www.ChrisLaBossiere.com

Progressive is simply a thinly-veiled derivative of "left wing".

I believe Brian's point is that in the past we've seen conservatives "softening" their message by declaring themselves "PROGRESSIVE conservatives", or "compassionate conservatives" or "fiscal conservatives" or ironically enough once upon a time "neo conservatives".

In every previous incarnation, the qualifier to the conservative condition ends up overwhelming and dominating. So forgive us if we dare to examine this with a bit of a jaundiced eye here: once you start surrendering territory its incredibly difficult to get it back.

Kudos for taking the time to figure out what you believe and express it. I think individual rights and freedoms are probably an end in and of themselves, in addition to being helpful in the creation of wealth, but other than that clarification, I agree.

The main problem with the comments listed here is that they both assume that the post author is trying to select from a set of predetermined positions upon which to call themselves so that they can fit in with a group of likeminded people with whom they can constantly agree and disparage those who believe "things other than what they believe."

This is not the case. Chris is telling the reader that he is an individual, and as such the title of "liberal" and "conservative" cannot be easily applied. The problem with politics today is that people don't embark on personal political reflection like Mr. LaBossiere has here. By having a well-reasoned idea of what he stands for and why he stands for it, he allows himself to assess each idea on its merit and engage the idea from a pragmatic perspective. It allows him to say "I disagree with that idea as an individual and here is why, please explain your perspective to me" rather than "That idea is a threat to my ideology and must be destroyed." Chris is allowing his political viewpoints to evolve as he engages with other ideas rather than forcing himself to wait for the groupthink and party-bosses to change his political viewpoints for him.

BTW, one of the hilarious things I see in the post by Feynman & Coulter's Love Child's comment is that he essentially equates the word "conservative" with the word "capitalist", which is an assumption so foolhardy I think that even Milton Friedman would have done a spit-take reading it. It's so revealing when you see that one's ideology is a crutch of identity rather than a roadmap for practical discourse.

I enjoy reading posts about what people believe. Seeing the huge variety in people's beliefs is really quite amazing and just reinforces the message that our democracy while giving us choice rarely is representative of our desires.

Your definition of progressive is fabulous and I think everyone should be progressive. It doesn't suggest how to "adapt our policies", left, right, up, or down; rather it just recognizes that policies do need changed and I think everyone can agree with that.

I also like the definition of Capitalist. It really puts it into the vernacular and is quite accessible. I recognize that many wealthy capitalists do donate a lot of money back to the society they grew up in but is that all there is to society and success? Wealth?

Our society is so wrapped up in the idea of becoming wealthy and that is the only definition of success. When one is thinking of a career the first question asked is "how much does that kind of job pay?" What's wrong with asking "Will that make you happy" or maybe "Will that help other people?"

I'm not saying the generation of wealth is a bad thing I just don't think it is the only thing or even near the most important thing. I would be very afraid of a party or even worse a government that was more focused on the generation of wealth than any other issue.

Good post all told. I do like to hear others beliefs and these ones are laid out quite clearly.

Great post Chris, and Chris H great comments. Maybe it should be a requirement of every person who is running for office or is currently serving in office to write a similar essay identifying what their "label" is and make it public. I don't even know if political ideaology is involved so much anymore as protecting and gaining power is. It might be time to discard these labels and look for more meaningful ones. I am not talking about political parties changing their names, but a discussion on how the meaning of these centuries old political terms has changed and if they are even useful anymore. Your definition of progressive is a great start. It recognizes the reality of accelerating change, and the need to address it and incorporate it into political thought and action.

Oatmeal Savage brings up a good point, the one about values. Your definition of capitalism is honest and to the point, but implied is that although you want to be stinking rich, you have values that govern how you would go about this. There are a lot of people that also want to be stinking rich and don't care how they do it. (Bernie Madoff?) A lot of the capitalists that established philanthropic foundations did it for probably a lot of complex reasons, ranging from tax benefits to an attack of conscience. This is not taking away from the good work that these foundations do, but I don't think citizens should have to depend on whether or not some wealthy capitalists want to be philanthropic and then deciding what citizens "deserve" help. (I have spent a number of years volunteering and working with the "undeserving".) Government's obligations to its citizens are more than just economic, but the discussion is just starting.

