On hostile definitions

There's always some merit in shedding light on what the word "progressive" really should mean and does mean. But regardless of how one ultimately wants to define the term, there's no value to a hack job such as Hubert Bauch's attempt to pretend the word lacks any meaning at all. And Bauch's attempt to cast partisan bias as cultural commentary can be seen in how he treats the term which contrasts most directly in both dictionary definition and political philosophy.

I'll start with the first mention of conservatives within the article - whose existence and meaning Bauch doesn't question for a second, either in the capitalized or lower-case senses:

About the only people not trying get in on the progressive act are the Conservatives, who ditched the label three years ago with the merger of the former Canadian Alliance (previously Reform) and the old Progressive Conservative Party.

There is a remnant of PC types now calling themselves the Progressive Canadian Party, but its scant following and no-name leadership puts it on the political fringe with the Marxist-Leninist diehards and the yogic flyers.

But even if they don't claim the appellation, conservatives - large and small-c - can also be said to be progressive in the dictionary sense of the term, which, according to the Oxford, means moving forward, proceeding step by step, something Stephen Harper is demonstrably doing.

Let's leave aside the question of whether what Harper has done can be seen to be "moving forward" in any meaningful sense, and consider the same principle as applied to a dictionary definition of "conservative". If "progressive" is an empty term because no party ever plans to stand entirely still upon taking power, then can't it equally be said that "conservative" is meaningless because no relevant party plans to annihilate all existing societal institutions upon taking power, meaning that all parties are "conservative" if one takes a broad enough interpretation of the word? But somehow that mirror image doesn't reflect at all on Bauch's apparent willingness to use the term "conservative" without any doubt as to its meaning or relevance.

Having started with an argument which effectively claims that "progressive" is too broad a term to hold any meaning, Bauch then moves on to a technical definition of the term as the basis for an argument which is downright childlike in its trust in the use of language in the political sphere:

In a narrower, more technical sense, progressive is commonly used in reference to a tax system whereby the rich pay proportionally more than the less wealthy for the asserted purpose of uplifting the poor. A flat tax, as some propose, is by definition regressive.

In that sense, universal benefit schemes of the sort that Bernard Landry touts as progressive, are, in fact, the opposite - regressive, contends La Presse political analyst Alain Dubuc in his recent book, Eloge de la Richesse.

This time alone in his article Bauch (through Dubuc) seems to trust a supposedly-progressive figure unconditionally, claiming that we should first accept without question the technical sense of "progressive", then cast aspersions on the meaning of the word itself rather than on the accuracy of a politician who claims the title based on policies which may not fit one possible definition.

A reasonable argument would first note the possibility that different senses of the term might apply in different contexts, then move on to consider whether Dubuc is accurate in his assessment that the benefit schemes in question actually violate the definition in question or whether in context they would result in a more progressive division of resources than that which currently exists, and perhaps close by pointing out that in any event political parties are all too often quick to try to use any positive term they can for themselves regardless of the validity of such use. ("Stand Up For Canada", anybody?)

Instead, Bauch takes Dubuc's word without question as to whether a universal benefit should be considered "progressive" in the technical sense, and refuses to compare Landry's claim of progressivism to any standard other than the one by which Landry's claim would fail if Dubuc were right. Having made these leaps, Bauch then assumes that any problem must lie in the definition of "progressive" rather than in the accuracy of Landry's claim.

Note once again the complete lack of any recognition that the same argument fairly applied would cut both ways - for example in the pattern of "fiscally conservative" governments who utterly fail to live up to any of the principles which are supposed to underlie that philosophy, or "social conservatives" whose political aim is to effect a radical transformation of social norms. And indeed, readily-available definitions of "conservative" are contradictory in ways that go beyond anything Bauch manages to point out about the term "progressive":

1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
3. Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate.
4. (a) Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism.
(b) Belonging to a conservative party, group, or movement.
7. Tending to conserve; preservative: the conservative use of natural resources.

While Bauch's argument about progressivism depends in part on political dishonesty, these definitions may plainly conflict on their face even without political manipulation: where, for example, a conservative and Conservative politician derides cautious use of natural resources, or where "traditional" values conflict with views which would be far more moderate or cautious in their present application.

But then, if Bauch were to acknowledge that the same standards that he applies to "progressive" would utterly annihilate any meaning of "conservative", then he couldn't overgeneralize about conservatism in an effort to prove his point on the dangers of excessive generalization:

A signal problem in making Quebec progress is that most Quebecers like these things, and want to keep them that way, making Quebec what he calls "a fundamentally conservative society" reflexively resistant to progressive change.

So according to Bauch through his citation of Dubuc, we can't define what progressive change is. But whatever it is, Quebeckers don't want it, because they can be uniformly classified as "fundamentally conservative" without any dispute as to either the validity of the conclusion, or the meaning of conservatism itself.

For his grand finale, Bauch then takes on the undoubtedly-questionable Canada 2020 process, but only for the sake of once again trying to validate the Cons:

Another example of how the word has a way of turning to mush in the mouths of its users is an op-ed piece published in conjunction with the Canada 2020 conference in which two of its participants, Matt Browne, a former British Labour backroomer, and Eugene Lang, a former Liberal staffer among the 2020 founders, entitled "In search of a progressive centre."

"The challenge for Canadian progressives is to shape a new, optimistic, ambitious narrative that has a clear, unambiguous role for a renewed state at its centre - and articulate it in a way that resonates with Canadians," they proposed.

Whatever that means, it's something the un-progressive Conservatives have been doing a better job of than the Liberals or anyone else, if current polls are any indication.

Naturally, Bauch's treatment of this passage ignores everything but the "resonates with Canadians" part. And it's indeed highly doubtful that the Cons are doing much of that either. But having assumed that "progressive" is nothing more than a synonym of "desirable", Bauch then ignores the majority of Canadians who have consistently voted for parties who at least claim to aspire to the progressive mantle, and claims that the Cons are the most "progressive" under his definition based on their managing to eke out a single minority government.

It's certainly worthwhile to take a closer look at what really constitutes progressivism. And that effort may be all the more important to ensure that the likes of Bauch can't define progressive Canadians out of existence in an effort to pretend that voters have no coherent alternative to the reactionary Cons. But the need for discussion among progressives to define their terms of reference doesn't excuse Bauch for a column which can itself be easily classified under a term whose meaning isn't in much doubt.