Jul. 14, 2010 - Issue #769: Musician’s Survival Guide
Issues
Who was David Swann talking to?
Last week Alberta Liberal leader David Swann published an open letter to "progressive political parties" under the heading "Let's talk." The letter, published as a full-page ad in both the Edmonton Journal and the Calgary Herald, invited Alberta progressives to work with the Liberals to find common ground and focus on co-operation rather than partisanship in a bid to unseat the Conservatives from power.
This was not surprising, and it is not new—there have been numerous attempts over the years to develop co-operative strategies between the Liberals and NDs, and these have now grown to include the fledgling Alberta Party, and all of the folks involved in the Reboot Alberta and Democratic Renewal Project processes. This is the first time that the idea has come so publicly and from the leadership of a party, but some form of it or another has been around since the Liberals first re-entered the Alberta legislature in the 1986 election.
What caught my attention about David Swann's letter, however, was not the invitation itself, but rather the use of the word "progressive." It caught my attention because, these days, everyone seems to be using the word, but no one ever provides a definition of it. The Alberta Party had a significant part of its roots in the Reboot Alberta and Renew Alberta movements, both of which espoused a new type of politics for progressive Albertans. The New Democrats have often referred to themselves as the only progressive party in the legislature. The governing party has the word progressive in its name, and even Danielle Smith and the Wildrose Alliance have, on occasion, referred to their policies as progressive.
But what does the word mean? And more importantly, is there actually enough political momentum behind progressive policies that David Swann's pitch for a big progressive tent might actually make sense?
I went online to try to find a definition of the word, and came up with the understanding that, in politics, progressive means "favouring or promoting reform," or "promoting policies that are new or different from what currently exists."
Armed with that definition I set out to see which of Alberta's political parties and movements actually meet that criteria, and to ultimately determine exactly who David Swann was talking to.
First, a working definition of the status quo is needed before we find out who wants to change them. In broad terms what we have in Alberta today is a party whose policies are focused on maximizing the exploitation of Alberta's oil and gas resources and following a fiscal policy of low royalties, low taxes, zero deficits, privatization of public services and low public spending. So which of Alberta's current parties qualify?
The folks over at the Alberta Party, despite their roots in the progressive Reboot Alberta movement, have recently shunned the word. In their response to David Swann's open letter they make it clear that they do not want to "alienate" any part of the political spectrum and that their big tent will include members of the Conservative Party. By definition, their desire to include folks from across the political spectrum means that they are not progressive, and their letter leaves no doubt that they do not consider themselves as such.
The Wildrose Alliance's basic premise seems to be that they would implement the same policies of the current government, only more so. By definition, therefore, they cannot be considered progressive either.
That leaves the New Democrats. For years the ND's have advocated progressive taxation, reduced dependency on oil and gas, higher royalties, increased funding to public services and an end to privatization. On all fronts these policies are clearly different from the current government. The party has always claimed to be the progressive alternative in Alberta, and the definition we are using would appear to confirm that.
Perhaps the most interesting thing in this whole exercise, however, has been the fact that at the same time as the Liberals are looking to build a big tent for progressive Albertans, their policies show themselves to be decidedly unprogressive. Their positions in the legislature have shown them to be in favour of low taxes, low royalties, continued dependence on oil and gas, zero deficits and some degree of privatization. There is enough congruence between their current policies and the government's that they themselves fail to meet the basic definition of progressive.
In short, therefore, the Liberals' use of the word progressive seems like an attempt to co-opt a word for the sake of appearing to be something they are not. All of the other parties in the legislature seem clear on where they currently stand, and what their policies mean. For that reason, the Liberals' attempt to bring them together under a progressive banner was bound to fail from the start.
If the goal of the Liberals' efforts is simply to unseat the government then they should say so. If, however, as their letter states, their goal is to unify progressive-thinking Albertans, then they need to spend a significant amount of time assessing their own policies to first determine if they're the best ones to do this. Is there a large number of progressive Albertans currently looking for a political home? Absolutely. Is there also a large number of centre-left to centre-right Albertans looking for a political home? Absolutely. The Liberals need to figure out which group it is their policies represent, and then go about the hard work of organizing and representing them. Dr Swann's letter accomplishes neither of those. In fact, it just demonstrates how confused the Liberal Party of Alberta has become, and how far they have to go if they are to make themselves a credible political alternative in time for the next election. V
Ricardo Acuna is the Executive Director for the Parkland Institute, a non-partisan public policy research institute housed at the University of Alberta.
More stories in front »
Comments on this story
We're very close to going live with comments! Please have patience with us.
↑ top of page