Angry in the Great White North
Getting fed up with the word "progressive"
Saturday, April 08, 2006 at 10:13 AM

Read other posts by Steve Janke published by the National Post
Leader

I'm fed up with the word progressive:

Another effort [to define a new vision for the Liberal Party] is being made by a group co-chaired by former deputy prime ministers John Manley and Anne McLellan, called the Canada 2020 conference. The conference, which bills itself as non-partisan but is heavy with Liberals, will bring 150 business, government and academic leaders together June 13 to 15 to look at policies to keep Canada "competitive and socially progressive" in the 21st century.

As the last election showed, the Liberals tried to appeal to everyone by competing with the Conservatives on tax cuts and with the New Democrats on child care, giving voters the impression they had no clear direction and that their priorities were each compromised by half-measures.

To avoid that, Liberals should seek progressive policies that focus on social reform, economic growth, poverty, cities and the environment.

It is not enough simply to champion the cause of the poor or to stand for better social programs. Candidates must spell out clearly what it means to be a progressive on the international stage, and what it means for a broad range of economic and social policies here at home.

This is the challenge, as it was almost 50 years ago when Lester Pearson won the leadership by uniting Liberals and ultimately the country behind a progressive plan in which many Canadians still take such pride.

How did the word "progress" become the property of the liberal left? Conservatism seeks to conserve, on the principle that if it works, don't fix it. But by definition, if it is working, whatever it is, it is doing so because it continues to serve a purpose and achieve progress as it is measured. For instance, conservatives were generally against tinkering against the definition of marriage because they feared that if the concept of marriage subsequently lost all meaning, the institution would no longer act to progress the interests of a stable regenerating society.

But instead, that became regressive, and to be progressive, you had to support changing marriage (by including gay unions and in doing so eliminating the notion of children and basic human procreative biology from the definition of marriage) to be counted as progressive. But progression to what?

How can you call yourself progressive if you can't define your goal? If you don't have a goal, how can you measure your progress?

Somehow, "progress" became synonymous with "change", or more accurately, "change for the sake of change". That's not progress, that's chaos.

Moreoever, "progress" somehow demanded government intervention. Two different groups could have the same goal. A cleaner environment, for example. One group could argue for the use of free market mechanisms (strong property rights, for example, to encourage people to keep their investments clean and so valuable). Another group could argue for massive government intervention, supported by increased taxes, and punitive criminal and civil laws to force compliance.

There is a goal. Both approaches is attempting to make progress to that goal, which to me makes both plans progressive. Each takes a very different approach, and presumably over time we could measure which approach is making more progress, both in absolute terms and relative to the resources expended to achieve the intermediate results measured.

But somehow, the "progressive" policy is the one that involves the hand of government, the heavier, the better. That makes no sense. Progressive should have no connection to the means by which progress is achieved. It is either attempting to affect a change or it isn't.

I know it's too late to fix things now. If you are a conservative who believes in individual empowerment over government intervention, a liberal will sniff and accuse you of not being progressive, regardless of what you are trying to do or how. We'll just have to live with it.

But having to tolerate it doesn't mean having to believe it. Personally, when I see or hear the word "progressive" being tossed about, I tune it out.

Donate to the AGWN Legal Fund
Main Story

Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords