What The Hell Is Wrong With 'Progressives'?

I've been spending this weekend (working) mostly trying to get my head together.  The influx of insanity (more to come) has gotten the better of me, and despite the stupid self-congratulatory arrogance of the so-called right, not all of  the delusions that drive me to distraction come from them.  Some have been coming from 'progressives'.  And I'm trying to put my finger on that as well.

I wasn't going to post about this until I had a much better handle on it, but I think I've got a few idears to throw on out there.   The first is this:  progressives are ashamed to be "Democrats".  I've been thinking about this ever since David Sirota wrote his infamous thesis about the difference between 'liberals' and 'progressives'.  David skirted the issue.  (Yes, I know that some would argue that he often does.)   That's beside the point.  The question, begging a point, is this:  why do liberals and progressives favor the Democratic party?

There's a significant point there that goes well beyond David's silliness that liberals want to garner and spend the public largess.  David argues that progressives want all entities to pay their fair share for the take they get of the benefit of American society.  Is there really any difference?  David argues:

there is a fundamental difference when it comes to core economic issues. It seems to me that traditional "liberals" in our current parlance are those who focus on using taxpayer money to help better society. A "progressive" are those who focus on using government power to make large institutions play by a set of rules.

Follow his thesis through and what you find is that our disagreement isn't a more liberal ideology, it's the Democrats.

Many of today's liberals are not fully comfortable with progressivism as defined in these terms. Many of today's Democratic politicians, for instance, are simply not comfortable taking a more confrontational posture towards large economic institutions (many of whom fund their campaigns) - institutions that regularly take a confrontational posture towards America's middle-class.

I'm just having a real hard time with this.  If there is a confrontation, it isn't between liberals and progressives;  it's (according to Sirota) between those who favor liberal ideology and those who have power who profess to be Democrats. This makes some kind of sense, I'm sure, when put couched in terms of anti-corporatism.  But it doesn't account for the reality of how people live, or what they think.  In Sirota's mythos, the middle class is poised in conflict with corporate interest who need the middle class for their very survival, and 'Democrats '  are in favor (do favor) such interests that hate (need) the middle class.  That doesn't really make much sense, does it?

It sounds good.  Edwards is building a campaign on it.  But really truly and seriously, what is the difference between a progressive and a Democrat?  Not very much.  No, nothing at all.

Here's the deal:  progressives supposedly give all power to popular desire.  We (progressives) require that those who benefit from public giving, give back to the public.  That would be precisely Democratic.  Forget the 'liberal' strawman.  It makes no sense here.  It's the difference between 'tax-and-spend' and tax-and-spend where the latter have no power to do so.  Progressive ideals are liberal ideals, but they are also Democratic ideals.

The Democratic party, as formed by such forgettable folks as Thomas Jefferson, believed that the public will controlled the function of government.  Of the people, by the people, for the people.  That would be the Democratic party.  If, as a certain Senator would strive for, his people want pork coming to their low populace state, they should vote for that Senator, regardless of his *evil* corporate backing. Senators represent the people they represent.  Period.  It's easy to say that 'they suck!!!'.  But it it is disingenuous to claim that progressives don't play that game, and still support the idea that that very party holds to the idea that we are the government.  Sorry, David, but progressivism isn't any more moral than being a good Democrat.

I'm an old-school Democrat.  I believe in public will and the social contract we formed when the 13 colonies ratified that Constitution thingy.  I believe in the rule of law.  That would be being a good Democrat.  Our Democratic congressional representatives aren't so much defying our will because they affront us, personally.  They defy our will when we can show how they affront us representationally (*cough cough* Conrad Burns).

What brought this to the fore for me was a diary on the Great Orange Website of Doom.  John Laesch, a candidate in Illinois, tried to distinguish himself between his primary opponent based on the FISA vote (which neither of them partook of. )  Laesch is a 'progressive' and his opponent is a 'blue dog'  Democrat.  Which, to me, means absolutely squat.  Laesch has a good resume, no doubts.  But attacking Democrats is getting really ... fricking ... tiring for me.  Either you understand the term "Democratic" or you don't.  It's not a campaign slogan.  It's a way of thought.  Sirota hardly seems to get it, and Laesch really doesn't.  The Democratic party is a belief, and should be.  I'm stunned that so many who follow it's politics don't appear to have the first clue what being a Democrat means.

