andrewmcintyre.ca

[...] Here is a link to the valuable contribution to the conversation. [...]

I would go further, and question the word “progressive.” Progress involves change from a status quo toward something else. But it doesn't say toward what, except “not the status quo.” Suggesting that it is a change toward the future doesn't help. All change is toward the future. Time runs only in one direction.

“Progressive” is therefore essentially a negative definition. It means “not what we've got.” Adaptability means “change.” Understanding and interconnectivity mean “communication.” I don't think that what progressives want to see is a world where people chat more and understand each other better. These are not ends. These are means. They don't answer the question.

The question is “what future are you going to lead us toward, and why is that future better than the present?”

The parties that exist can't really answer that question, because they don't see anything terribly wrong with the status quo except for who's in charge of it.

Here's what I think is wrong with the status quo: we make decisions for ourselves, and blithely sacrifice the interests of future generations. That is morally reprehensible, and must change. It is in part a result of the way our democracy works, and in part a result of the way we view ourselves. And so our democracy, and the way we view ourselves, must change. We need to tell a story about an Alberta that owes a great debt to the past, and chooses to pay that debt to the future. And we need to create a democracy where Albertans are truly the source of political power, and political parties and candidates merely the channels through which their power flows.

Greater democracy, and inter-generational equity. That's what I want to “progress” toward.

I'd be happier if this movement was searching for a name to go with their idea, rather than searching for an idea to go with their name.

Jason,

I absolutely agree with most of the points that you make – particularly about the need for a democracy where Albertans are the true source of political power. This engagement of Albertans in the political process is a big part of the reason that I'm involved with Reboot Alberta. I believe that the forum that we've collectively created will lead to increased political participation in Alberta (and when I say political participation, I don't just mean voting).

I'm not sure, though, that you've captured the essence of “progressive” by suggesting that it means “not what we've got”. As we move forward, everything will change, whether by progressive means or others, “not what we've got” is what we're going to get.

And, although I'm not sure that anyone really understands what “progressive” is (yet), to me it describes an awareness. An awareness of how our decisions now will have an impact on the future, and a desire to make that future better. A progressive viewpoint doesn't (to me) describe a particular outcome, but rather a model for decision-making – an optimistic, forward-looking mindset that aims to do what we can now to make the future better.

For me, we shouldn't focus on the question: “what future are you going to lead us toward, and why is that future better than the present?”, because it's not a discussion of why the future is better than the present, it's a question of why one future is better than another. For me, the ideal future is one where all Albertans are engaged in our democratic processes – whether that's by voting, by lobbying, by joining civic organizations, by participating in discussions, by forming new political parties, or joining old ones…[on and on...] And, engagement is never an ends, but a means (as you identify). If we talk about specific goals, we can get mired in policy discussions before we address what I believe are more fundamental questions about how we can address what I perceive as a democratic deficit in this province.

Those are just my thoughts… It's great to see the discussion that's grown out of all of this – as even the opportunity to debate the meaning of “progressive” constructively is an engaging experience. This kind of positive dialogue is what this province needs more of.

cheers,

Michael Brechtel

Jason,

I'm in agreement with your goals of intergeneration equity and fostering democracy.

Secondly, while I also agree that the name and label that ties the “movement” together is not as important as our ideas for the change we want to see, that is not to say that discussing it – even without referecning specific ideas – is a bad thing. Reaching some consensus by navel gazing about on what agree on and how we define ourselves is not an unimportant political exercise.

If good ideas were adopted without these sorts of considerations, we would not need to have this coversation.

With that said, I think it is worth noting that I did hear many people advance specific ideas at the reboot conference and I'm glad we're continuing that conversation here.

Michael,

Recognizing that the futility of “not what we've got” and “everything will change” regardless of what we do is beside the point. I beleive being “progressive” is a simply a will to shape those changes for the betterment of all Albertans.

Your point that “it's a question of why one future is better than another” is exactly what I was getting at. Defining “progressive” – and participating in politics in general – is an opportunity to ask “what future do we want to see?” and evaluate the answers.

Getting more Albertans asking and answering that question should be one of the goals of Reboot Alberta. Those that want to lead – in any capacity, at any organization or at any level of government – should recognize the value in facilitating this conversation and the power it has.

[...] This post was Twitted by andrewmcintyre [...]

I agree that we should try looking beyond labels and work from points of principle that resonate rather than spout dogma that polarizes. Having said that I continue to be dismayed by the parochial political vision in Alberta that dismisses Liberals because of the National Energy Program and dismisses the NDP without even understanding that their platform ideas are not wild and “out there”. Both the Liberal and NDP have effectively managed provincial governments. Maybe if we can set dogma aside and take a look at the broad spectrum and differing viewpoints without bias we would all be setting a path for constructive dialogue.

I agree that we should try looking beyond labels and work from points of principle that resonate rather than spout dogma that polarizes. Having said that I continue to be dismayed by the parochial political vision in Alberta that dismisses Liberals because of the National Energy Program and dismisses the NDP without even understanding that their platform ideas are not wild and “out there”. Both the Liberal and NDP have effectively managed provincial governments. Maybe if we can set dogma aside and take a look at the broad spectrum and differing viewpoints without bias we would all be setting a path for constructive dialogue.