I thought that I’d get away from the “All Lubben, All Day” theme for a bit and focus on my other more political obsessions right about now.
There is now considerable angst ongoing now about the state of the port side of the political spectrum, with the fears running amok that President Obama and the Democrats have once again found a way to piss away the supermajority status they earned in 2008 to nothingness….such that there is a distinct threat that the Republicans, even with their Teabagger anchor firmly attached, may even be able to take back both houses of Congress. This has created its own havoc amongst “progressives” and “liberals” alike, where each side is blaming the other ahead of the assumed deluge come midterm Election Day this November.
On the one hand, you have the liberal loyalists, the firm “yellow dog” Democrats and the Obama fans, who insist that people stick with Prez O and his agenda and not bail out, fearing that any dissention would aid and abet the Republicans to come back to power, with all the nightmarish scenarios of everything from Birther lawsuits to impeachment to repeal of health care reform (and having the likes of Steve King and Michelle Bachmann in real positions of power). They are also the ones most likely to shun any thrid party effort as just awful “Naderism” that they blame for costing the Dems the presidency in 2000 and enabled the Bush regime that followed.
On the other hand, though, you have the movement “progressives”, who see things slightly different: they blame Obama himself for the state of the Dems’ meltdown, saying that he is simply too weak and accomodating to Republican policy and right-wing threats, if not a Trojan horse for the Right in the first place. They see Obama as fundamentally unqualified and inexperienced and simply not willing to export his political capital and oratorial skills to support progressive policies. Either that, or he’s simply as bought and sold to the corporate establishment as every other politician apparently is (save for Florida Congressman Alan Grayson, a darling of the “progressives” for his abiliy to smack down the GOP). A subset of this group are the PUMA’s, who apparently are still stuck in their fantasy world that now Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (then Obama’s main rival for the 2008 Presidency) would be the better and true “progressive candidate” merely because….well, her name is Hillary rather than Bill.
Now, if the Electoral Apocalypse does indeed take place and the GOBP (to use Keith Olbermann’s apt phrase) do manage to take control of both houses of Congress, I’m sure that this war of words will simply escalate, with both sides blaming each other for the meltdown and lodging their guns at each other rather than the threat of a Sarah Palin or Newt Gingrich Presidency in 2012.
That brings us to a unique post that was offered by one on the “progressive” side, which attempted to draw the line between the “progressives” and the “liberals” in such a way to favor the former. Sam Smith, the proprietor of the website Progressive Review, is well known for his promotion of “progressive populism” as an antidote to what he sees as sellout corporate liberalism offered currently by the Democratic establishment. The post that he submitted to his site today, titled “The Difference Between Progressives and Liberals” (also reprinted this morn over at CounterPunch), lists what Smith sees as several reasons why Progressives are better than Liberals, and should be guiding the wheel of policy where the liberal Dems have failed.
That may be all fine and good…but as someone who believes that even “progressives” may not be radical enough or independent enough to address core issues of inequality, I find Smith’s logic to be a bit incomplete.
Therefoire, I will use his post as a jumping point for my own argument that a far more radical approach than even the “Progressivism” of Sam Smith is needed to break through the logjam of political inertia affecting the American Left.
No, Clones…I’m not going Castro or Chavez on you (though, considering Cuba’s superior health carre system and Venezuela’s success of redistributing income to its poorest citizens, they certainly merit more than a second look), but I will reveal my thoughts on what could possibly work when the Left decides to think outside the constraints of “the box”.
And so…here we go:
How To Tell The Difference Between A Progressive And A Liberal (Sam Smith, from Progressive Review, also reposted in CounterPunch)
Progressives, as liberals did before Reagan, emphasize doing the most for the most – which is how we got socio-economic programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and a minimum wage. Today’s liberals favor expanding health insurance company profits over expanding Medicare and strongly support Democratic presidents who undermine the very programs that earlier liberals created such as social welfare and Social Security.
Ummm….”the most for the most”, Mr. Smith?? Like, the most drafting young men to die in Vietnam and Southeast Asia?? The most…stifling social welfare programs to fuel the unending lusts of the Pentagon?? Raising the minimum wage to the heights of…well…barely enough to even reach the poverty level?? Standing aside while states passed “right-to-work” laws and busted unions left, right and center??
And what about this about “current liberals” versus “earlier liberals”?? I thought that it was just “liberals” who put themselves above the public? Not quite like the “progressives”, who would simply put White working class folks ahead of others..right??
Here’s a better idea, Mr. Smith…how about we have a consolidated social welfare/Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid system based on a guaranteed income program that eliminated much of the red tape and bureaucracy and got sufficient aid and assistance to the people in the greatest need?? Or…how about a greately expanded public sector jobs program with emphasis on education, health care, and fixing our crumbling infrastructure?? Would the “progressives” be as willing to support THAT..or would that fall too far into the category of “socialism” for you, Mr. Smith??
Progressives don’t act like prudes and prigs.