Comments

[Shane C. Mason]

First thoughts on the Sirota piece is that it looks like he bought into the propaganda that turned 'liberal' into a dirty word because he just barfed that same propaganda right back up.

Second thoughts on 'being a Democrat' is that a good Democrat is by definition a populist. I don't believe in trickle down, I believe that the policy that helps the common man (by definitions the highest segment of the population) is the policy that best helps the nation.

I'll be back when I have more thoughts on this.

[Mark Tokarski]

Democrats are not populists. They suck up all the populist movements and make sure they go nowhere. They take all of the good energy generated by public dissatisfaction with the corporate agenda as put forth by the Republicans, and disembowel it, as they did with their FISA vote last week.

They are the Quislings. At least with Republicans you know what you are getting. Democrats are the feint and bait crowd, the ones who, as one labor leaders said of Clinton, pat you on the back while they piss down your leg.

[Steve T.]

My God! You're attacking Sirota! Must be a right-wing hack like Ed Kemmick!!

[Pete Talbot]

It’s that “Big Tent” thing again, Wulfgar, don’t you think? The Democratic Party runs the gamut.

Here’s an example in the U.S. Senate: polar opposites Durbin (D-Illinois) and Nelson (D-Nebraska). (Gleaned from an interesting chart at Political Arithmetik: http://politicalarithmetik.blogspot.com/2007/03/national-journal-2006.html.)

What Sirota does well, though sometimes a little over-the-top, is connect corporate influence and K Street lobbyists to those in congress and the administration.

This issue, along with its sibling, campaign finance abuse, is one of the greatest ills in Washington, D.C.

So to me, a “Blue Dog” Democrat is one that supports the status quo lobbyist/campaign finance system and a progressive is one that advances meaningful anti-corruption legislation.

So I appreciate Sirota’s info on conflicts of interest that occur on both sides of the aisle.

I’ll always support the Democrat on the general election ballot. But I’ll rail against the conservative Dem. and rally for the progressive in the primary.

[Wulfgar]

Steve, I'm really not attacking Sirota at all (as fun as that would be sometimes). I just think he gave a fairly pointless answer to the wrong question, one that really needn't be asked.

Shane, in the second 'graph of his comment, pretty much nailed exactly what I was getting at (getting at poorly, it seems).

Pete, a functional definition is very useful. The problem is, I'm not certain how many progressives would agree with the utilitarian dimension you rightly point out. At the risk of being insulting, it appears to me that too many progressives have embraced the idea that they are special snowflakes, and are part of something new and wonderful. They personalize it, and defend that status with jealousy, even against the political party that was founded on those self-same principles of populist control of the Government. Witness Mark's reaction. "Democrats are not populists" he says. On a merely logical level, I can debunk that one right now. I'm a Democrat, and I'm a Democrat precisely because I am a populist. That's pretty clearly what the D word means.

Mark, I really think you're making a rather mundane mistake. It's not good to confuse a principle for a label. The Democrats are not an all consuming monolith. Some of our elected representatives might well be, and if we can't do anything about them, it might be because we've forgotten what the hell it means to be a Democrat. Being a Democrat means that the people have the control, not an oligarchy of philosopher kings, or the people who shout loudest about the bestest right thingy to do. It means, we the people.

I'm probably gonna start a pissing match I really don't want to have again, but ...

All of the people who voted Green in 2000 are to be commended for doing the 'right' thing. They proceeded under the arrogance that there is no difference between the parties, and showed their displeasure with what they knew would be a useless vote. In other words, they knew better what we as a people needed than we the people did. It's actually somewhat admirable that they wanted something better.

Except, they were contradictory to their own thinking. The 2 major parties are "the same" (Green battle-cry 2000), except they aren't. According to you, Mark, you never know what you're going to get with a Democrat (ask the people who voted Webb over Macaca Allen). But at least with Republicans, you know what you're getting. Do you?

