Progressive alternative in Canada

[myata]

It's no secret that the Liberals of today are failing to play the role of consistently progressive, socially responsible alternative to the Harper's conservatives. And it's not simply a matter of leadership, serious as it is. Since their days of glory, in establishing national social programs, or national framework of human rights, much water has flown. Being progressive today requires the will and courage to define and put forward the vision of today, and for tomorrow, not that of 20 or 50 years back. I can't see them living up to that challenge; not in their current condition, in the least. They are, very simply put, not cool anymore. Yes we kept pushing their button for a while, out of habit, or for the lack of better options; but at some point you start wondering.

So, there're two main possibilities: #1 they reform (reinvent, as the busness keyword goes); or #2 someone else takes the place of progressive alternative in the country.

I'll start with the latter, because it's more interesting, not necessarily more likely, alternative.

#2 New progressive socially responsible allegiance in Canada

Of course, it cannot emerge out of nowhere; if anything were to happen, it must be already here, somewhere; and something is here: Green party has been rating up to 12% in the polls. Granted, that's not enough to earn them as much as one seat in the parliament; something has to happen; But what? As has been already pointed out by many, there's certain similarity in some parts of Greens' and NDP's platforms; to the extent that Jack Layton recently added a generous dollop of green onto his party's colours.

But seriously: NDP rated in the upper teens, close to 20%. Take out the radical 5% who will never accept any compromise, and the democratic base (15%) combined with Green's 12% will be counting in the upper twenties. Enough for an opposition, but not there yet to seriously contend an election. They'll need to attract the progressive wing of the Liberals. Libs are rating in the low-to-mid 30%. Take half of that, and the Green-Orange core (27%), combined with the Liberal red (15%+), and we're talking about majority territory (wondering what the resulting colour of the mix would look like). Majority they'll need to put forward truly democratic agendas, like some form of proportional representation; like direct democracy for important decisions, such as entering a war; economic and social programs fit for the 21 century;

Certainly, there're major obstacles and/or challenges: #1 is the will to move forward on both sides; #2, the leadership; #3, the timing (Liberal supporters won't start migrating en masse until the alternative is firmly established, out of fear of splitting the vote). What would be their chances?

#1 Liberal reform.

I'm not following party politics closely so much of this is a view from the bottom of the pond. And the doesn't seem to be very promising. The current wave of leadership (Dion, Ignatieff, Rae) are all mired in something; while not offering anything bold and clear to make a new start. Of the trio, I cheered for Dion (won't deny that), he appeared to be the most likely to offer new fresh ideas; of course there was no way for us to know how inadept he was (and is) to the leadership role.

Of the new echelon (Kennedy, Hall Findlay) I can't say anything. They're nowhere in sight. Dunno what it is (a pecking order, guessing) but the personas of party's top ranks are nowhere in public sight, there they could expose, and discuss, their views, visions and ideas. Betting on them now would be like another blind shot. Hit and miss. Is there anybody else? Don't know - but if there's, they'll have to be found with a microscope. Chances of that scenario: ??

#3 Finally (I don't want to rate it, to keep positive outlook on life), the last possibility will be, no change. Nothing. Pure and eternal Status Quo. Jack Layon wallowing in the freedom to oppose anything to anybody; without a slightest effect; Greens continuing their uphill struggle under the blankets; and Dion trudging along waiting for the Godo's arrival. OK, I'm off for a coffee.

[Keepitsimple]

In terms of Canadian society, what does the term "progressive" really mean today? We have a plethora of social programs - the most common being Medicare, CPP, UIC, and OAS and rights that are protected by the Charter. We've got RRSP's, RESP's, Student Loans, Bursaries, etc. So...what does "progressive" really mean. What would a progressive party do that Conservatives or for that matter, Liberals would not?

[eyeball]

I'd rather have a Transparent alternative in Canada.

[oreodontist]

'Progressive' is one of those loaded words. It's meaningless without context. The forestry worker in Quebec, Alberta, B.C. and Newfoundland aren't all that different from eachother. the four of them could sit down, watch a hockey game and share a sixpack...one votes BQ, the second Conservative, the third NDP and the fourth Liberal...labels such as 'progressive' are empty until the real world meets the real pavement for real people.

