and b) wins with enough support that it cows his opposition back into loyalty. Why is it unlikely? Given the leaked recordings with have, the margin of victory will have to be significant to overcome expectations of cheating. 

    Should this happen, this should ensure the status quo continues until the election in 2023. The right wing opposition to Kenney will continue, but will be marginalized. Further, the rally around the flag effect will ensure that an offshot of the party, the Wildrose Independence Party comes to nothing by the 2023 election, ensuring the race will be between a united UCP and the NDP. I fully expect the UCP to lose seats by the dozens in that election, but they may still survive with a narrow win.

Scenario 2: Jason Kenney's Narrow Victory

    As stated above, we have secretly recorded audio from the organizers of the anti-Kenney campaign that, among other things, compare him to Joseph Stalin, call him a cheater and also a liberal. It is no surprise to followers of Alberta politics that things have been pushed to such extremes, and these opinions are no doubt more widespread than outsiders would expect. The "cheater" aspect is basically accepted wisdom since the RCMP have been "investigating" Kenney's leadership campaign for over four years. Was there wrong doing? Seems like everyone thinks so.

    Given that a narrow Kenney win is suspect, especially given how he ensured the majority of the membership would be excluded, his legitimacy to continue on as leader would be absolutely gone, 50%+1 or not. I simply do not see his opponents accepting this result. So how will they deal with it?

    The party will split. It won't split in the legislature, though. Kenney is considered too powerful to cross in the legislature. Just see how Loewen and Barnes haven't joined the WIP, but are instead awaiting their welcome back to the UCP (a distinct possibly to be honest). However, a scandalous Kenney win ensures a good chunk of the membership jumps ship to support the WIP as the "true blue" conservative option. 

    The WIP will no doubt have a number of high profile candidates in the looming election. Hoven, the recently disqualified nominee in Jason Nixon's riding comes to mind. There are others, elsewhere. They will benefit from a wellspring of fundraising (which will abandon the already weakening UCP), and will have the support of Alberta's far-right alternative media ecosystem, which is highly developed and influential. This development puts almost every rural Alberta riding in play while reducing the resources available to the UCP.

    So what would this mean in the 2023 election? Given that the NDP are polling between 45-50%, the division of the right wing between the unpopular and corrupt UCP and the deeply fringe, but regionally popular WIP basically ensures an NDP landslide. The only question will be which conservative party survives this cataclysm.

Scenario 3: Kenney's Defeat

    As should be apparent by now, the most powerful opposition to Jason Kenney outside of the NDP is a large bloc of far-right activists, which, due to Alberta's peculiar history are more common and influential than anywhere else in the country. Make no mistake though: the apparent winners in Kenney's defeat are not mainstream or popular themselves. A UCP government led by this group is not going to magically resurrect the party's fortunes or appeal. Indeed, Kenney's defeat could lead down two very different paths: one where the UCP's Calgary caucus ultimately defects, or one where the rural caucus leads an unpopular government further into disrepute or defeat.

     Kenney's defeat will inevitably lead to his replacement by a more "conservative" candidate. The replacement will almost definitely be, ironically, Brian Jean, the man Kenney cheated in 2017. But what does that mean? Kenney is himself a fringe character in Canadian politics - his views on things like education, religion and history are those of an extremist. However, Jean has used his time out of office not to redefine himself as a pragmatist or thoughtful moderate, but as a more extreme leader than Kenney. 

    I fully expect Jean's premiership to be received warmly by the population of Alberta, at least initially. However, he will have months, or even a year to run the province, and I'm not sure many people will expect him to run the province any better than his predecessor. What sort of cabinet will Kenney form? Kenney has had a devil of a time trying to manage the deeply limited pool of candidates for ministerial rank. Will Jean keep those people in place? I can't imagine. He will have some favours and debts called, and we will no doubt see some deeply questionable people take over before long. Getson might be a bridge too far, but would Barnes, Pitt or Hanson be out of the question? I doubt it, and they'll be embarrassing the government every day until the LG dissolves the legislature. 

