O O Ø O O O O
In Defence of Separatism
In an August 2005 piece entitled Alberta Separatists make me sick, Senator Catalyst, occassional pd.o reader and publisher of the Catalytic Corral, throws down the poli-blog gauntlet to those who “support the wretched notion of Alberta separatism”.
It means you are ready to align yourself with racists to validate some stupid idea you picked up from reading the Calgary Sun. It means that you’re ready to take reactionary steps against the State to which you are subject. It means, you’re prepared to stand against me, as a traitor who doesn’t deserve to take another breath in this country!
Well bring it on!
Almost one year later, this struck me as the sort of gauntlet I would take up.
Mr. Catalyst, is it so unreasonable to think that a citizen of a country with a population of three million would have ten times more political influence than in a country of 30 million? In this strict numerical sense, separatism is a very reasonable and logical proposition. (Arguments about extra-national influence mean nothing to a republic with a completely non-interventionist foreign policy.)
For those of us campaigning for smaller government, does it not make sense to support the notion of the elimination of one entire level of governance? It will be much easier to restrain those government functions created from scratch following a successful yes vote, than to reign in the pre-existing bureaucracy. Today there is no aspect of our lives that the government doesn’t think it has some vested interest in controlling. I look forward to the task of drafting a proper, republican constitution that will successfully restrain the ability of government to interfere with our lives.
Your line, honourable senator, about taking “reactionary steps against the State to which [I am] subject,” fills me with bemusement. Remember, I asked for none of this. In my view, the social contract to which I was made a signatory the moment I was born is worth only the paper on which it is written. Additionally, your choice of words is unfortunate, if appropriate. A subject is someone who is under the rule of someone else. All clear headed people should be looking for ways to reduce the degree to which others can control their lives. Let’s please talk of being subject no further.
On the topic of separation’s unseemly supporters, there is a simple reason to line up on the same side as the so-called racists. Under the constitutionally limited government of a republic, these deluded people will be powerless to impose their shallow world views on their fellow citizens. They will simply be a bunch of fools lessening their own lives by limiting the pool of people with whom they consort. Without the mechanism of a large government to give their prejudices the force of law, they will simply remain loonies in the boonies.
It seems to me the arguments against separatism—Albertan, Quebecois, or otherwise—are the least reasonable, often resorting to name-calling and nostalgia. “Traitor!” “Remember Paul Henderson!”
Since the line of reasoning illustrated here for supporting the separatist movement doesn’t depend on the typical red herrings such as righting past wrongs, railing against Ottawa, or defending the fallacious notion of western culture, we can extend the following commitment to Canada and to you, Mr. Catalyst: the moment the likelihood of achieving a constitutionally limited republic in Canada is greater than the chances of achieving it in Alberta, the notion of separation will become moot.
Until such time though, the arguments are clear: a separate Alberta is a unique opportunity to limit government, achieve a greater degree of self determination, and most importantly, the quickest road to icing an all-Albertan Olympic hockey team. Phaneuf to Heatley, over to Iginla, he scores!
Evan Spence
July 25, 2006
OOØOOOODCCLXVI
July 26th, 2006 at 9:57 am
“Mr. Catalyst, is it so unreasonable to think that a citizen of a country with a population of three million would have ten times more political influence than in a country of 30 million?”
No, it’s not that unreasonable; although in my mind political elite is political elite no matter the size of the country. To put it another way, the same “Calgary Mafia” that, according to Ted Morton has been running the Province for the past 13 years, would simply be elevated to the position of national political elite. As a former member of the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta, I shudder to think what kind of grassroots democracy might be fostered under their guidance in the unlikely event of Albertan Independence. Even the voices of their own party members are generally ignored, and the party’s direction is largely shaped by those close to the McDougall Centre. So let’s not fool ourselves completely, nobody’s going to start caring about Evan Spence’s input on legislation simply because 27 million people have been removed from the equation.
Then again, that’s not to say that a country of 3 million will have any less influence in the world than a country with 30 million. Just take a look at little Slovenia; they only have 2 million people, but they play a very pivotal role in European Union politics, and soon they will become the first of the class of 2004 to adopt the Euro, a significant milestone for the tiny country that first gained it’s independence in 1991. It’s a beautiful country BTW, I actually had the chance to finally visit this last May - not that I don’t think Alberta couldn’t totally kick Slovenia’s ass in a fist fight.
And I guess I will nip this whole social contract business in the bud before it goes any further. It is, of course, the same social contract that keeps everyone from eating each other and running red lights. And, whether we like it or not, it comes with certain responsibilities, even though we never asked for them. Now, I’ll be the first to admit that I slept through most of the lectures on Rousseau (so maybe you’ll be able to refresh my failing memory on some of the techicals) but wasn’t it Bob Dylan who said “but you’re gonna have to serve somebody.” I agree, the word ’subject’ itself might be a little outdated, and true, we don’t really have a strong tradition in Canada of thinking ourselves as ’subject’ to a higher order (well, I gues those of us who regualrily attend church on Sunday do), but it is the awful truth. If we choose to be patriots, we will eventually see ourselves as loyal subjects to the notion of our nation. Or something like that.
Anyway, I’m off to work now. I appreciate the reply though, even one year later. I’ll be back.
July 27th, 2006 at 3:07 pm
Can we then buy Turks and Caicos or similar inlands so we have somewhere to spend our “Ralphbucks” in between chinooks?