[myata]

In my understanding, it means 1) intellectual capacity to understand the challenges of the day, and come up with bold innovative solutions to meet them; and 2) courage and persistency to see them implemented in practice, and defend them if the need be.

I agree it's one of the loaded words, but the alternative to not using it would be to invent a new one; anyways, in line with above, introducing the Charter was progressive; as well, implementation of some of the core national programs; also maybe eliminating deficit and restoring the country back to economic prosperity;

What is important to understand, "progressive" in its true meaning is an attribute of one's current state, moment of development; not an adjective, that being added to the title, makes the bearer progressive forever.

What's progressive at this time? Some challenges were already mentioned in the OP; such as, revival of democracy; measures to adress climate change, and general sustainability; vision for economic prosperity in the changing world (bulk manufacturing migrating overseas, general shortage of resources); social policies (e.g standardized quality daycare);

None of the main political parties have both ingredients to be called "progressive"; the question about the other two is hypothetical because they won't have any realisitic chance to put their policies into practice, unless some major development a la OP happens.

In my view, the Liberals began to lose their "progressive" status in the late years of Chretien; when the things got called from the PM office based on the chief's wish of the day, as opposed to democratic discussion and principle.

Finally, I'd like to think that watching a game with a 4-pack of beer doesn't define Canadian's individuality, including political affiliation. If "bread and circuses" were all we aspire for, I don't see why we would ever need all this complicated democratic structures, multiple parties etc the ancestors left to us. Something more like China's model would suit us just fine.

[fellowtraveller]

'Progressive' is simultaneously a buzzword for the intellectually retarded and a neat bit of control language.

If you are not 'progressive' you must be 'regressive' and who wants to be labelled regressive?

It is reminiscent of the brilliant play made by anti-abortionists in claiming the moral high ground of 'Pro-Life'. If you aren't ProLife, you must be ProDeath or AntiLife. Pro Choic just isn't in the same league as ProLife.

[oreodontist]

In my understanding, it means 1) intellectual capacity to understand the challenges of the day, and come up with bold innovative solutions to meet them; and 2) courage and persistency to see them implemented in practice, and defend them if the need be.

So neo-cons are progressive? Bush's war in Iraq must be one of the most progressive acts of the last hundred years.

But wait...intellectual capacity to understand the challenges....gee, there sure is agreement on that 'slight' qualification...

Harper to Layton: 'by golly, we both agree that you are progressive because you understand the challenges of the day....in contrast I don't understand at all and could you please enlighten me...hat's that? Sure, why not, we'll just add a dollar of tax to each liter of gas and spend the money on homeless shelters....gee, I sure wouldn't have thought of that!

Charter progressive? baloney.

[oreodontist]

'Progressive' is simultaneously a buzzword for the intellectually retarded and a neat bit of control language.

If you are not 'progressive' you must be 'regressive' and who wants to be labelled regressive?

It is reminiscent of the brilliant play made by anti-abortionists in claiming the moral high ground of 'Pro-Life'. If you aren't ProLife, you must be ProDeath or AntiLife. Pro Choic just isn't in the same league as ProLife.

Agreed. As stated it all comes down to details in the real world. Ideologues get caught up in such words and then support party labels with cultish allegience. Everything one side proposes is 'progressive' so, by default, the other side is either stupid or evil. Harper doesn't end out the troops at the first sign of flooding so the left is 'shocked and appalled'....then when he flies over the area in a helicopter 'it's a political stunt'. Fortunately 90% of Canadians don't live in a world of meaningless labels trotted out by the intellectually retarded and equally retarded political pundits.

There's retardos across the political spectrum and the only ones more pathetic are the groupies who follow.

[myata]

OK, I got it, you don't understand... unfortunately, shouting about it won't make you any smarter.

[oreodontist]

Do a search on the Net for a site called 'Babble'. It bills itself as 'the Progressive' place to meet and discuss issues. It's basically a cabal of Canadian loonies reinforcing each other and getting worked up worked up in a lather. I was banned after my first posting for calling members of the Blackfoot Tribe 'Indians'...it doesn't matter that that's the term they use for themselves and I passed a sign every day saying Plains Indian School. Whackos on the left and whackos on the right meet at the perimeter of a circle. Two sides of the same coin and they are intolerant bigots pushing 'progressive' ideology: We have the 'true way'.