Really?? Considering that the likes of Gail Dines and other such antipornography feminists are the dominant voice on sexual expression policy and that advocates for a more open and egalitarian free speech policy are consistently tossed aside, I’d really beg to differ with that opinion. Has Progressive Review or CounterPunch ever written an editorial opposing antiporn “feminist” fascism of late?? (Outside of Nina Hartley refuting Chyng Sun five years ago and a couple of Susan Block essays in CP, that is??)
There happen to be people on the Left who happen to want to study the excesses and dangers of capitalism by actually analyzing….capitalism, not simply using capitalism as a crutch to condemn personal speech they don’t partacularly grok or like. When the “progressives” start listening to these voices, maybe they might find their groove again.
Progressives don’t think the commerce clause of the Constitution should be used just because you feel like doing something, such as avoiding single payer health insurance. There is a huge difference between using the commerce clause to guarantee human rights and using it to subsidize health insurance companies.
Funny, though…some “progressives” have no such problem with using the “commerce clause” when it comes to stifling particular groups of people….like undocumented immigrants or lawful adult sex workers merely seeking better pay and employment. Or…does single payer health care only apply to “lawful citizens”??
Single payer is a good start; single payer as a foundation for a nationalized universal health care system like the British currently have, would be even better.
Progressives recognize the Green Party and its members as part of a broad coalition. Most liberals act as though Greens were a new kind of HIV.
Probably true…but where were the Progressives in 2008 when Cynthia McKinney was running at the head of the Green Party ticket?? Or, maybe the thought of two Black women at the head of a party ticket just too much??
And also….while the Greens certainly could be part of any independent Left ticket, some of their platform is way too problematic, due to their emphasis on “smallness” and on “localism” that may not be the best solution for national or even international issues of scale. “Tear down this freeway!!!” and “Build your own garden!!!: can only go so far in an interconnected country such as ours.
Progressives try to convince people with whom they disagree, not just scold them.
Oh, I see…so that means that Black folk should make nice with the Teabagger KKK who would sooner kill them?? Or, women should just shut the hell up if our “progressive” leaders decide that the antigay/antisexual expression/antiabortion/anticontraception leaders of the Roman Catholic Church (or some other “progressive” evangelical church group) should take center stage in their coalition because they offer lots of cash and “converts”?? Convincing peoplein the middle who realy can be sold is one thing; bipolarism is another thing entirely.
Progressive oppose the wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq; liberals like them as long as a Democratic president is running them.
I guess that makes Ron and Rand Paul progressives, then…right?? Wrong, Mr. Smith: Leftists oppose wars in general except as a last resort by people with no other option available to gain their freedom and autonomy against the worst oppression. In other words, we would oppose wars in Palestine/Israel, the Congo, and Northern Ireland, as well as those other countries…because war makes the Military-Industrial Complex grow at the expense of human needs.
Progressives oppose the war on drugs, America’s most masochistic and deadly battle since Vietnam. Liberals treat it with utter indifference.
The War on Drugs is pretty damn counterproductive…but you do know that hard drugs do have a way of injuring and killing people, do you, Mr. Smith?? And what about the even deadlier and even more counterproductive War on Sex???
Progressives believe what people do is more important than how politely they talk about it.
I can agree with that one…so, why are you still a Democrat after all they’ve done for you?? Or haven’t done??
Progressives don’t think you should have to go to grad school to have an important role in government.
Also one I can agree with…so, where’s the Left popular countermovement to the Teabaggers which would actually elect “progressives” to positions of power within government?? Oh, I forgot…that’s only for local folks.
Progressives respect state and local government; liberals often act like they’re a Republican plot. Progressives understand the importance of the devolution of power to the lowest practical level.
Ahhh…no. Simply…HELL TO THE NO. What Mr. Smith misses here is that it was “devolution” to the states and the locales that allowd Jim Crow slavery and segregation to kick Black folks in the asses for nearly 100 years…and it was the full weight and power of the Federal government acting in progressive means and ends that helped those “local’ groups overcome the repression of state and local governments. Some levels of government can be placed closer to the people…but there still needs to be a federated, consolidated, amalgamated role of Big Government (tempered by egalitarian principles and democratic accountability, of course) to supersede any regional attempt at petty power plays. There is as much a need for nationalization as there is for localization.
Progressives worry about locked doors, liberals about glass ceilings, which is why liberals thought Obama’s election would create a post-racial society.Too many liberals are infatuated with symbolism such as electing a black president, while ignoring the real problems most minorities face in everything from the job market to dealing with the law.
Pardon my French here, but….EXCUSE FUCKIN’ ME?!?!?!? Electing the first President of color was no damn symbolism…especially for a country that has not managed to elect anyone other than a White male for the previous 232 years of its existence. That Obama hasn’t exactly been sterling as a progressive or a Democrat doesn’t negate the legacy of his victory one bit…it only proves how out of touch the Democrats and the corporate hacks that put him in the White House have been. And besides….it would have been just as siginificant had it been Clarence Thomas elected.
