::::::::
An important and interesting meeting is about to take place in New York between the New York chapter of PDA (Progressive Democrats of America) and various other progressive parties and organizations. The title/focus of the meeting is whether the Democratic Party can become a 'Truly Progressive' Party.I will likely not be able to attend. Between my job, my writing, my new puppies (I adopted two, a brother and sister) that demand a lot of attention, and my volleyball team, there isn't a lot of time to attend meetings. But I would like to contribute my view of the situation.
First, there are two substantive problems of definition. Who and what is Progressive? I wrote an article nearly two years ago where I said that dozens of different organizations feel they have the right to define what 'Progressive' is and their definitions are always self serving, "Yeah, I know what Progressive is, it's us!" Here is a link to my article "What is a Progressive and what does it mean to be Progressive?" http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2005/03/1712244.php and I have included it as Appendix A below. You don't have to agree with it, but I think coming to a basic agreement on the term is necessary and perhaps my article can be used as a starting point. The second problem of definition is "Who and what is 'The Democratic Party' ".
Are you talking about the electorate? The person who holds no office but is registered as a Democrat and generally pulls the lever for Democrats? Are you asking how they can become Progressive? Because they are "The Democratic Party" too. Are you saying the person who might be elected to his local school board, a local judgeship or county executive position who is a Democrat? Because they are "The Democratic Party" too. Are you talking about Democrats elected to state legislatures and state senate positions? People like Lois Frankel who fought the election theft in Florida in 2000 tooth and nail? Because they are "The Democratic Party" too. Finally, are you talking about nationally elected Democrats? People like Senators Russ Feingold, Dianne Feinstein, the late Paul Wellstone, Ted Kennedy and Barack Obama? Or Democrats like Representatives John Conyers, Maxine Waters, Lynn Wolsey, Diane Watson, Jesse Jackson Jr., Barbara Lee, Raul Grijalva, just to mention a few?
When you say "The Democratic Party..." you are addressing a wide group of people who vary very widely in beliefs and actions. Certainly, as a card carrying Democrat who has in the past held very low level party positions, I consider myself part of the Democratic Party. Are you talking about me?
My suggestion would be that you define the specific people or groups who you are talking about. Otherwise, what really becomes of your argument? Personally, I have no idea what to do or who to take to task if you say "Can the Democratic Party become a Progressive Party"
I apologize for this lengthy preamble but if you really want to accomplish something with this forum I think a discussion of these issues is absolutely necessary. On to the meat of the issues.
Can the Democratic Party become a Progressive Party?
The short answer is 'Yes'. The truth is as simple as that progressive bumper sticker I used to see all the time 7-10 years ago:
If the people lead, the leaders will follow
It really is that simple. If you have spent any time in the swing states, the southern Border States, or the south and really understand what is going on there and what the people there believe, you wouldn't be making this argument.
Right now, a true progressive agenda goes over in these places like a lead balloon. That is partly the fault of the Democratic Party and that is where the party's culpability comes in, not in demagogic arguments that suggest that "Democrats are the same as Republicans" or "The Democratic Party is not 'Progressive enough".
Somehow, Democrats and other progressive groups left the field in these locations and the Republican Party, NRA, Christian coalition and similar organizations have had the people's ear to themselves for the better part of the last 30 years. The result has been a dramatic shift in the belief systems of people in these states. A Democratic Presidential candidate thus starts off with a loss of 20 states before they begin. The DLC was the organization that grew out of a mistaken idea that becoming centrist was the answer and people like Clinton bought into the idea.
Becoming centrist and triangulating wasn't the answer. Clinton didn't win or succeed because of these things. He succeeded because people just liked the guy that much and where exactly he fit into the spectrum was irrelevant.
The Answer as I see it
The approach that Progressive organizations ought to be taking is one of education and persuasion. Hold town hall meetings in the southern Border States and the swing states, states like the Virginias and Carolinas, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Hampshire and New Mexico. Hire and fund people who are the best at making the case to ordinary people that a Progressive agenda is the best one for the nation. Send these people all over the fore-mentioned states as well as the Deep South. Put them on talk shows; have them show up wherever a political topic is being discussed. Make sure their positions stand up to scrutiny and the best arguments that can be thrown at them.
My firm belief is that if you do this, the people themselves will slide to the left. As this happens, those Democrats running for office in those places will tack left to accommodate them, or they simply will not win nominations or the desired offices.
