How does one define progressive? Well despite your obvious disaste for the Left it is a good question. Some might argue that progressive governments cease to be too concerned about Left and Right politics and get on with the job of democracy and governing. Not only representing but increasing participation of citizens. It has been done before albeit on a smaller scale in Athens and while Thomas Paine (representative democracy) understood some of the impracticalities of direct democracy in larger groups, there is no reason to believe it could not work even on a smaller scale in councils or via a yearly referendum.

Some semblance of direct democracy or at least greater participation could be a sign of progressive government. The term progressive is a bit like the term Conservative. One means to move on (but to what) and the other to stay the same (regardless of Right/Left characteristics).

"As for the leftwing rhetoric, they will continue to tell us how hopeless we are as their own self-righteousness often swamps their ability to fully understand the problems ahead."

I don't see any less self-righteousness from the Right. Just look at Truss and Palmer's behaviour on Q&A last night - opposing for the sake of it and refusal to look outside the circle and take advantage of the independents call for more consensus in governing.

It is the Right that continually push the rhetoric of economic management and sometimes confuse liberty with freedom to oppress and who will dismiss any idea of checks and balances as akin to force.

Maybe we have become too pragmatic and less ideology focussed, this was an inevitable consequence of a growing middle class. I am not sure if we are better off or worse for it but while human beings continue to muddle through perhaps eventually we will end up with communities that benefit the greater rather than a system that serves to empower a minority of advantaged groups.

Pelican,

That's a very useful question: how does one define 'progressive' ? I used to make a crude differentiation between 'radicals' and 'progressives': a radical was one who went to bat for the rights of her/his own group, through thick and thin; a progressive was one who went into bat for the rights of other disadvantaged or oppressed groups besides her/his own.

So an Indigenous radical was a person who devoted their time more or less exclusively to Indigenous rights, while a Indigenous progressive was prepared to defend the rights of others, such as gay marriage, or refugee rights, or women's rights.

A radical environmentalist confined their interests more or less to Green issues, anti-pollution and land degradation, anti-whaling, protection of forests, etc., while a progressive environmentalist extended her/his concerns to Indigenous people's rights, refugee issues, rights of gays to adopt, etc.

Being progressive is thus much more difficult than being radical: it may involve conflict between one's core interests and other issues which may be seen as equally, or even more, legitimate.

The Left is a very fractured grouping, even within families, but it too has its radicals and progressives, most of whom by definition do not agree with each other 100 %. So there is no contradiction when somebody on the Left criticises some other Left position: just mention the words Russia, Labor, China, Khmer Rouge, Venezuela, Greens, Trotsky, J.D. Lang, Mbeki, Saddam, even al Qaida, etc., to a group of people who consider themselves Left, and watch the variety of responses.

And you're right, self-righteousness is not confined to the Left: after all, it's hard to be both passionate about something and detached enough to understand its defects or shortcomings, whether someone is Right or Left, deeply religious or fervently atheist, gay or straight. But S-R can easily morph into smugness, intolerance and paranoia, as many of us have discovered the hard way.

Joe

You make a good overall assessment Joe. Compromise is part of politics and many with the ALP and the Coalition would find themselves having to compromise their own personal ideals for the objectives of the greater majority within the party machine. Malcolm Turnbull,Nick Minchin and Cory Bernardi are all of the same ilk but in some areas hold very different ideas about a number of issues particularly climate change and asylum seekers. The same is true within the ALP.

Consensus government will mean some compromise and hopefully wider consultation and planning before going gung-ho into a program without being prepared.

"...after all, it's hard to be both passionate about something and detached enough to understand its defects or shortcomings..."

Very true and relevant to all the various perspectives. That is the problem with a two-party dominated system. Reform or progressive thinking cannot be achieved if one is not first willing to critically analyse one's own failings or acknowledge a win by one group might also (in some cases) mean a loss to another group that might cause great disadvantage.

It is about weighing up the greater good, but even then we can get into trouble as to whom defines the greater good. With that dilemma we get back to the old ideological impasses of Left/Right politics.

We should retain some cautious optimism that voter discontent might open the doors to fairer and more open government.

The next three years (or less) will be very telling.

I do not want to give the impression I merely support the right; I don't.

Article was more about my belief that some on the the left make simplistic assertions: in this case the belief that Hawke-Keating were somehow great social democrats.

I would also agree that some on the right are a joke.

I actually am hoping that the independents can make a difference, like some of the respondents

Chris Lewis,
I second that !