I am looking forward to Reboot, as well. I am going with the expectation that there will be next steps and action coming out of this. It may be that if the route decided on is to start a new politcal party then we will all be putting on our walking shoes and collecting signatures (we would need 6000 plus). Done it before and can do it again (just won't be able to do it as fast).

And Chris, you are one of the cool kids.

Great post, Chris.

Labels all go out the window when it is decision time anyway. The pink panthers and purple people eaters all usually end up making the same decisions based on the poll's and the public's appetite for change.

On the topic of 'unabashed' wealth creation, have you read the book "The economics of happiness" by Mark Anelski? If you haven't I know he is speaking at the University on Saturday and I intend on going to hear him. I enjoyed him and his research. His work in redefining the idea of 'wealth' is quite interesting.

http://www.newsociety.com/bookid/3965

I too am looking forward to "Reboot Alberta". It is about time and I commend the team for putting it together!

No man is an Iland, intire of itselfe; every man
is a peece of the Continent, a part of the maine;
if a Clod bee washed away by the Sea, Europe
is the lesse, as well as if a Promontorie were, as
well as if a Manor of thy friends or of thine
owne were; any mans death diminishes me,
because I am involved in Mankinde;
And therefore never send to know for whom
the bell tolls; It tolls for thee.

While liberalism does very well in prose, conservatism lends itself to poetry. Perhaps that's because the essential value of seeing the world through conservative eyes is recognizing that we are not just individuals with rights, entire of ourselves, but rather linked together within a great organic whole, with responsibilities that accrue from being part of the main.

In that spirit, the portion of Chris' manifesto that seems most conservative to me is his declaration that the profit motive by itself is not enough foundation for a constructive political philosophy. We want to make the world a better place for the whole, not just a few.

Unfortunately -- and the great failure of labelling -- is that values which are fundamentally conservative are now decried as liberal, and the most passionate defenders of liberalism call themselves conservatives. Because the words have dual meanings, they are essentially meaningless.

Are people happy? Do they feel safe? Do children have enough to eat? Are there opportunities for everyone to participate in the richness of humanity? Will the generations that follow our time on earth have better lives because of what we did?

These are the questions that matter to me. Old thinking about who controls the means of production or how do we expand choice: it all seems dull, drab and vaguely dumb. The call to move beyond labels makes me want to engage in the world of thought.

Partisanship used to be a way of getting things done. Now it just seems to get in the way.

George Grant, whom I admire, warned that technology would make conservatism impossible. Instead, it has precipitated resurgence of connections, reinforcing that we are part of mankind, linked to others in community, polity, family and belief. Even more exciting is that we are discovering new ways of connecting -- virtual worlds, social media -- that were not even imagined a few years ago. We are moving closer together, islands reforming into continents, sustained by technological connections.

Barack Obama called the movement beyond ideology "leaving childhood behind." I think that's exactly right. I rejoice in the search for that which unites us, instead of that which divides.

Chris -

Great post. I salute your looking looking within and sharing with us the label Progressive Capitalist. I fall into much the same category (and until most recently believed my political views were shared by the provincial Progressive Conservative party).

The past couple of years I've found it difficult finding even one sitting member of the ruling provincial PC's who could also be described as Progressive Capitalists.

Perhaps you can help?

So many poitical decisions and analyses in Alberta are made on the basis of political labels and a narrow ideological prism (including by some of the other people in the comments to this blog; I assume you know who you are, but you might not, which is an inherent part of the problem here).

Yet, for some reason, this (thankfully) doesn't apply at the municipal level, which allows decisions to be judged on the basis of their intrinsic worth. In fact, I would challenge anyone to pigeonhole Village Council in Bawlf (or any other small town, for that matter) as fitting within some preconceived set of ideological parameters. When the next election comes, people will judge my colleagues and me on the basis of what we've either done or haven't done, but not on any other basis. This is as it should be and I will be pleased to stand or fall in 2010 because of who I am and not because of what someone has labelled me to be.

Labelling is a way of restricting our own choices for no good reason. Good ideas come from many other sources and should not be discounted because we don't like the speaker's preconceived ideological bent. As Christopher Spencer says above, we need to "leave childhood behind" and move beyond this nonsense.

Wonder if Chris has got off his soap box just yet.