And sure, us “minorities” (uhhh, Mr. Smith…non-Whites aren’t minor, and soon we collectively won’t even be a “minority”) are well aware without your help that we have issues that Prez O and the Dems are ignoring…but why are you ignoring US in favor of going after the conservative White working class voters?? Not saying that they aren’t hurting and in need of help like everyone else, but why should they get all the love while others get thrown under the bus?? How is that any different than what you accuse Obama of doing??
Even progressives who don’t own guns respect the right of others to do. Besides, why piss them off the way liberals have done, when they could be allies on a host of other issues, beginning with civil liberties.
Really?? Are you saying that the NRA could be an actual progressive ally?? The same NRA in the pocket of GOBP?? The same NRA that openly consolidates with Teabaggers to oppose even lukewarm Obama/Clinton/Bacus health care?? And since when did even most liberals ever back taking away guns from law abiding citizens not accused of any crime?? Sorry, but no sale here…we can carry our own weapons without the NRA’s help, thank you very much.
But then, progressives still defend civil liberties. Liberals seem to have forgotten about them and ignore Obama’s abuse of them.
As if Hillary would have been better?? Or Bubba Clinton?? How about Al Gore??? Yeah, right.
Progressives pursue issues; liberals support candidates.
Progressives don’t give up an issue just because the candidate they voted for is now in office and opposes it.
Aside from the basic fact that in order to pursue an issue you got to have a candidate there to pursue that issue….I can go with that one. Maybe we just need candidates who don’t compromise themselves to pass that issue….don’t we??
Liberals love Clinton and Obama while despising the Bushes who preceded them. They don’t seem to notice that our government continued to move to the right under both Democrats and that neither repealed any significant policies of their GOP predecessors.
That’s funny…I’ve seen quite a few PUMA progressives still brandishing their “Hillary in ’12, DAMMIT…because WE WERE RIGHT IN ’08!!!” stickers.
Progressives don’t think bailing out banks is an economic stimulus, but that helping to create jobs and stop foreclosures is.
Can’t disagree with that one…but how about the idea of simply nationalizing the banks and wiping out those deficient junk loans and foreclosures, and just letting people keep the homes they paid good money for?? And doing the same for forgiving government-supported student loans, too??
Progressives support local public schools and their teachers; liberals go along with the Bush-Obama attack on public education.
OK…so Obama and Duncan’s plans for public ed mimics Bush’s “No Child Left Behind”. What about actualy improving local public education by making it free from Head Start all the way through grad school, and basing it on need and competence rather than logrolling and senority??
Progressives are not afraid of criticizing Israel for its abusive treatment of Palestine. Liberals either support Israel’s criminal actions or are afraid of being called anti-Semites so don’t say anything.
The best of the lot here…but important to understand that it is the abuses and the underlying bigotry and racism of the philoso[hy of Zionism that we are attacking, not the right of Israeli Jews to the same basic rights of freedom and self rule that the Palestinian Arabs should also have. It doesn’t have to degenerate into becoming fans of Hezbollah or Hamas…or Irgun or Likud.
Progressives have new ideas; liberals come up with new compromises with the right.
I don’t know…many of the old idea — like democratic socialism and self-autonomy interspersed with collective solidarity — still remain quite valid for me. And I don’t want compromise with the Center, either.
And the last word by Smith goes thusly:
Progressives believe that change is produced by broad coalitions brought together on specific issues, but not necessarily agreeing on all policy. Liberals believe change will come when everyone acts like they do.
Yes, consensus on the fundamentals combined with agreeing to disagree on the peripherals is important…but without a core commitment to the fundamentals, and without establishing a foundation of what those fundamental values are, no coalition worthy of its name will last.
The real issue that faces the Left (other than the lack of money, of course is) that there is no core central belief system and no core foundation of outreach that appeals to the issues of the majority of the working class and the unemployed…which still remains the majority of the country’s popuilation. That makes the latter far more suspectable to being divided against each other by both neolberals and neoconservatives who battle tooth and nail over the seats of power while the rest of us are reduced to spectators to this debacle.
The only way out of this is for the Left to rediscover the idea of democratic socialist populism: the belief that average people working together in solidarity and helping each other as equals can turn this thing around and restructure government to serve them under genuine progressive principles. That means nothing less than principled and total rejection of and rabid opposition to every inch of the Right’s core ideology, but it also means the ability to question and hold accountable its own leaders when they stray too far from progressive principles.
Say all you wish to say about the Right’s lunacy, but they sure do an excellent job of holding on to their biases and maintaining their discipline when in power…which is probably why they tend to come back like Freddy Kruger in far too many nightmares. If we tapped even half of their balls, we’d be in better shape than we are right now.
In other words, instead of arguing about why your house always gets pummled in hurricanes, why not just get the hell out and build a stronger, better house??
Follow me on Twitter
Tags: Dimocrats for the Leisure Class, Inventing the Left, Thunder on the Left
About