[myata]

I truly emphasise with your extremely painful experiences; no doubt it could have affected your intellectual capabilites; please forgive me my earlier, insensitive, comments. On the positive side, have you tried to seek a treatment, like e.g. for post-traumatic stress disorder?

BTW discussing your past experiences was very insightful, but how exactly does it relate to the topic at hand?

Edited May 7, 2008 by myata

[Wild Bill]

I truly emphasise with your extremely painful experiences; no doubt it could have affected your intellectual capabilites; please forgive me my earlier, insensitive, comments. On the positive side, have you tried to seek a treatment, like e.g. for post-traumatic stress disorder?

BTW discussing your past experiences was very insightful, but how exactly does it relate to the topic at hand?

Lemme see if I understand. You posit a new definition of a word, one that up till now has not been supported by the dictionary, like when 'gay' was co-opted by by the homosexual movement.

Not surprisingly, some folks are confused. They perfectly understand the meaning of word as defined for centuries. They have trouble understanding how YOU are suddenly defining it!

In effect "progressive" applying to only leftwing or politically correct thought is simply a new generation of slang.

How do you respond? With insults, slamming folks for not sharing your views. Talk about ad hominem. Look in the dictionary under the word and you'll see a small mirror!

This is another reason why I have little time for many on the left. I can't get past the arrogance! Too me your words are in the same tone as I read on some of those ultra-right "Bubba" boards. Different politics, same attitude and lack of manners.

[White Doors]

What is 'progressive' about abortions being legal up until the baby comes through the birth canal? That sounds barbaric to me.

What is 'progressive' about the harder I work, the more I pay in taxes to the big man? That sounds regressive to me. Why work harder if the government is going to take it all anyways? Adn we wonder about our productivity rate?

What is progressive about being anti-war no matter what? That has been tried many times and it only works if the other guy knows he can't defeat you. It is an old tired mantra that has been proven wrong over and over again, so I ask, what is progressive about that? Wouldn't a 'progressive' realize that the world doesn't work that way and that there are, at times, just reasons to go to war?

What is 'progressive' about being against increasing the age of consent? In the age of internet and child sex predators, this was good legislation to protect children from internet sex predators. Why were the 'progressives' against this legislation? What is 'progressive' about that?

The term 'progressive' is a real bastard.

Edited May 7, 2008 by White Doors

[myata]

OK. By popular demand, the main theme of this discussion is changed to: "Lexico-psychoanalitical effect of certain words in English language (e.g Progressive) on selected individuals". Note that the exact nature of the effect is still unclear; it isn't even obvious whether the trigger is visual, or acoustic in nature; some unknown allergic reaction, associated to traumatic experiences in the past is possible; please feel free to contribute; your contributions will be highly valuable to the science.

[oreodontist]

It's amusing how some folks will post a topic to a discussion forum and then start insulting individuals who disagree with their views. If such an insecure individual is obsessed with only reinforcement of their myopic opinions, then they should stick with sending Emails to themselves.

If Orwell was to have penned '1984' today he would have included a 'Minister of the Progressive' along with 'Minister of Truth' in his book....'2054'.

[myata]

It's amusing how some folks will post a topic to a discussion forum and then start insulting individuals who disagree with their views.

It's not like you "disagree". To disagree, one would need at least a speck of idea, of their own. And surely, Orwell has nothing to do with it?

[Wild Bill]

It's not like you "disagree". To disagree, one would need at least a speck of idea, of their own. And surely, Orwell has nothing to do with it?

When you're talking leftwing, Orwell has EVERYTHING to do with it!

We had to read both "Animal Farm" and "1984" in high school. Today my daughters have never heard of them!

Somebody got their way...

[myata]

When you're talking leftwing, Orwell has EVERYTHING to do with it!

Does this mean that you just had a change of mind, and now you're OK with using generic, loaded terms?Like "leftwing"? Of course, without any attempt of clarification, or qualification?