    The victory of the Jean wing of the party is the victory of the conspiracy wing of the party. The ideologues who think Climate Change is a fraud, COVID-19 a hoax, and any government service a form of communism. Kenney has been able (barely) to keep a lid on these people, but Jean, who we already know to be a weak leader will fail. Why? Because he's one of them. Alberta will find itself run by a government it would never, ever elect if given the choice, and a government that will never accept criticism or advice.

    So, what happens to the Calgary caucus, that marginal group of endangered MLAs who represent the UCP in its most viable form? Are they going to be able to survive the year of rural grievance politics unleashed by Brian Jean? Most of them already know they are likely toast, though their prayers to the barrel of oil in the mind of every Alberta politician may give them hope otherwise. Without Kenney's influence in the party, to they stand post on the sinking ship, or will they abandon it? I think a few might take the latter route. The Alberta Party survives, and may yet become a home to a few disgruntled "moderates" trying desperately to salvage their reputation and post-political careers. 

    Regarding the 2023 election, this path is the UCP's likeliest for a strong or even victorious showing. There is no way the WIP takes off with Brian Jean and his ilk at the head of the party. A few MLAs might defect to the more moderate and respectable Alberta Party, but much like in 2015, it won't amount to squat in the long run. They will lose their seats to NDP challengers. However, the UCP might just salvage enough of Calgary's suburbs and rural Alberta to win a very weakened majority.

Am I Wrong?  

 Ok, yes, I realize I'm bullish on the NDP. One could accuse me of writing this out of a sense of wish fulfillment - but, are my observations different from what even UCP supporters are claiming? No, just my conclusions. It seems to me like the idea that they can unify the party and maintain enough support to beat the NDP is more wish fulfillment of their own. I don't see the logic. The party has outperformed our worst expectations - including most conservative's - and why on earth would that change with just a change of leader? There's too much rot and too much bad history for a year to make a difference. Even should they maintain unity for another year, there is too much baggage and too little competence to save them in Calgary and the Edmonton exurbs.

    

The Conservatives, Pt. 3: The Red Tories

 Lost in all the talk of SoCons and Libertarians are the old mainstays of Canadian conservatism: the "Red Tories." What are they, you might ask? Well, they are those "light conservatives" who believe in change, but not so fast. They believe in small government, but government that still helps those who need it. They value education for preparing society for the future, and are willing to accept new people and ideas if you can convince them. They hold old, traditional values, too - like the importance of family and faith, sure, but also ideas that with power comes responsibility, and that the individual doesn't take primacy over the needs of the community (I hope this definition is acceptable). This non-ideological (pragmatic?) approach to conservatism was the dominant approach in Canada until the 1990s, when the populist Reform Party supplanted them in importance, and then absorbed the Progressive Conservative Party.

Why did it have to be so? Because with a few exceptions, the PCs didn't win elections. The Liberals ran Canada almost without pause from 1920-1984, and the Conservatives, then the Progressive Conservatives, couldn't do anything to stop it. Only with the acceptance of Quebec nationalists (later Quebec Nationalists) and the residue of the provincial Social Credit movements could the PCs finally win two majorities in a row - 1984 and 1988; the only time conservatives have done that in Canada since 1891. 

Now, it may seem like the Red Tories compromised their values for power. Some certainly did. Some joined with Reform to compete with the Liberals; others simply joined the Liberals, who were closer to their values than the Reformers (this can be seen in their traditional strongholds in Atlantic Canada, which are as close to a Liberal fortress as Alberta is to the Conservatives). However, it should be remembered that the merger was an uneasy one, and that, secondly, for many years Red Tory views were generally accepted or welcomed.

