Tuesday, March 14, 2006

Dear Andrew: Bite me.


Apparently, Andrew over at Bound by Gravity is a mite hacked off about how those of us who aren't Bible-whomping loons have unfairly co-opted the adjective "progressive" for our own nefarious purposes.

As I read it, Andrew has taken to gazing fondly at that word, wishing he could perhaps sneak a little of it back in his direction. And why does he think he's entitled to it? Why, because he has chosen to define it thusly: "an individual who strives to create social change."

Ignore the hopelessly meaningless and vacuous definition that Andrew is using since, by that definition, anyone who wants to, say, strip gays of any and all rights or who wants to abolish all womens' rights would be considered "progressive." And I don't think we're going to go along with that. But let's think this through a bit further. If Andrew wants to play word games, let's play word games.

Technically speaking, your humble correspondent could be considered a "conservative" since I believe it's important to "conserve" things -- civil rights, non-renewable fossil fuels, the environment. So, on a purely semantic level and using Andrew's logic, I would have the right to call myself a "conservative," wouldn't I?

Of course, that is so not going to happen since all of us already understand what that word means. In Canada, based solely on common usage, it has come to refer to a social class of people who are, for the most part, Scripture-spouting, sanctimonious, closed-minded scientific illiterates. In short, while I might technically have the right to call myself a "conservative," given how the current members of Canada's Right have thoroughly defiled that word, I wouldn't touch it with Ann Coulter's dick on a bet. So what's really going on here?

What's going on is that Andrew, in a sudden burst of lucidity I'm guessing, has looked around and now realizes just what sort of morally and intellectually squalid crowd he's hanging out with over on his side of the ideological divide, and he's not all that happy about it. But that's too bad. Those folks have claimed the word "conservative" and, by God, they're welcome to it.

But now that those folks have so thoroughly soiled their sandbox, we have people like Andrew who are gazing wistfully across the divide and hoping that maybe, just maybe, they can sneak over quietly and steal a little fresh sand so they can have a clean place to play again.

Forget it, dude. That's your right-wing, turd-filled sandbox over there. You helped create it, so you better get used to living in it. You don't get to redefine the discourse by redefining the words. Deal with it.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

This is kind of funny.

If "progressive" as he defines it is effectively an amoral term and carries no positive connotation, why does he want it for himself?

He makes a distinction between progressivism and utilitarianism, because where utilitarianism is about the greatest good for the greatest number of people, he claims that progress is basically directionless and indicates a desire to break stuff for the sake of breaking stuff, whether it works or not.

Let's ignore the fact that "progress" by definition (you could look it up) implies a direction (forward). That would muddy the waters.

Why would he want to coopt a term that DOESN'T equate to making things better for people?

Anonymous said...

And in other news, I am a turtle because I move slowly and mate about every other year or so.

Anonymous said...

CC-
I hate to crash your party and criticize your use of the terms "progressive" and "conservative", but it appears to me you're equating "conservative" with religious conservatism, which is not entirely accurate. At least in Canada, religious conservatism is not the same thing as it is down south--despite that Focus on the Family has a branch up here now. In general, Canadian religious conservatives are less neoliberal in their politics--that is to say they are less likely to support a tax cut for the wealthy and have more moderate views on militarism, homosexuality and reproductive rights.

The American Anthropologist said...

Do you think it likely that Andrew has in fact supported the progressive conservative party? Please ask him. And if so... to what end???

Anonymous said...

Stella, what you have written was true of the Progressive Conservatives, when I was a supporter. It is not true of the CPC, although there are some holdovers who haven't been demoralized just yet, but it won't be long.
There is no confusion about terms and what they mean today, versus what they meant 10 years ago - just obfuscation, intended to get people to bypass that niggling discomfort, to believe that the CPC is not really a bad thing, in spite of the outrageous statements that are coming forth in support of the CPC, including the Focus on Family circus/
All of the progressives I know are fiscally conservative (hated Adscam and other corruptions), socially liberal (want universal health care) and want ethics in government.

The American Anthropologist said...

Maybe we should start calling the new party the RC (regressive conservatives)

Anonymous said...

Stella Stated: In general, Canadian religious conservatives are less neoliberal in their politics--that is to say they are less likely to support a tax cut for the wealthy and have more moderate views on militarism, homosexuality and reproductive rights.

A good observation Stella, but don't kid yourself. Our religous fringe groups are no different at all from their US counterparts. They are simply quieter because their rhetoric is not widely accepted in this country, but is warfare in the US. We have our share of bigoted sexist homophobes here: Stockwell Day (who believes that man roamed freely with dinasours a mere 6000 years ago) Myron Thompson who believes that gay people are a repudiation of nature that society has a right to discriminate against. Not to mention our moral cursaders: Tristian Emannuel, Charles McVety, Elsie Wayne, David Mainse. Focus on the Family, the US based hate mongering, money grubbing, power hungry phonies are well funded and are going in through the back door in Ottawa now that Harper is "President" of Canada. Don't be fooled, this stuff is happening behind the scenes, under our noses and we'd better be ready for it because some day soon, ie, when parliament reconvenes, we are in for a rude awakening indeed!

Rev.Paperboy said...

I agree with BC Waterboy. Our religious loonies may get less ink but they aren't any less crazy, and there are a lot more of them than you think. Just wait until President Harper has been in office a few years and watch them come out of the closet politically.

CC said...

AA writes:

Do you think it likely that Andrew has in fact supported the progressive conservative party? Please ask him. And if so... to what end???

This discussion has come up before in terms of asking: Does being a member of the "Blogging Tories" mean you officially support the CPC? My opinion: yes. If it doesn't, then the entire concept of being a "Blogging Tory" is meaningless.

But, wait. There's more.

If Andrew really wants to get that progressive shwerve going, he's always had the option to join the Progressive Bloggers of Canada. However, I have it on good authority that he has explicitly declined to do so in the past.

If that's the case, then he has no grounds for whining. He had his chance and he passed on it. It's a bit late to start bitching about it now.

Anonymous said...

That guy, Andrew, is an asshole. I read his blog. He is an asshole. I wouldn't be concerned about his views and I wouldn't waste the time writing a post to give him any more uncessary attention. sometimes I actually feel sorry for some conservatives. it must be embarrassing for them to have so many losers shooting their mouths off and making them all look like pea brained morons.