The mistake that Progressive organizations keep making is they are putting the cart before the horse and running Progressive candidates before the populace is ready to accept them. The candidates are not the answer. Here is a list of elected Greens. http://www.feinstein.org/greenparty/electeds.html for those who are members of a legislative body and whose votes are available, you can pick ten of them at random and there are plenty of votes on which they have compromised with Democrats AND Republicans. For instance, Green Party member and elected member of the Maine State Legislature, John Eder, http://janus.state.me.us/house/hsebios/ederj_.htm has voted Yea on several items sponsored or cosponsored by Republicans. See Appendix B below on my opinion of the accusation of Democrats colluding with Republicans.
NY PDA put forth a candidate Jim Tasini to run against Hillary because they believed that Hillary was not Progressive enough. NY PDA and Tasini got their message out and were heard, but Clinton defeated him with 83% of the vote in one of the most Progressive states in the country. If the argument was the Tasini was the more Progressive candidate (and I am not addressing the truthfulness of this in any way) then even in NY, enough people are not sold on the value of a Progressive agenda. At the end of the day, what was accomplished by the efforts to put Tasini against Clinton? Aside from NY-PDA and those affiliated with it, who will even remember Tasini's platform? Would this money not have been better spent by people fanning out over the country to convince people of the value of Progressivism?
Mistake #2 that Progressive organizations keep making is attacking other groups as their primary method of defining themselves. What do most Americans remember about Nader's run for the Presidency? They remember he didn't like Democrats because he thought they were the same as Republicans. Does anyone think that this justifies a run at the Presidency? What about a Living wage? What about Health Care for all? For some reason, this all took a back seat. Issues like these seem to always take a back seat when supposedly more Progressive groups address the Democratic Party and its candidates. Who thinks this is a good thing?
The only way to unite the country behind a Progressive Agenda is to convince people of the value of a Progressive Agenda. When viewed in this light, attacking, writing off or accusing the Democratic Party of being the same as the Republican Party or even questioning whether the Democratic Party can be Progressive is easy to be seen as the ultimate intra-left Red herring. When the people want America and the Democratic Party to be Progressive, so it shall. When the people lead, the leaders will follow.
-----------------------
Appendix A. What is a Progressive and what does it mean to be Progressive?
What is a Progressive and what does it mean to be Progressive?
by Steven Leser Tuesday, Mar. 15, 2005 at 9:06 AM
The first thing one finds when researching the term is that it is a very broad term indeed. It is clear that anyone saying that only their small portion or narrow definition of the left is 'Progressive(s)' is wrong.
In one of my recent articles about Chomsky's latest comments I talked about how everyone and every group on the left feels like they own the rights to the term 'Progressive'. I described this attitude as arrogant and uncompromising and indicated that every person on the left, whether a DLC Democrat or hardcore Marxist is completely sure that only THEY or their small group is truly progressive. Imagine my surprise when I received dozens of emails from people telling me why they or their group are the only true progressives as well as one or two direct comments to my article saying essentially the same thing. What is it about us on the left, anyway? As I said, it is like boys with toys. As much as I didn't want to write this article, I feel that I have no choice. I am going to do some research and provide documentation as to what is a Progressive and what does it mean to be one. (By the way, if you want to skip my opinions, analysis and comments, go to the bottom of the article where I include definitions from the American Heritage Dictionary and Merriam Webster's Dictionary, as well as a detailed description from Wikipedia.) The reason I dislike writing this article so much is because as a result of it, I know I am going to receive waves of hate mail from those on the left unhappy that I've proved they have no right to what they feel is their exclusive sacred cow.
The first thing one finds when researching the term is that it is a very broad term indeed. It is clear that anyone saying that only their small portion or narrow definition of the left is 'Progressive(s)' is wrong. One of my favorite assertions of ownership of the term are from those on the fringe far left, Marxists/Leninists, who insist that one can only be progressive if they want government ownership of the means of production and a complete destruction of capital as the primary economic order. Talk about a self-serving definition! In my research, I haven't found a single source that indicates that Progressive ever meant such a thing. Another of my favorite groups claiming exclusive ownership of the word is the group that says unless you engage in vigorous street protests, get arrested, and are completely anti-establishment in every way, you cannot be a progressive. One of these folks even said that he found people who claimed to be left but didn't do these things were 'boring' and since they were boring and 'made him yawn' they couldn't be progressives. Again, in addition to assertions like these being silly, there is no historical definition of the term that supports them. But more to the point, being a Progressive doesn't really have anything to do with what you DO so much as what you BELIEVE.
