I've written before about internet progressives. I've never liked the term progressive because I have always associated them with the Progressives of the late nineteenth century: good-government types who are not very concerned with economic justice. I'm all for good government, following the law, and not engaging in hatemongering. But for me, those are not qualifications for membership in a political movement but for membership in the human race.
I've written before about internet progressives. I've never liked the term progressive because I have always associated them with the Progressives of the late nineteenth century: good-government types who are not very concerned with economic justice. I'm all for good government, following the law, and not engaging in hatemongering. But for me, those are not qualifications for membership in a political movement but for membership in the human race.
Any 'progressive' movement that does not have as its cornerstone the protection of the economic, political and social liberties of the individual from the encroachment by the modern corporation is doomed to failure. Consider the following three issues:
- Global warming (and other environmental issues). One of greatest opponents to serious progress on global warming has been energy extraction corporations.
- Healthcare. 'Nuff said.
- Privacy. Got telco? The commodification of your life history, well, it's not a bunch of socialists that are doing this, is it?
Those are just a few issues; I'm sure you can come up with your own. This is not some idle discussion to be left to later. The insurgents are making the same damn mistake the Democratic establishment did: believing that how you say something is truly distinct from what is said. Marshall McLuhan notwithstanding, the message itself is the message too.
Then there's the issue of who exactly is in this movement. Right now, it seems that anyone who isn't batshit loopy crazy is in. Am I part of a movement with James Webb? I grew up in VA, and I know I would vote for Webb over Allen any day of the week; being a Democrat in VA means that you learn how to pull the lever with one hand and hold your nose with the other. But Webb, a former naval officer, Republican, and Pentagon official, isn't sticking it to the man, he is the man. He's a fine ally, given the circumstances, but he's just that: an ally of convenience.
I feel very sad for the progressive Kool-Aid drinkers who are blindly following a lot of conservative Democrats. I've seen this movie before: trust me, she won't be any prettier in the morning. Once elected, the conservative Democrats won't suddenly become 'progressives.' Why should they? It's not how they won their jobs, and it's not who they are. I'm all for electoral pragmatism, but I don't feel the level of enthusiasm for a Webb or a Hackett that I do for a Feingold or an Edwards. I would vote for the conservative Dems, maybe even give them a small donation, but they're not 'heart and soul' material. If they want the devoted support of the many Democrats like me, they have to be more than Republican lite.
The progressive movement, from what I see on Kos and MyDD.com, seems a mile wide, and an inch deep. What exactly is it standing for? This isn't a minor quibble: a movement is supposed to accomplish something. A long-term unifying principle can't be anyone but Bush (and Hassert and other corrupt scumbags), if for no other reason that it opens the way for an honest conservative. As others have pointed out, the problem isn't Little Lord Pontchartrain and his acolytes are flawed conservatives, it's that conservatism is a flawed philosophy. Despite Kos' desperate pleas for the movement not to be labelled 'liberal', ideology does matter. because what would the movement do were it to win? I'm not advocating ideological purity by any means, but vacuous statements about the 'movement' indicate to me that there is no there there.
You can't build a movement around process (i.e., good government) anymore than you can build a movement around individual policies. There needs to be a unifying theme. So progressives, if you don't like the relationship between the corporation and the citizen as the theme, what's yours?
- Log in to post comments
You said it. My sentiments, not quite exactly, but close enough. I'm with you on the critique of the so-called opposition. The issue of "theme" is more complicated. I might agree but I might not. But this is one of the defects of the progressive/left/whatever you want to call it position: we haven't done the hard thinking necessary to know what to think in the last analysis. Too many slogans and not enough real thought. Health care is a great example. The canard, Prevention Pays is a stupid one but we use it all the time anyway. What if it didn't pay? We wouldn't do it? Even worse, it situates us right on their playing field, with their ball and their rules. It has to "pay" or it isn't any good.
Maybe I'll try to keep the conversation going with a multiparter over at Effect Measure (if I can find the time . . . ?!).