With the SoCon coup on Erin O'Toole, a blue tory masquerading as a Red one, it seems clear that this is no longer the case. Are Red Tories acceptable in the conservative coalition? Only for their votes, it would seem. They exist solely as votes in the House of Commons. Their views could not be more stark than those of the louder members of the party. So, while Conservatives bemoan the division in Canada, just a cursory search of polling data shows the division isn't national, it's political, and largely confined to their party. 

In almost any poll we see an almost even split of Conservative supporters who are for or against any issue. No other party has such a cleavage. Half of their voters think Climate Change is an issue; half do not. Half believe that "Gay Marriage" (equality) is acceptable; the other does not. Even with COVID-19, half were in favour of restrictions, and half were against the Convoy Protests. So, I think it's fair to say then that the Red Tories make up half of the party, and maybe around 15% of the electorate, but they make up easily less than half of the CPC MPs, donors or braintrust. 

Eliminating O'Toole is one thing; the MPs electing Candice Bergen, of MAGA hat fame to replace him (on an interim basis) points to an alarming reality: the CPC is going the way of the Republicans of the USA. However, the vast majority of Canadians do not, and still do not think or feel this way, just the loudest, maybe plurality of PPC and CPC supporters. We consistently see that half of the latter do not align with Trump, QAnon, Abortion Activism, or anything like that. They have a different image of conservatism in their minds and hearts. If what they see in the CPC isn't what they want, they may start looking elsewhere. Maybe to a new Progressive Conservative Party, even if they know it may not win.

We shall see. 

Northern Development 1: Churchill

 As it currently stands, Churchill is a dying, isolated town at the northern edge of Manitoba - and Canada's railroad network. It is host to two noteworthy things: polar bear tourism and a wheat export terminal. It is connected to the rest of the country by rail and air, and thanks to the former, it is the most integrated of Canada's Hudson Bay settlements. Given its strategic location and pre-existing infrastructure, it should be among the pillars of a Canadian northern strategy.

1. Public Sector initiatives

1a. The Military

Churchill's first importance in the era to come is as a strategic military base. While Churchill is removed from the region of the Northwest Passage, it could play a significant role in supporting Canadian sovereignty in that region. Given its connection to the rest of Canada through its railroad, Churchill would be the logical place for a supply depot and maintenance base for Canadian ships and aircraft, while benefiting from geographic isolation from potential conflict areas further north. 

Further, its environment provides the Canadian military with an essential training area for Arctic and northern conditions - something which it is already doing in an impermanent and inconsistent way. 

Accordingly, Churchill should be prioritized at the located of a combined Naval-Air Force-Army-Rangers base. 

What should first take shape is the refurbishment and expansion of a military airport, hand-in-hand with the development of a naval dockyard capable of docking and repairing a large number of Canadian warships. The air field would provide staging, maintenance and observation services for the region, capable of Armed, transport and surveillance missions simultaneously, while the naval yard would provide basing opportunities for the navy. Housing of families and personnel would be considered essential - this is no temporary post.

As the navy and air force establish themselves in Churchill, they can start sparing excess construction capacity and experience to allow the army to develop a permanent training centre, depot and Ranger HQ in the town. Further excess capacity can be redirected towards other new Canadian northern bases in Iqaluit, Nanisivik, and Tuktoyuktuk. 

The end stage for each service should look like this:

Navy

- Docking facilities for at least six warships;

- Repair facilities for at least one ship;

- Establishment of housing and shore facilities for the crews and their families;

- Including parts and ammunition depots.

Air Force

- Air Field and hangars for Fighters, Transports, Drones, training, and surveillance aircraft;

- Advanced radar stations and possibly air defence capability;

- Housing for crews and their families

- Depots for parts and munitions;

- A northern air training centre.

Army

- Training centre for northern operations;

- Ranger Headquarters and depot;

- Depot for training, munitions and parts; and

- Base defence force.

1b. Government services 

The new government establishments at Churchill should include Coast Guard, Fisheries and Oceans, and University services. Environmental and Railroad regulatory personnel would also need to be present. With such an investment in military and government services as listed above, there would also have to be provincial investments or support for expanded healthcare and primary/secondary education. 

