Your view lends itself to a Machiavellian conception of politics that I don’t think is necessarily true of the Alberta government. All things considered, and with the exception of maybe Aberhart’s administration, Alberta really hasn’t had radical government—or should I say, government that is radical towards the rest of Canada. Like I said, Aberhart is a prominent exception if you consider the original drive of the Socred administrations to wrestle control of banking for the province.

For the most part, however, people know Alberta for its populism, demonstrated as recently and as radically visa vis the rest of Canada with the emergence of the Reform Party. By all accounts, Preston Manning emerged as a respectable Alberta statesman, leader of a remarkably successful Western political party, and with little to no help from the Alberta government. We should not forget the series of constitutional talks that led to the overwhelming success of the Reform Party in Western Canada.

The Alberta Government signed on to both the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords (recall that Getty was an unpopular Premier of Alberta), the Mulroney Tories were fully committed to both, BUT surprise surprise Western Canadians were not. I think this scenario points very clearly to the fact that Western Canadians have a fundamentally different view of what Canadian federalism should be about. Distinct society for any province is a non-starter, democratic reform to make the federal government more accountable is a starter. And the reason distinct society is a non-starter is because Westerners, especially Albertans, do not buy the “two founding nations” mythology of Central Canada—as far as they are concerned, it’s fabricated crap.

The simple truth is that Central Canada never could make sense of the Reform party, and never has come to terms with the Western Canadian view of the country. Central Canada always feigns moral outrage and disbelief, reinforcing their bias that Western Canadians don’t always know what’s good for them. I think the political rhetoric has demonstrated this very clearly over the last 15 years of federal politics.

The discontent between Alberta and Ontario does not only pertain to the question of Canada. Think about it in more basic terms. The recent legislation on same-sex marriage is a perfect example of Alberta public opinion showing constant opposition to such an idea. A greater percentage of Albertans than Ontarians are unwilling to compromise on traditional marriage. To put it another way, more Ontarians than Albertans are suckered by the pathological and therefore stupid view of human sexuality put forward in Canada’s jurisprudence on “sexual orientation”. There is stable opposition in Alberta towards same sex marriage as an equality right; which is how it was justified in Central Canada. Same sex marriage is non-sense in Alberta (How can same sex marriage and traditional marriage be equivalent? Without the flakey sob stories please.), while it appears more salient in Ontario.

Other issues abound demonstrating how Ontario public opinion is much more conducive to being suckered by the big and the abstract. This is clear whether it be medicare or gun control or terrorism: Albertans are open to private healthcare; think the current gun control regime is stupid, unjust and expensive; and by and large understand that stopping terrorism requires taking the fight to the terrorists—they are less opposed to the war in Iraq than Ontarians.

Time and again, Ontario cannot make sense of Western Canada except to dismiss it as the homeland of rednecks and other hicks, less civilised than we—REAL Canada. They condescend towards the West as being “alienated”, thereby giving token appreciation for Western frustration without ever having to accept any of it as valid concern.

“Central Canada is avoiding reality, it doesn’t want to see a political reality in Alberta that is not amenable to its own lies.”

Just to be a bit contrarian, perhaps it is the political environment in Alberta that is distorted. After all, we have had what amounts to single party rule for over 30 years, and with minimal or no real opposition the last ten.

It would seem to me that Alberta’s governing party has had plenty of opportunity to distort the picture considerably, and I would go as far as to assert that they have done so - the extent of the distortion will likely not be clear until the second term after the PCs have been turned out. (It will take that long for PC control over the bureaucracy to start to dissipate at the senior levels)

Can’t we put a mussle on these idiots?

Cerber does make a very good point about the rest of Canada, something Albertans are not responsible for. Albertans are not responsible for other provinces ability, or inability, to get their own houses in order.