Reading definitions from Wikipedia, for instance, it is obvious that even the DLC, the more conservative Wing of the Democratic Party, has it completely within their right to consider themselves among the broad coalition (coalition of discord and disharmony, that is) of Progressives. Wikipedia breaks the definition of Progressive down into a set of five basic beliefs. First, in terms of a Social Safety Net, Wikipedia says that those that work hard and play by the rules should receive a decent standard of living, as well as freedom, security, and opportunity. Everyone on the left, from a DLC Democrat to a Marxist/Leninist believes in a living wage. That is a left core value and distinguishes us from laissez faire right wingers who really don't care if people who work hard and are law abiding can't afford healthcare, food or have decent housing or have to make agonizing choices between the three. In the absence of a living wage, the government needs to make up the difference. While conservatives howl at practices such as this, they might not if they think of it as government subsidizing small and medium sized businesses, because that is what it really is. It is the government saying to these companies, sure, pay a lower wage to be profitable and we will pick up the slack. The problem is the government help isn't yet sufficient. The alternative is for companies to pay a living wage right off the bat. I, for one, would even approve of tax breaks for small companies and medium sized companies if those companies can prove that the breaks are the only way that they can pay a living wage (and the tax break would be contingent upon them following through). Then we can cut out the middle man.
I am not going to bore anyone reading this article with going through the second through the fifth Wikipedia definitions of Progressive since they are all included below, suffice to say that no person or group on the left can claim exclusive ownership to these principles. At the same time, these principles DO exclude American Republicans and Conservatives and provide a valid distinction between Left/Progressives and the Political Right in the US and perhaps worldwide.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three definitions of the term 'Progressive'
Merriam Webster
---------------
Main Entry: 1 progressive
Pronunciation: pr&-'gre-siv
Function: adjective
1 a : of, relating to, or characterized by progress b : making use of or interested in new ideas, findings, or opportunities c : of, relating to, or constituting an educational theory marked by emphasis on the individual child, informality of classroom procedure, and encouragement of self-expression
2 : of, relating to, or characterized by progression
3 : moving forward or onward : ADVANCING
4 a : increasing in extent or severity b : increasing in rate as the base increases
5 often capitalized : of or relating to political Progressives
6 : of, relating to, or constituting a verb form that expresses action or state in progress at the time of speaking or a time spoken of
Main Entry: 2 progressive
Function: noun
1 a : one that is progressive b : one believing in moderate political change and especially social improvement by governmental action
2 capitalized : a member of any of various U.S. political parties: as a : a member of a predominantly agrarian minor party that around 1912 split off from the Republicans; specifically : BULL MOOSE b : a follower of Robert M. La Follette in the presidential campaign of 1924 c : a follower of Henry A. Wallace in the presidential campaign of 1948
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
American Heritage
-----------------
progressive (pr-grsv) KEY
ADJECTIVE:
Moving forward; advancing.
Proceeding in steps; continuing steadily by increments: progressive change.
Promoting or favoring progress toward better conditions or new policies, ideas, or methods: a progressive politician; progressive business leadership.
Progressive Of or relating to a Progressive Party: the Progressive platform of 1924.
Of or relating to progressive education: a progressive school.
Increasing in rate as the taxable amount increases: a progressive income tax.
Pathology Tending to become more severe or wider in scope: progressive paralysis.
Grammar Designating a verb form that expresses an action or condition in progress.
NOUN:
A person who actively favors or strives for progress toward better conditions, as in society or government.
Progressive A member or supporter of a Progressive Party.
Grammar A progressive verb form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wikipedia
---------
Beliefs
The basic principles of progressivism are:
Social safety net - Those that work hard and play by the rules should receive a decent standard of living, as well as freedom, security, and opportunity.
Democracy - Minimize concentrations of political, corporate, and media power so that individuals have a stronger voice in their government. Publicly finance elections to reduce the influence of wealth in the political process. Improve public education, especially in civics and history so that more citizens can take part in the political process. Bring corporations under stakeholder control, not just stockholder control.
Role for government - Government provides public services that the private sector cannot or is not doing effectively, or ethically. Government should promote and, if possible, provide greater democracy, more freedom, a better environment, broader prosperity, better health, greater fulfillment in life, less violence, and the building and maintaining of public infrastructure.
Ethical business sector - In the course of making money by providing products and services, businesses should not adversely affect the public good, as defined by the above values.
Foreign policy - The same values governing domestic policy should apply to foreign policy whenever possible.
-------------------------------
History
---------
United States
In the United States, the term liberal has for many decades (at least since the New Deal) been used to describe the political left, and conservative the right. Since at least the late 1990s, the term progressive has been employed to describe certain leftist views of one form or another, for at least two reasons.
