www.ChrisLaBossiere.com

There has been a lot of discussion, up to and including today's media coverage and Ken Chapman's blog post, which continue to try and define the modern definition of a "Progressive". For reasons I can only describe as trite, there are also people who want to insists that this is an excercise in futility or worse some kind of underhanded political gamesmanship. That's ridiculous in my opinion, because if I self-identify as a "Progressive", then I am correct. Period. No one owns the definition, any more than if I said that I was religious; it could not be debated. "Religious" of course is a philosophy and is quite different for everyone. Just as if my choice of Religion is simply my choosing which one best aligns with MY beliefs.

So back to my point. I don't care what a progressive is. I continue to refuse to be added to a list, bucket or ideology based on YOUR interpretation of what that means. Another way to say this, is that I don't suppose any one party will represent ALL progressives.

But why do I self-identify as a Progressive?

I find that the People involved in the Reboot Alberta movement, are very much like me (The research survey is a good representation of the types of people I have met along the way). I enjoy that they come into the conversation with some basic principles already in place, even though we still have differences. According to Reboot, which commissioned the third-party and scientific survey of people who self-identified as "Progressive", the VALUES of a self-identified progressive are as follows (Top-Ten):

1. Integrity
2. Honesty
3. Accountability
4. Transparency
5. Environmental Stewardship
6. Wisdom
7. Well-being
8. Equity
9. Fiscal Responsibility
10. Respect for Diversity

As Ken has identified in his blog today, the top four are almost redundant and probably apply across all ideologies (we all want Honest politicians). The bottom six begin to shape PRIORITIES that start to align with existing political parties. But I think that's where the problem begins.

These are simply values that I tend to align with. There are many Conservatives, Liberals or Democrats who would also align with these and who feel that their existing party provides them with appropriate representation along these lines. That's cool.

As you have read time and again, I simply don't feel that any EXISTING mainstream Alberta political party does enough in these areas, IN A BALANCED MANNER, to provide me with the level of comfort to give them my vote. The Wildrose Alliance Party would be the closest to something new for me that I might get excited about and get behind. The problem is that the policies and some of the original founders of the party simply leave me concerned with their committment to some of these, and namely Equity and Respect for Diversity.

So here I am. As you know, I am going to put everything I can behind the new Alberta Party, simply because it feels to me like the best balance of the things that are important to me, and the people involved in it continue to make me feel comfortable with my order of the priority.

I would love to hear why you align with a particular political party, or even why you don't align with any at all. But if you are going to try and challenge that my definition of Progressive is inacurrate, you're barking up the wrong tree.

 (This is not written to slight Ken's Reboot movement, the amazing work he and his team has done to help this discussion along, or the numerous people who have already taken a stab at defining a Progressive)

Jane Morgan, a recent Executive Director and CFO of the Wildrose Alliance Party, and in her own words "vocal supporter and member", went way out of her way this weekend to throw some mud on the Alberta Party "re-launch" from last Friday. Her words and tone were largely fueled by a lack of information and then several incorrect assumptions on her part, but it is important to our party that we are not labeled as anything other than what our actions will demonstrate.

Here are the titles, links and some excerpts from the three posts that she made since Friday. In every case she is plain wrong. Beyond that, she is borderline disrespectful as well, assuming we were ignoring the constitution of the party. Of course we were not.

Post #1  -  Interesting Way to Operate a Political Party

"All I have read about the two progressive (read: frustrated liberals) groups indicates that they support democracy. A very honorable stance; yet they have choosen to totally disrespect it when it came to the Alberta Party. How can they say they have "united", when it clearly is more of a hostile takeover."

Post #2   -  Take your constitution and Shove It! (I love the title, even though it is grossly innacurate)

"The AP held their last AGM in October 2009 and I can confirm there was no motion to "remove all policies". Nor has there been any "assembly" of the members since then."

Post #3  -   Alberta Party the Plot Thickens

 "Let's take a tally. So far they have:

- Ignored the constitutiion by "suspending" policies without a majority vote from the members.

- Ignored the fact that they already have principles embedded in their constitution and are using the principles of the "Renew" group.

- Ignored the constitution by appointing new board members where no vacancy exists and appointed members who don't meet the requirements.

So, my summary of Ms. Morgan's posts. WRONG, WRONG, and WRONG.

Jane has been a fun and admired debater on Twitter and within these very blog posts, and I have even given her her due when I made a mistake one blog post about the Wildrose not releasing the names of their party donors, when I had meant to say that their leader Danielle Smith has refused to release the name of her leadership sponsor/supporters.