Might I suggest that big abstractions are now the norm for avoiding responsibility in politics. People seem to like to talk about the giant forces that move them, expecting that when they want something they should be able to get it. Part of what allowed Klein to make his “revolution” in Alberta — steep budgetary cuts across the board — was a willingness of Albertans to see that they had to re-evaluate their priorities and tough it out. When you consider how Harris tried to do the same in Ontario, succeeded for a while, but eventually saw his revolution undermined from within his own party and an eventual loss to the Liberals, you see a stark difference between Alberta and Ontario. The willingness of Ontarians to be suckered by the big and the abstract — whether it be equalisation, American imperialism, or even sexual orientation (taking a broadview of different issues today) — makes clear the type of threat Alberta is facing. Central Canada is avoiding reality, it doesn’t want to see a political reality in Alberta that is not amenable to its own lies.

Alberta can’t bail on Canada yet and as OTOH says, it should try to get along. But just to second Cerber, “The notion that Ontario is poor is laughable.”

I think the undercarriage of these debates isn’t so much Alberta is rich, everyone else is poor, but rather everyone else has failed to make necessary restructuring in the way they govern themselves. Consider how much public sector unions suck out of Ontario budget coffers. McGuinty and other premiers are using the Alberta question as a way of making difficult decisions regarding their own budgets.

The notion that Ontario is poor is laughable.

Former premier warns of oil envy

The key point that Lougheed makes is that Alberta has to find _CONSTRUCTIVE_ ways to work with the other provinces. It is sad - if not pathetic - that Ralph is retreating once more into the rhetoric of confrontation instead of finding constructive approaches to these situations.

Confrontation is a necessary and useful tool, but sadly it seems to be the only tool currently in Klein’s toolbox. It’s one thing to say “hands off”, but it’s another altogether to come up with constructive ways that benefit both Alberta and Confederation. I had quite forgotten about Lougheed’s program of loans to other provinces via the Heritage Savings Trust Fund. Yes, the fund “underperformed” as an investment, but on the other hand, other provinces gained from it while Alberta still reaped something from those dollars. Not perfect, but better than a “kick in the head”, and arguably a “win-win” for Canada and Alberta overall.

I agree with much of what George Freeman has said in his post above - Alberta is in the position where not only does it need to take a leadership role, it must do so if it is to take the place at the political table of this nation it deserves. Klein’s rumblings are those of a politician, not a statesman.

While Alberta does need to be very wary of the federal government, as a province it needs to get its own parliamentary house in order. The province requires political saviness, certainly more than Klein’s token grumblings from on high can offer, if it is to take the federal threat for what it is—a threat. Alberta needs political leaders who understand the place of Alberta in Canada with more acumen than can be mustered by Central Canada’s “two founding nations” dorks. Even the question of Alberta independence is apart of the larger, never-ending debate over what Canada is, or what it was supposed to be about.

While Alberta has a bright and shining intelligentsia, and there are prospects on the horizon of Alberta politics that look like they have what it takes, I fear the province might be in a real pickle between Klein and the next great premier of the province. God knows Alberta doesn’t need another “same old, same old” in office, a Harry Strom or Don Getty when the feds decide to make their move. I guess it just seems imperative that the up and comer, education and healthcare, Jim Dinning, never get to sit in the Premier’s chair.

If Alberta doesn’t get its own house in order, it might be its own worse enemy. And a parliamentary system is made great or not by those of good character and imagination that fill its offices. Other examples in Confederation can be had of this internal threat to Alberta, just take note of Newfoundland’s not so glorious union with Canada.

Admittedly, I’m not entirely clear on what I’m trying to get at here, I just think the next serious political campaign can’t be another “Vote this way, because Albertans vote this way” campaign. This may sound corny but Alberta really needs to inspire its best and brightest to step up to the plate and liven up political conversation in the province.

So, what does Alberta do? Keep open channels with major figures in the US administration, including the upper layers of the Treasury Department (not just the White House), as well as key senators.

Alberta should also have a battle plan to withdraw from the Canada Pension Plan. If Alberta withdraws from it, Kaqchikel’s mugger won’t have so a great pension to draw from. Either will Dalton McGuinty.

Even though it may not make as much economic sense (short-term), Alberta may as well start collecting its own income tax.

I like how Mr. Cerber signed off a few posts back: “And Dick Cheney is visiting Alberta.”