Progressive alternative in Canada

[fellowtraveller]

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?

Are you as familiar with the word 'irony' as ypu are with the word 'progressive'?

[Wild Bill]

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

You seem to have completely missed my point. I did not slur the left with an inference that all left folks are gay. Nor did I cast any value judgement on being gay. Frankly, sexual orientation has never mattered to me. Being gay is not a fault but I reserve judgement on being leftwing.

Or on being quick to jump to a wrong conclusion and responding with insults and ad hominem, for that matter.

I simply pointed out that this thread appears to be an attempt to co-opt the meaning of the word 'progressive', in a similar manner to how the homosexual movement adopted the word 'gay'.

The tactic seems to be that if the word is used in such a context often enough then it will become the new definition. Ever after children will grow up thinking that leftwing philosophy is 'progressive' and so by simple logic non-leftwing philosophy is regressive.

You know, like how today many people think that 'liberal' is nice...

Edited May 9, 2008 by Wild Bill

[myata]

The tactic seems to be that if the word is used in such a context often enough then it will become the new definition. Ever after children will grow up thinking that leftwing philosophy is 'progressive' and so by simple logic non-leftwing philosophy is regressive.

One more time, and very very slowly for those who are challenged in the basic reading / comprehension domain: where was the word "leftwing" used once, in the context of this thread?

E.g: is the Green party "leftwing"? Is the part of the Liberal party actually mentioned in this context "leftwing"? If you're upset by your very own, fatally flawed, interpretations of what was never said, you have every reason to be; before you can respond with any meaning in a discussion, you should at least attempt to understand what is being said.

[oreodontist]

You seem to have completely missed my point. I did not slur the left with an inference that all left folks are gay. Nor did I cast any value judgement on being gay. Frankly, sexual orientation has never mattered to me. Being gay is not a fault but I reserve judgement on being leftwing.

Or on being quick to jump to a wrong conclusion and responding with insults and ad hominem, for that matter.

I simply pointed out that this thread appears to be an attempt to co-opt the meaning of the word 'progressive', in a similar manner to how the homosexual movement adopted the word 'gay'.

The tactic seems to be that if the word is used in such a context often enough then it will become the new definition. Ever after children will grow up thinking that leftwing philosophy is 'progressive' and so by simple logic non-leftwing philosophy is regressive.

You know, like how today many people think that 'liberal' is nice...

That's a good analogy. Words in common use in a culture can be co-opted. In the world of cell phone cameras everywhere and 24/7 media starved for material....it's no wonder politicians start to speak in well choreographed sound bites. The use of a common word, regardless of the intention, can be a faux-pas. Slip ups are pounced upon as a reflection of some deep dark agenda.

[Wild Bill]

One more time, and very very slowly for those who are challenged in the basic reading / comprehension domain: where was the word "leftwing" used once, in the context of this thread?

E.g: is the Green party "leftwing"? Is the part of the Liberal party actually mentioned in this context "leftwing"? If you're upset by your very own, fatally flawed, interpretations of what was never said, you have every reason to be; before you can respond with any meaning in a discussion, you should at least attempt to understand what is being said.

Leftwing is as leftwing does. If it walks and quacks...

"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;"

Your first suggestion only hints at being leftwing but by the time you start suggesting "economic and social programs fit for the 21 century;" you're talking from the left by definition.

You take it for granted that progressive action comes first from government. That's a fundamental leftwing viewpoint. Someone from what you might call the right would suggest that government programs ARE the problem!

It's not really partisan I suppose. Particularly when our modern Canadian parties rarely act like a dictionary definition anyway but rather sing whatever song the parade of the day is playing. It's actually statist, in that the left has faith that more government involvement is the answer. This has always amazed me, since I have yet to see one government program that is cost-efficient and truly self-sustaining. It's always take $100 of tax money to deliver $1 of services to the citizenry.

Edited May 9, 2008 by Wild Bill

[myata]

Leftwing is as leftwing does. If it walks and quacks...

Alright, that's informative, as long as you at least attempt to describe your perceptions...

.... by the time you start suggesting "economic and social programs fit for the 21 century;" you're talking from the left by definition.

So economic and social programs Canadians enjoy now are "leftwing". Really? Why wouldn't Harpers non left wing CPC say so? Would be interesting to hear them.

Now if economic and social programs aren't necessarily "leftwing", surely they aren't set in stone, and should be adjusted to the realities of the changing world. No?

You take it for granted that progressive action comes first from government. That's a fundamental leftwing viewpoint. Someone from what you might call the right would suggest that government programs ARE the problem!

Like public healthcare; like employment insurance; like social security net? Again, why wouldn't those on the right say so, aloud..

In any case, as so many times before, you're disputing with your own interpretations something what was never said. Progressive agendas can and will emerge in the society but they will need political foundation to be implemented in practice. That would require political forces not afraid to accept and promote new ideas. And implement them, if people support it. This is ABC of democracy.