The cynic would suggest that Albertans will be faced with some devilish dilemmas in the next two years.
In one scenario, as the ruling Progressive Conservatives and the Wildrose Alliance jockey for attention — and, ultimately, votes — many Albertans will ponder whether the old saying “Better the devil you know than the devil you don’t” holds true.
For many others, examining the Tories, Wildrose and even Liberal and New Democrat alternatives, it could be that the devil is in the details.
If we listen to Rick Orman, the latest Conservative leadership hopeful to declare his candidacy, the devil is the Wildrose Alliance — and not because he differs with its policy perspectives.
Orman became the sixth contender to join the race to replace Premier Ed Stelmach last week after almost 20 years away from the legislative benches.
He wants Conservatives to recognize the Wildrose for its potential to split the vote on the right and damage his party.
And he says he wants to bring disaffected Conservatives who have fled to the Wildrose back into the fold.
“You know those people over there didn’t land from Mars,” Orman said. “Those people were Conservatives and the reason that they’re not here is because they do not see themselves in the reflection of the Conservative party, because there’s been a blur in the principles.”
Orman wants an Alberta that trumpets individual responsibility, free enterprise and sound fiscal management — all good things, depending on the degree to which they are employed.
But more troubling is Orman’s contention that the solution to our health-care problems is to resurrect the Mazankowski health report of 2002. It called for health premiums to rise by 33 per cent (Albertans no longer pay those premiums, but did at the time, and presumably would again under Orman), the delisting of some services and the creation of additional contracts with private health-care providers.
Those kinds of health reform proposals were floated by Ralph Klein (who defeated Orman for the Conservative leadership in 1992) and shot down. There is no evidence that Albertans have any more appetite for them now.
In fact, there seems to be scant evidence that Albertans as a whole have the stomach for a host of right-leaning policy suggestions that would align them with either Orman or the more extreme elements in Wildrose.
Last week, the School of Public Policy at the University of Calgary released a paper by Anthony Sayers and David Stewart that argued that Wildrose policy on a host of fronts actually runs counter to public sentiment.
The study examined voter perspectives on such policy areas as social conservatism, the environment, Western alienation and the role of government.
And the authors argue that Wildrose “must discredit the Tories’ performance on those issues that are seen as central to politics in Alberta and move aggressively into Tory territory by presenting itself as more competent and in tune with Albertans.”
But the study found that there is a broad gap between public preferences and Wildrose perspectives on these and other issues.
It is more likely that Wildrose policies will be moderated in the coming months to fight the Conservatives in the middle ground — where the vast majority of Alberta voters are most comfortable.
And people like Orman will likely discover that the Conservative party has little appetite for extremism because success is dependent on a more moderate perspective.
And then Albertans can measure their support based on leadership and trustworthiness — two of the most devilish, and crucial, details.
John Stewart is the Advocate’s managing editor.