[Keepitsimple]

Does this mean that you just had a change of mind, and now you're OK with using generic, loaded terms?Like "leftwing"? Of course, without any attempt of clarification, or qualification?

Wild Bill's analogy is pretty accurate. While the term can be exaggerated, Left Wing popularly refers to a Nanny State - as you move Left, the government has more and more control over the "welfare" of its citizens and eventually, it becomes a totalitarian authority. As you move Right, government gets smaller and more "personal responsibility" is espoused. The Conservatives are a Centrist party with tendencies of the Right. The Liberals are a Centrist party that is clearly moving to the Left to fend off the NDP and other fringe Left parties. Here's a bit of a definition for "Orwellian"

The adjective Orwellian refers to these behaviours of State and The Party, especially when the Party is the State:

The political manipulation of language, by obfuscation, e.g. WAR IS PEACE. Using language to obfuscate meaning or to reduce and eliminate ideas and their meanings that are deemed dangerous to its authority.

Invasion of personal privacy, either directly physically or indirectly by surveillance.

State control of its citizens' daily life, as in a "Big Brother" society.

Official encouragement of policies contributing to the socio-economic disintegration of the family.

The substitution of traditional religion with the adoration of state leaders and their Party.

The encouragement of "doublethink," whereby the population must learn to embrace inconsistent concepts without dissent, e.g. giving up liberty for freedom.

The revision of history in the favour of the State's interpretation of it.

A dystopian future.

[White Doors]

Myata, are you taking your ball and going home?

[myata]

Wild Bill's analogy is pretty accurate. While the term can be exaggerated, Left Wing ...

OK, very interesting; maybe in some, hopefully not so distant future you would be able to comment on the issues actually mentioned in the OP, I would be eagerly waiting for your learned opinion. E.g., is Green party (actually named in the OP) Orwellian? Or, the non radical electorate of NDP (also, actually mentioned, unlike mysterious "Left Wing"), should it be branded Orwellian as well? If not, please clarify how's this discussion of things Orwellian relate to the subject of the topic? Unless, being "right wing" is somehow associated with impairment of basic reading, or comprehesion skills?

The Conservatives are a Centrist party with tendencies of the Right.

Being "centrist", they surely must have brought in some of the social programs valued by citizens of this country; care to mention a few, just so that we descend to the domain of facts, from the heights of obfuscation?

Myata, are you taking your ball and going home?

I have a suggestion, like that new popular dating site, to run IQ test with each post; some posts / posters??? are so ... so ... hopelessly useless that even ignoring them does not bring satisfaction.

[truth-now]

In my understanding, it means 1) intellectual capacity to understand the challenges of the day, and come up with bold innovative solutions to meet them; and 2) courage and persistency to see them implemented in practice, and defend them if the need be.

Well, the Libs & Cons are providing a 2-party monopoly via their recent informal merger, so it's really up to Canadians to vote NDP or Green in order to provide a progressive alternative to such seemingly untouchable mainstream domination.

[Wild Bill]

, so it's really up to Canadians to vote NDP or Green in order to provide a progressive alternative

Here we are again! The use of 'progressive' as a synonym for 'leftwing' thought.

'Progressive' is now the new 'gay'...

[truthwins]

Here we are again! The use of 'progressive' as a synonym for 'leftwing' thought.

'Progressive' is now the new 'gay'...

That's the logic of a juvenile pea-brain, the vast majority of center-left views, like mine, are heterosexual.

Add a northern Ron Paul express to the mix then.

NDP----Green-----Libertarian

Wouldn't that be a more progressive spectrum than the one provided by 2-party monopolizing dinosaurs ?

Lieberals--------------CONservative

[myata]

Wouldn't that be a more progressive spectrum than the one provided by 2-party monopolizing dinosaurs ?

Lieberals--------------CONservative

Liberals did play important progressive role in the recent history of this country. Establishment of national social programs, constitution and the Charter, are all undeniable achievements. They started losing this position under Chretien (especially in the later years), with stalling environmental policies, dithering around Iraq (I remember it quite well; it was a no-brainer, still Cretien took it to the very brink before making his decision), and getting involved into tribal fighting in Afghanistan.

Now it's even worse. Under Dion, they're becoming very much like their main rival, jockeying for the coveted power at any cost.