The Alberta independence movement has in the last year transitioned out of theory into the nitty-gritty of campaign politics. The transition to the practical, if Albertan patriots are to prevail, means facing up to difficult decisions. While I cannot address the whole array here, I will respond to a few that have percolated in my own mind.
On May 25, I was privileged to raise these questions as host of The Path to Alberta Nationhood event in Calgary. This was a postdebate panel discussion with two de facto leaders of Alberta independence: Keith Wilson of Let Alberta Decide and Eva Chipiuk of Empowered Canadians. You can see reporting on this event with the Western Standard and video recordings by the Critical Compass.
Here are the questions, distilled down, that I presented to Wilson and Chipiuk, followed by my own reflections:
1. Are public debates a useful allocation of our time?
Whether Wilson’s performance that night was particularly effective, challenging former Premier Jason Kenney, is an open question. Watch and decide for yourself.
However, challengers typically benefit more than incumbents from debates. Secessionists would best initiate public debates and even on-the-street dialogues whenever possible. These can be affordable, high-impact occasions, especially when targeted towards a malleable audience such as students.
On the other hand, we will likely see Ottawa loyalists decline these events. Federalists do not want to legitimize our perspectives or let people escape the regime-media bubble. You will not hear on the CBC, for example, an honest assessment of the endless failed attempts to reform the confederation. We are supposed to have short memories and plow ahead like lambs to the slaughter.
2. Should we engage with media outlets determined to thwart our efforts?
This is a tough one for me because I see most regime media as bought-off anti-journalists. These outlets are often so hyperbolic and pejorative-laden in their depictions of us that I see engagement as futile. In such cases, they will choose the worst among us for interviews to propagate a cartoonish negative depiction.
However, regime media dominate radio and TV spaces and have a strong lock on many boomers. Wilson is right that we ignore them at our peril.
We can engage in a careful manner, ideally during live broadcasts and with recordings on our own end for resharing. Further, we can identify and work with the most reasonable among the legacy media. There still are some in there who try to avoid straw-man depictions and let the information speak for itself.
3. How should we handle US media and politicians?
This question cuts to the core of Alberta values, which align far better with the US Mountain States than with the rest of Canada (excluding Saskatchewan). The Alberta nation will also seek swift US recognition and coordinated national defense.
Predictably, Alberta nationhood already has plenty of support south of the border, especially among prominent Canadian expats such as Steven Crowder. This support will only grow as Americans welcome a less combative neighbor that does not align with Chinese Communists.
The prickly element here is that remainers (federalists) will twist US support to suggest that independence is not a homegrown or bottom-up movement. Such bad-faith depictions come from people who have turned their eyes away from the successful petition and countless well-attended events.
That being said, initiatives that promote US statehood rather than full independence are misguided and feed into unwarranted fears. From the outset, I have been adamant that nationhood is the best path forward. Exchanging one indebted faraway ruler for another makes little sense and would open a can of worms. That must be made clear to all US supporters: we seek a fruitful neighbor and not another ruler.
4. How can we professionalize? Would you rather we remain volunteers?
This is a no-brainer: we must professionalize, and fortunately this is already happening. Our situation is akin to a novice boxer going up against an experienced fighter. Let us not delude ourselves into thinking amateurs will beat hardened professionals in the political sphere. We can hurl insults at political insiders, but they have expertise and motivation.
Any initiative that relies purely on volunteers will be doomed to burn out. Further, ambitious young people need to see earnings and a rising path. If we do not provide such a path, we will invite adverse selection and people with a lower opportunity cost.
To professionalize, we have to get real about (1) delivering products and services that sell and (2) identifying and working with aligned donors. People can call us grifters, but there is no shame in delivering value towards a noble mission. Such Debbie Downers are jealous of success and afraid of change. Meanwhile, those defending the status quo enjoy all manner of union funding, including from the public sector.
5. Where is there a vacuum for work towards broader electoral support?
As the Western Standard headline concluded, “We cannot stay in our echo chambers.” There are many demographics and associations that compel greater attention and application of our resources. In particular, Chipiuk has suggested two that resonate: First Nation and urban-professional Albertans. This means carrying out the actions noted in the previous questions and emphasizing an attractive identity that sits well with both demographics.
I would add female voters to the list. Fortunately, the Alberta Women’s Independence Network (AWIN), led by Kathy Flett and Angela Tabak, has picked up the torch in that domain. They have adopted a direct approach with small events that enable rapport with attendees.
Fundamentally, we need to build bridges with disaffected or politically homeless individuals, as Robert Kennedy Jr. did in the United States when he ran for president. He found many voters who identified with the left but felt disenfranchised regarding civil liberties and natural health. Those people will be inclined to benefit from self-determination in Alberta.
