Missing the forest for the trees

Since the media began filing their weekend wrap up coverage of the Alberta Liberal Party Convention, a number of pundits have weighed in on the party’s decision to run a leadership race without membership. (Which isn’t unprecedented, by the way)Instead of having to join the party in order to cast a ballot for leader, any Alberta resident can vote.To some members of the punditry and Liberal twitterati it’s not only new and “open”, but it’s a potential panacea for everything that apparently ails the federal party, too.They’re dead wrong.Without taking anything away from the Alberta Liberals, who are probably making a wise decision, it’s important that the rest of us keep that decision in context.The Alberta Liberal Party doesn’t have a membership problem. Membership is a symptom of a much greater problem that the Party has been battling for a long, long time. If you haven’t figured out what that is, maybe the language in some of today’s papers will help. The Edmonton Journal talks openly of “the stigma attached to being… a liberal member“, while the Calgary Herald describes the party’s “toxic brand”.Before Liberals in the rest of the country jump to any conclusions about the utility of making such changes on a national level, it’s key that they understand that the circumstances of the Alberta Liberal Party and the Liberal Party of Canada are dramatically different.There’s a reason why Liberals in Alberta muse openly about changing the party name, just as there’s a reason why Calgarians will readily elect small-L liberals to the mayor’s chair over and over again, but won’t give a thought to sending big-L Liberals to Parliament.I won’t pretend to be an expert on why that is – although I have a few hunches.But I do know that it’s time Liberals in the rest of the country start focusing on the real problem here, rather than being distracted by its symptoms.