If, and I pose this generally, if anyone had known the absolute incompetence and willful authoritarian desires of the current President, would they have been so eager to prove that 2% of the voting public is a 'populist' movement? It wasn't a populist movement at all. It was arrogance based on unsupportable principles that "the right thing to do" trumps the will of the people.

"But what about my will?", the populist may cry. Indeed, and I agree. What about your will? What was it? To listen to the vast majority of Green supporters in 2000, your will was to send a message. Message received. You saddled us with the worst President in American history so that we could feel your populist power, against the will of the not insubstantial majority of the populace. That's not populism. It's hubris.

The Greens in 2000 wanted to "change the system". They were tired of the 2 party strangle hold over our politics. That's not populism. The system is what it is, and for the record, I kinda like it. Most Americans seem to as well. That's why we haven't changed the document which gave us the 2 party system. That's populism. First, foremost and undeniable.

Ultimately, the Greens in 2000 forgot (never knew) what the Democratic party was all about. They ignored the fact that we, the people, all of us, have control over the monolithic horror that we've created in Washington. That doesn't mean that we get everything we want, and it doesn't mean that anyone is a special little snowflake because they want some things to change. It means that you learn and change things within the system that gave us the power to do so. Anyone who believes that should be a Democrat, and have the courage to change the party with the very ideals that it was founded on. Period.

[Dew-R-Lite]

Good analysis Wulfgar. It's the same Dino and Rino hunting radical world in either party, it seems.

Naderites didn't solely give us Bush. You can lay much blame on that plus size blue dress he had to wear on the campaign trail. But naderites did the final damage.

I dunno who gave us Gore over Bradley.

Equally bad was Bush over McCain. Primaries emphasize, already, the radicalization of the party, but I'm certain that establishmentarians made an early deal with Bush, and he won. I don't know the deal between Al and his devils.

William Jennings Bryan is a populist. He's all yours, Shane, Pete. You claim him and he claims you. Have a happy Scopes trial.

Populism in this country is creationism, established religion, Faux news, Americas Favorite Idol, Walmart, et al. Somehow you've missed this key point, bloggers aren't representative of america at all, you're an esoteric few in the middle of a mass consumerist society. Most americans care little or less for politics. You can follow the news' decline from Edward R Murrow to Katie Couric. That is the rise of populism and decline of careful intellectualist approach to current events. It's not the first time, nor the last, I'm sure. Manifest destiny, anyone?

Until we have a crisis, WWII like that unites the country in sacrifice, I will continue to distrust the "whats in it for me" populism espoused by by extremes.

The lesson of the founders was something seemingly totally lost on populists, or on the progressive blogger. First, theirs was a social organization and they put a lot of value in social graces. We know each other, even disagree, yet our social contract keeps us together. Lonely angry blogging isn't that model. Second, they were intellectuals, not populists. And they debated, on an intellectual level, the creation of the Constitution. Patrick Henry, now, he was a populist. He opposed the constitution and wanted to tax Virginians to support the established Anglican church.

Informed reasoned community decision making is the opposite of what progressives want. It's devoid Sirota-ist name calling, anti confrontational, without the angry community destroying tactics advocated by Alinsky and adopted by radicals of every stripe.

I know Jefferson's trust of the majority was heavily leavened by an absolute dependence on Lockean rights, read his quotes on inheritance and property rights for example. So none of your are Jeffersonians, Wulfgar perhaps excepted. So what are you? You aren't populist, you aren't Jeffersonian. You repudiate democrats.

Hey, I've got a date. Interesting subject and I hope you don't mind a post from outside the organization . On the other side, RINO hunters blow, too, Wulfgar. It will be interesting to see how many of those "traitorous" moderates in the legislature get clobbered by the equally intolerant extremists from the other side.

[Shane C. Mason]

The two parties are clearly not the same. There is a difference in the quality and openness of government that is apparent. Is there an overlap in the policy between DLC, Blue Dogs and Republicans? Sure there is, but there is a difference even in how these policies are implemented? Yes. In my lifetime, Democrat = Better Government.