So, Ariel Sharon’s new party in Israel will be called not National Responsibility but Kadima (Hebrew for Forward). Shimon Peres, the recently deposed leader of the Labor party has now joined Sharon (as was widely expected). He is not explicitly joining Sharon’s new party, but is likely to win a post in any government that Sharon would form. Many of Peres’s former Labor colleagues are saying “good riddance.” Then Peres’s son, Gigi, had some parting words about the new leadership under Amir Peretz, a Sephardic Jew. He compared the takeover of the Labor party to General Franco’s rise in Spain:
The Falangists who came from southern Spain, came to Madrid as a fifth column and destroyed the republic. This game is totally transparent; One Nation people from North Africa took over and stabbed them in the back.
The younger Peres later apologized for the remark.
Meanwhile, Likud’s internal problems are increasing since Sharon’s departure.
More later, certainly, on the Israeli party scene, but for now just some thoughts on the name. Steven Taylor suggests it is:
A good choice, given the goal of the party to position itself as the party of progress and change in the context of the peace processs.
I suppose so. It onbliquely and cleverly implies that certain other parties are “backward.” But don’t you miss party names that actually convey something about what the party stands for, other than vacuous concepts like moving forward and supporting national unity? Forward conveys little policy content, though it is not as bad as such names as The Iraqis or Colombia First or Thais Love Thais or my all-time favorite, Go Italy.
So, I think I know what a party called Liberal stands for, and likewise Labour, Conservative, and Socialist. I suppose Democratic and Republican don’t convey much, but conveying little is consistent with the general weakness of collective party incentives in the US fragmented political system, and the labels are at least well established.
Somewhere in recent years the art of party naming has become something of a lost art. In that context, Forward is not all that bad. It beats National Responsibility, or Hope, as was also considered. But it is not all that good, either.



As a centrist name, “Forward” follows in the centrist footsteps of New Zealand’s “United Future,” which filled a vacuum in the 2002 elections and bounced up in the polls to hold the balance of power after voters, contemplating a forecast Labour majority government, remembered “Oh yes, we didn’t want to give anyone unbridled power, did we.”
“Future New Zealand,” formed around 1997, was the secularised remnant of the old Christian Democrat Party. Will Sharon’s Kadima be more secular than Likud? From the way it seems to have absorbed most of the vote bank of secular Shinui, perhaps so. “United New Zealand” was founded in 1995, hoping to capitalize on the upcoming switch to the MMP electoral system. It was intended to be a centrist party, but the only United MP to win a seat in 1996 was former Labour MP Peter Dunne. United then merged with Future to form United Future, led by Peter Dunne, who is no Shimon Peres although their history and centrist leanings seem similar.
Seed planted by Wilfred Day — 02 January 2006 @ 20:09