But I expect that she should now write an apology, not unlike how I have in the past, stating that she was incorrect. I don't expect her to apologize for her tone and attitude, because we all fall for that from time to time. I must confess however that I was offended when she stated in one of her comment replies, that she felt the people involved were naive. We will admit to being human and we will make mistakes, but it could also be argued that writing three completely incorrect blog posts about a meeting where you supposedly attended part of and have the minutes of, could also be argued as being naive.

THE TRUTH

In short, and not to bore you with pages of resolotions and meeting minutes, the bottom line is this. The Alberta Party at their own AGM this last fall, was visionary enough to recognize that their constitution and their principles must be respected, but they also recognized that if they wanted to break out as a mainstream party, may have to make changes to their policies and constitution as required, and in between annual meetings. These changes could be made by the Board of Directors as seen fit, and then ratified at the next AGM. This created an Omnibus Resolution that allowed just that.

This forward thking piece of resolution, was actually moved and seconded by two long-standing party members, and not any of the new Alberta Progress Party board members, or of course any new director since that meetng. You can read the comment that our President Charles Relland has posted in response to Ms. Morgan's posts here, and this should sum up the issue:

Ms. Morgan,

Thank you for your interest in the Alberta Party – an interest that brought you to the first portion of the Annual General Meeting of the party last October in Red Deer.  Unfortunately, your recent blog entries are factually incorrect and it is important that I set the record straight:

First, Mr. Erickson ran on a platform that clearly stated that he wanted to bring the Renew Alberta team into the Alberta Party.

Second, the portion of the Annual General Meeting that you walked away from saw the presentation of my Omnibus Motion #10-24-09-20, overwhelmingly passed by the party membership who were in attendance at that meeting, and who represented more than 40% of the total membership of the party.  This motion completely negates the points you have made in your blog postings.  For your reassurance, and for the information of your readers, I quote two pertinent portions of this motion: 

Whereas the Constitution can only really be applicable to our Party after we sustain some growth, to work in practice, (and the Party, since 2005 is trying to follow it in principle), we have to admit to ourselves that we have to concentrate on growth with our secondary objective [that] of making the Constitution workable…"

And

“… That the Provincial Board may make any operational policy, between General Assemblies, to regulate the provincial affairs of the Party, including, but not limited to the bylaws and sections of the Party Constitution…"

The party constitution and the omnibus resolution give the board clear authority to suspend the party policies. (should also read appoint new directors, as this is within the same resolution)

Third, and most significant, the board of the Alberta Party proceeded with this course of action because traditional policy development simply doesn't work.  Clearly, we intend to be a new type of party.  We are inviting the involvement of all Albertans.

I suspect that your vehement opposition to the Big Listen is based entirely on the fact that you have no interest in seeing the Alberta Party broaden its base of support and actually listen to people who may disagree with your own point of view.  Fortunately for you, there is a party (in which you apparently hold an official position) which will accommodate your narrow minded, old-school political perspective.

Yours truly,

Charles Relland,

President

Alberta Party

An Afterthought: It is not my intention to get into a mud-slinging debate here. But I felt that these were very serious alegations that must have been responded to, so the Alberta Party was not unfairly labeled for something that it is not.

If you've watched the evolution of this blog, and my previous one, I have softened my tone to be less absolute. Frankly, that actually derives from my use of this blog and other social media tools. The more I build relationships with new Edmontonians and Albertans, the more I am exposed to differeing opinions and my willingness to accept other viewpoints expands.

This evolution has also made me more critical of viewpoints which seem wholly agendized. In my opinion, the louder and more entrenched you are in your position, the less likely I am to trust it's anything but exactly that, an agenda.

I have a theory, which I plan to investigate and reflect on over time, but the basic theme of it is that social media tools force us to become more accountable to our words, and hence more ideologically moderate. At least for those who choose to sign their real name next to their accounts, blogs and comments. We are sophisticated enough, and perhaps narcassictic enough, to not want to offend our followers or friends. Or God forbid we LOSE followers with our agenda's. I also tend to think that as people become more and more reliant on new media to research their opinions, they naturally become more wary of anonymous or agendized text as the "advertisment" of social media. Like when I fast-forward through the commercials of a PVR'ed 60 Minutes, I'll almost completely disregard the anonymous comment, or agendized poster.

Perhaps this is why corporate Twitter and Facebook accounts are treated differently than individual ones. When I put this in a political context, which is how I largely enjoy using social media, I look for people who can break from the ranks of simple partisan noise.

I suspect that I am not alone. I believe that we are way more sophiticated in our ability to see though the BS, and have learned to appreciate when we are engaged, or listened to, instead of spoken to in soundbites and party lines.

I am holding out hope that a political movement will appear, which doesn't arrive on the scene with all of the answers, but enters the discussion with some humility and willingness to listen.