A Northern University has been proposed for many years, but so far there has been very little movement towards this. Such a place in Churchill would be a logical first home for Inuit and Cree studies, and natural sciences focused on the Arctic environment, flora and fauna. A Northern Engineering program would enable Canada to develop expertise in constructing, maintaining and improving northern settlements, which will be key to growth elsewhere. Lastly, given the importance of the North to the future of the world, International Relations should also be key. 

As a final consideration, it might also make sense to renationalize the old Canadian Wheat Board, and its terminal at Churchill.

2. Private Sector initiatives

This massive public sector investment would see the movement of thousands of government employees, soldiers, their families, and the various teachers, health care workers, construction workers and others to make it possible. Accordingly, Churchill should turn into a bonanza for some time. To ensure that the boom doesn't just come and go, leaving another depressed military station like Cold Lake, there are a few initiatives that could encourage a more stable and growing economy. 

Deeper integration with the rest of Canada could be accomplished through the expansion of the local airport and railroad. More reliable movement of goods and people should encourage easier tourism and lower cost of living and travel. 

Expansion of the port to include LNG and oil export terminals could broaden the economic base of the city. Installation of cranes could also allow for ocean going merchant vessels to make stops at Churchill. A further expansion of the port could allow for dockyard facilities for Cruise ships and pleasure craft, or a fishing fleet, which could add tourist dollars and new business opportunities to the city. While there is limited potential for a commercial fishery there, some amount of fishing could help support the population. 

(Incomplete, but better than nothing)

 

NDP Fails but Opportunity Emerges: the case of Alberta

(Begun October 3rd, 2021)

Following our latest Federal election, NDP partisans have been trumpeting the claim that their party was the only party that both won more seats and got an increase in the vote compared to 2019. That is true. The People's Party gained a lot more votes, but nowhere came close to winning anything (I suspect that might be all they want, anyway). The NDP won a net of one seat, while gaining +120,000 votes. That's something. However, what is the quality of their claim? 

We can look at a lot of qualifiers. First, look at their spending, which was significantly higher than in 2019. One seat and +1.8 percentage points in the popular vote? Hmmm... then there's the fact they actually lost seats in Ontario and Atlantic Canada. No pickups, only losses. That can't be good - they're hardly a national party, especially when you consider that half their caucus is now from BC. Their traditional base in Saskatchewan seems dead, buried and cold, as are others in Northern Ontario and interior BC. 

So, given that three parties saw declines in support - Liberals, Conservatives and especially Greens, the NDP don't have much to celebrate but one: the election of Blake Desjarlais in Edmonton Griesbach. He doesn't just flip a seat, but the seat of Kerry Diotte, one of the most embarrassing MPs in the country. More significantly, he points to a possible future, one where Edmonton is more orange than blue. 

In fact, the NDP came very close to winning Edmonton Centre, too - they were within a few thousand votes in a three-way-race. Elsewhere, NDP candidates combined with Liberals would defeat the CPC everywhere but Edmonton-Wetaskiwin - an urban/rural split riding that likely won't exist during the next election. Across the province, NDP vote shares went up 7.5 points - a greater amount than the PPC and Maverick gains put together. 

Given the increasing rightward shift of the CPC, I think a reckoning is due in urban Alberta. The province votes Conservative not because of values or interests, but identity. If the conservatives continue to mutate into the Canadian version of the "Know-Nothings," what appeal will they hold for the educated, cosmopolitan and wealthy citizens of Calgary and Edmonton? Less and less, I think. 

The NDP is best poised to take advantage of the opening space in Alberta. It is, at heart, a western protest party, albeit one grounded in left-wing politics. They are not the eastern-dominated Liberals, or the rural-and-white-dominated Conservative Party. The NDP better reflects the ideals and values of the province, as seen in the growing strength and support of the provincial party. As more and more Albertans fail to see themselves reflected in the Conservative Party, we should start seeing more of them finding a home with the NDP, a party comfortable with diversity, science, and complexity, like most Albertans. 

