Comment on If Albanese’s lost his bottle, he should retire
Zagorath@aussie.zone 3 days agoIt’s a spectrum, but not an arbitrary one. They’re arranged relative to how much change. If the amount of change is close to zero, that’s conservative. It doesn’t matter where other parties sit, or how popular they are. Labor, under Albanese, is a very conservative party, because it has been highly resistant to change. Maybe you think that’s a good thing, and everything about Australia’s society and governance is exactly as it should be, so conservatism is the right approach. I’d disagree with you, but that would at least be intellectually honest. But if you do think we need to improve: to do a better job of providing housing, healthcare, and education etc. to vulnerable populations, to take serious action to reduce the impact of climate change, or to oppose genocides committed by countries we call our allies, then you are by definition, progressive, and Labor is not adequately representing those beliefs.
null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 days ago
Did you just make that up according to your own thoughts on progressive vs conservative ?
Zagorath@aussie.zone 3 days ago
Umm, no? That’s what the words mean. Conservatives conserve the status quo. Progressives want society to progress.
null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 days ago
So, by that definition Trump is a radical progressive president, probably one of the most progressive in history, given the raft of changes he’s implemented in such a short time and the nation’s rapid progress towards fascism.
Zagorath@aussie.zone 2 days ago
Right, that’s why the term regressive. It’s the opposite side of conservative from progressive. For changes, but ones that make things worse. I accept that it’s not a term anyone would use to self describe and it’s not an accepted part of neutral political discourse, but it’s nonetheless a useful term.
Strictly showing, regressive should mean specifically undoing earlier progress. Which captures a lot of Trump’s actions. Rolling back rights on abortion, undoing advancements in LGBTQ+ rights, going back to a very 19th century style of treating non-white people.
But in other aspects, I’d say he’s being straight-up authoritarian, in a way that doesn’t really sit anywhere on this spectrum. Passing all these tariffs could be described as regressing to pre-WW2 economics, but going about it by ignoring the law—which actually requires congress to set tariffs—is not progressive, conservative, or regressive. That’s just authoritarian. Openly threatening companies & countries to extort them for bribes (see: Apple’s gold watch, Qatar’s jet) is just corrupt authoritarian behaviour.