The first is to create a contrast between center-left and farther-left politics. For example, John Kerry, Al Gore, and the Democratic Party are more likely to be described as or to describe themselves as liberal, whereas Dennis Kucinich (a Democrat), Ralph Nader (endorsed by the Green Party in 2000) and the Green Party are more likely to be described as or to describe themselves as progressive or social democratic. In addition to progressive or social democratic third parties like the Greens, there is also a Progressive Caucus in the House of Representatives, made up of Democrats and an independent Congressman. (Note that the Democratic and Republican parties have not always represented the left and the right. The modern alignment has been strongest since the 1970s.)
The second is to find term with positive connotations. The intuitive opposite of liberal is conservative, which some people are proud to consider themselves. The intuitive opposite of progressive is regressive, a label with which hardly any person or political ideology would want to be associated. Critics of leftist politics often use the term liberals to describe their opponents, so distancing oneself from that term can be a rhetorical device to distance oneself from that criticism. (Both liberal and conservative can be quite pejorative when used by their critics on the opposite side.) Progressive connotes progress, a notion which is both positive and intuitively orthogonal to a left-right axis.
Progressive and conservative are also intuitive opposites; the former represents change, the other, tradition. This replaces the distinction between large and small government (especially with regard to government spending) evoked by the pairing of liberal / conservative. These distinctions are, however, controversial and often inaccurate in predicting how either side feels about any given issue.
Avoidance of the term liberal has the benefit of being less ambiguous. In other countries, the terms liberal and conservative may have slightly different or even completely opposite meanings than in the United States. Liberal can also mean free, as in freedom and free country. See the article on Liberalism for a full explanation.
For more historical perspective, see the articles on the Progressive Era or Progressive movement, between 1900 and 1920, and the Progressive Party (which actually refers to several different parties of different periods).
Appendix B On Democrats and supposed Collusion with Republicans
It's amazing how frustrating it is to see people on the American left denigrating other people on the American left. I've become convinced that at some point in the last 12 years, the Republicans have made it a point to sew the seeds of discord and discontent on the left and most of what we see as articles like this one are ultimately the result of over a decade of agent provocateurs in our midst intentionally trying to cause rifts. It is, after all, the only way they can win. They don't have the numbers otherwise.
The efforts that Greens and others put in blasting the Democratic Party and specific members are completely wasted effort. Can anyone point to any meaningful result? Anyone? Anything? No, of course not, unless you call George W. Bush in the White House and a Republican congress a meaningful result.
Let's face some facts. Democrats did not invent politics. They did not invent games that legislators and legislatures play among themselves all over the world, no matter how progressive or regressive. Obliterating the Democratic party tomorrow, and replacing it with whatever vision of the exact thing you wish would be in its place would result, in about 3-5 years of either the replacement's extinction, or, an exact replica of the Democratic party. You would still have the same number of people voting Republican in the red states that vote today who have the right to be represented. You would still have people all over the left spectrum with all of their disparate beliefs who have a right to be represented. There would still need to be compromises made to run the government. That is the way of Democracy.
If you look back 2000 years at the Roman senate, you find striking similarities to the legislatures of today. Intrigue, compromises, alliances, enemies, etc. If you collect 435 people at random and have them tackle a few dozen semi difficult tasks, you will see the same things start to emerge. Teams and alliances built, etc. If you want to change that, then what you have to realize is that the Democratic Party is not your enemy, human nature is.
There are a few greens in state legislatures. We have seen a few independents elected to governorships and other executive offices. Have they really acted differently? They started out differently with all sorts of promises, etc. Then what? They either conformed, or were voted out because of an inability to get things done.
What Bismarck said close to 100 years ago is still true today, "Politics is the art of the possible, the art of the next best." In other words, politics is the art of compromise.
In rare cases where you see massive change in one direction due to a revolution or other upheaval such as our great depression that ushered in FDR, or the 60's which brought about Johnson and the Great Society, you almost always see a retrenchment because ultimately people will not accept that for which they are not ready and that becomes reflected in those for whom they vote. As progressive as any of us might be, we face a massive challenge in the red states and those whom they elect. Ultimately, we have to work with those people on certain things or the government will stop completely. And for those of you who answer "Good" I need to remind you that our military is overwhelmingly composed of people from the Red States and guns in America are disproportionately owned by people in Red states, so if it gets down to a complete failure of the government and anarchy and possibly revolution, I don't think those of us on the liberal/progressive side of things will like how things turn out.