Were I an NDP strategist, I would be preparing for the next Canadian election with a plan to flip Edmonton Centre, Riverbend, Mill Woods and Manning. Yes, six Edmonton ridings. I fully think it's a possible goal. 

The Conservatives, pt. 2: The Libertarian Wing

Libertarianism is an ideology that I understand for its theoretical simplicity, but less for its applicability. Still, I looked upon the presidential campaigns of Ron Paul with a lot of excitement, and he introduced me to the term. I was attracted to an American presidential candidate who desired to end their foreign wars, and legalizing marijuana sounded like a sound idea. Later, the Libertarian version of Star Trek entertained me (it's still great). While Libertarianism has existed as a political identity for some decades, I reckon people have had similar experiences as me, as the Libertarian Party in Canada had its greatest success in 2015, while the People's Party, the Libertarian offshoot of the Conservative Party of Canada, did even better (though poorly still) in the following 2019 election.

While it has yet to elect a labelled Libertarian at the Federal or Provincial level, Libertarianism seems to be an ideology in the rise on the Canadian Right. Anti-lockdown protests, whether business shutdowns or the wearing of masks have been present and persistent across the country. Much of the conservative media establishment shows a great deal of admiration, toleration or promotion of these ideas too when they aren't waving away the stench wafting from the rotting corpse of Red Tory values of obligation and duty. Going back further, Libertarians were prominent opponent of both marijuana and gun regulations, the latter of which they continue to oppose in a significant way. As Canadian society moves in the direction of greater individualism and less communalism, Libertarianism is in, and speaking with a strength exceeding its numbers. 

Yet there is a great irony in the movement and its apparent success. That is, the Libertarian movement in Canada is chained to its ideological rivals, and it doesn't even seem recognize it.* They seemingly forget: Libertarian values don't make them conservative, they make them liberal. Meanwhile, they remain wed to a more sizeable, more cohesive and dedicated group: the Social Conservatives. The only thing tying them to the Conservative Party is a desire for small government. However, the outcomes of power for both groups couldn't be more different. Libertarians want a small government so individuals can make more choices for themselves. Social Conservatives want smaller government so that Churches can reconquer the lost social services and charity they once provided. It would be foolhardy for any libertarian to think that a Social Conservative government, even trapping itself in Libertarian talking points as they do, would in any way allow for more freedom for individuals. 

Would there be as many or more rights for LGBTQ people? There is no way. Would there be as many or more rights for religious minorities? I highly doubt it. Would there be as many or more rights for women? Come on. Lastly, would there be as many rights and protections for children? Who are they trying to kid? The Social Conservative movement, wedded as it is to Old Testament interpretations of morality and justice, would, in time, reduce or eliminate rights for all of the groups just listed. When you add it up, that's the vast majority of the population losing its protections, agency, and rights. Libertarians can forget about their two big successes: the right to die and drug legalization. Do any of us think the Socons would expand drug access? You can see the proof in Alberta where Safe Injection sites have been shut down or removed to more remote locations, with hundreds of deaths insuing - and the UCP have only been in power two years.

The fundamental truth of the Libertarians is that they are in fact nothing more than Liberals who hate Health Care. All the rest is cognitive dissonance. Or maybe it isn't. Should we be surprised looking at them? We see mostly young, white men. Would they lose their rights, privileges and protections? Or would they be left the only ones with rights? Regardless, the big issue remains that Libertarianism is modern conservatism at its most intellectual and presentable. However, they are clearly being used - and not using the others, to further an agenda that couldn't be further from their own supposed values. These Trojans must know there's Greeks in the Horse, but so long as they're both moving in the same direction, who cares what happens at the end?

 

*Update, Feb. 3rd 2022 - in the wake of the O'Toole episode, I wonder: do all the disparate camps in the "Big Blue Tent" not know that they are polar opposites, or are they just using each other for power?