This could be why none of the speakers were willing to define what a “conservative” is at the gathering, despite a real attempt by several questioners to gleem exactly that. Some definitely do not include social conservatism (or “culture wars”) as part of their conservative agenda. They were, for all intents and purposes, social libertarians.

So here are a few definitons of conservatism as they may relate to politics (and finance) found on the web:

- resistant to change
- cautious: avoiding excess; “a conservative estimate”
- a person who is reluctant to accept changes and new ideas
- button-down: unimaginatively conventional;
- bourgeois: conforming to the standards and conventions of the middle class; “a bourgeois mentality”
- Conservatism is a political and social term from the Latin verb conservare meaning to save or preserve. As the name suggests it usually indicates support for tradition and traditional values
- people who generally like to uphold current conditions and oppose changes.
- A cautious, risk-averse investment strategy. The preservation of capital is a high priority to a conservative investor.
- in politics, a loosely defined term indicating adherence to one or more of a family of attitudes, including respect for tradition and authority…

Yet more speakers at the conference quoted traditional (big L) Liberals and classical (small l) liberal thinkers than anyone else. When examples were raised as to how to do things better, very liberal (even democratic socialist) countries policies were cited on how to improve our own systems. No one quoted a thinker or a policy from the USA, even though both their major parties are widely considered right of centre and even right of most conservative political movements in Canada.

The whole thrust of the event was to get to the next vision for Alberta, from a conservative perspective, but no one was even willing to define what the perspective was, let alone their vision. The lack of definition was the Elephant in the room. Perhaps just as telling, the event organizers did not even ask for “conservative” to be defined. If that in itself is too difficult a topic to bring up, why on earth would anyone expect a conservative vision to be had at the same event.

Regardless of the above, the event was a success in getting people who are interested in the future of Alberta into the same room and talking. I was very glad to have participated and hope to be involved in further confabs in the future. Many are just finding their feet in Alberta politics and I am one of them. It is an interesting time and look forward to learning and contributing more in the future.

While this was somewhat of a useful exercise, for me it didn't accomplish what it was presented as. Rather than looking for solutions it seemed to be looking for confirmation of a pre-set agenda. The voting at the end was very odd and I hope that they do not present the voting as representing anything other than agreeing that conclusions recorded were correct. There was no recommendation for any of these conclusions. I was able to vote on two of the presentations as I recognized what our group had submitted otherwise I have no idea. One participant, whose spidy senses must have gone off as well, asked to clarify that the voting was not endorsing any political party.

I do agree that it was interesting and well run for a traditional conference. I do hope that the Manning Centre undertakes more of these conferences, but uses a more participatory model and is willing to look outside the constraints of conservatism for solutions by getting presenters other than from the usual suspects of the Fraser Institute and Frontier Centre.