On ideology
There's a discussion going on in a recent thread, ostensibly devoted to anti-Progressive media bias, about ideology, its discontents and rewards. One commenter extols it, specifically in its left-wing variety; others, notably Rock Hackshaw and Gatemouth, condemn it. Given that we're in the midst of a rebirth of the Democratic Party, freshly returned to power, it's worth discussing the role that ideology should and perhaps will play in the new Congress and within this newly resurgent governing majority.
My personal perspective, in part a fruit of biography, is an abhorrence of ideology of any kind. Growing up as an Air Force brat in Europe, in the Reagan era, and not paying attention too closely, I liked the message that Reagan seemed to bring: a sunny, optimistic view of this country, coupled with a strong defense, the necessity of which was apparent to someone who had family on the other side of the Berlin Wall. At the same time, it was glaringly obvious to anyone with eyes to see that the various –isms of the 20th century had wrought havoc on the human spirit. National Socialism, Communism, Socialism, from the moral inferno of the concentration camps through the decay of post-Imperial Britain to the garish, imposing set-piece of Moscow all spoke, to me at least, of the dangers of beliefs too strongly held and too rarely questioned. Mistrust those who claim to have all the answers.
The common thread among all ideologues, again regardless of flavor, is their willingness to dictate their preferred solutions, the ones that spring from whatever it is that they believe in so fervently, on everyone else. Those who disagree are either not sufficiently enlightened to realize the error of their ways, or else, are enemy, to be disposed of in one form or another. Churchill was absolutely correct when he termed Communism and Fascism merely the two most obvious manifestations of tyranny. All ideologues are on the slippery slope to that equation, no matter what their state of progress towards that ultimate end.
Take the currently most troublesome ideology for our purposes, so-called 'conservatism'. To that ideology, which is every bit as rigid and self-referencing as doctrinaire Communism, there is literally no problem that can't be solved by cutting taxes, shrinking government, and favoring private over public action. Unless, of course (in a not-so-ironic Marxist 'contradiction') the 'conservatives' are telling you what can and can't go on in the immediate vicinity of your genital tract, when they employ the power of government to impose some vague version of Christianity on you, or when they insist that their secret prisons, shredded laws and well-oiled torture chambers are only directed at the enemy du jour. Disagree? Why, you must be a liberal; in the black-white universe of ideology, there is only, and only can be, Us and The Other. Many pundits have observed that the Straussian neo-cons, architects of the Iraqi debacle, started out as Trotskyites; take that as a sign that what characterizes ideologues are structures of thought, as opposed to their contents. The same is true of old former hard-left advocates like Norman Podhoretz; they changed their ideological vestments, not their way of thinking itself.
One cause the kommentariat is presently bandying about for the defeat of extremist, corrupt, militant conservatism is that it has lost touch with the popular will. What is wondrous about this is this: why is anyone surprised? So-called 'conservatives' don't need to listen to the people – they already have all the answers. All ideologues do. It pleases me immensely when I see that the right is attributing its defeat to ideological apostasy - because that is precisely the lesson they need to draw to continue their slide into irrelevance. The sooner this 'conservatism' dies, the better for this country; and it's arguably better for it to be strangled by its own failings, so the more pure, the better.
By contrast, the coalition that won the general election last Tuesday is remarkable for one thing especially: the absence of a unifying ideology or, more precisely, of a rigid, unifying belief structure that goes far beyond economic populism. What unites this new Democratic majority is the assumption that generally, government can be a positive force in the life of the nation; that it is better for all concerned if government fulfills its duties with competence; and that the goal of government is the greatest good for the greatest number. Within those broad prescriptions, revolutionary as they are in their own right, there's a good deal of room for experimentation and trial-by-error, and correspondingly little for dogma.
What we're not seeing from this new Congress is the kind of monolithic ideological lockstep that characterized the defeated former majority. Instead, you'll have urban coastal liberals like Jerrold Nadler hashing out policy with New West representatives like Gabrielle Giffords and North Carolina's Heath Schuler. There are two upsides to this: one, that the resulting policies are at least likely to command allegiance in large parts of the country, thus aiding the further growth of the Democratic Party in regions such as the Mountain West and Great Plains, and two, that Democrats seem likely to avoid the narrow appeals to our base that brought down the other side. It's also likely that we'll see a move beyond the 20th century linear left-right continuum; this not least because Progressivism, the predominant Weltanschauung within the new Democratic majority, doesn't quite fit within the linear, bipolar coordinates of left-right. Even the terms differ; Weltanschauung is German, more Goethe than Nietzsche, softer than the hard French, Descartian idéologie. The latter contains too little Voltaire and too much Robespierre.
To give two examples from The Daily Gotham, Liza is a (former) homeschooler, feminist and atheist; as to myself, as a libertarian populist, I generally favor things like gun rights (in parts of the country where that's appropriate, which expressly does not include the City of New York), a strong defense, foreign policy Realpolitik, affirmative action, fair over free trade, and unions. So what does that make us? As a further example, where on the left-right matrix does the fight against eminent domain lie? Is that 'right' – "big government shouldn't take away private property" – or 'left' – "government shouldn't be helping faceless corporations exploit citizens"? In the same vein, is it 'left' or 'right' to be concerned about private-sector infringements on privacy rights? How about wanting Habeas Corpus reinstated, church-state separation maintained, or that 'unitary executive' nonsense thrown out the window? It seems to me that wanting government to be limited and bound by ancient laws and customs is the classically 'conservative' and thus 'right' view, not 'left'. And yet we embrace these positions. The list could be extended – energy independence, scientific freedom from government oversight, immigration reform, and so on – but it does seem that many issues before the nation do not lend themselves to either 'left' or 'right' solutions.
In a sense, this election also marked the rebirth of the classic Democratic dichotomy, something that could be termed a new Roosevelt coalition. Swept into power by the manifest failures of Hooverian conservatism, FDR presided over a coalition of southern conservatives and northern liberals (though that's a very simplified description that neglects much) that, in turn, recast the nation's politics for a generation. That coalition ended when LBJ did the right thing and embraced the civil rights movement, legislating its goals in 1964 and 1965, knowing we would lose the South for a generation.
The new coalition rests on several geographic pillars: the Northeast/Mid Atlantic, as solidly blue as the old south was; the Midwest, where the conversation is primarily economic; the Mountain West and its new breed of libertarian Democrats; the Pacific West; and the Southwest's Goldwater country gone reasonable.
Those that would try to impose, or even see, a unifying ideology that unites all of these regions and their distinctly differing outlooks will, I think, not find success. Nor should they. What brought success to our great leaders in the past – Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, the Roosevelts – was their ability to unite the nation in the cause of progress, rather than divide it along lines of schools of thought. Nor does it mean that ideological diversity precludes effective action; it does mean that what action is taken, for example, on ethics reform, will serve the country, not a narrow constituency of the like-minded.
And that is something we can all embrace.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2006 Elections | Civil Rights | Community | Culture | Economics | Identity | Iraq | Law | Politics | Barking crazy rightwingers | Democratic Party | Progressive Movement | Republican Party
Ideology
Submitted by rwallnerny on 18 November 2006 - 2:55pm.
Webster's defines "ideology" as:
"the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program"
I believe that the problem we have in this country is a lack of "connectivity" The universalist view is that we are all connected to one another, we are PART of one another. We live in this world and are of this world together, not apart. We have, as Barack Obama says, a stake in each other's lives. Yet increasingly in modern times, we are doing fewer and fewer things together. There is no unity in spirit, philosophy or purpose, and the result of this is a substantial lack of caring about our fellow human beings, which is reflected by a weak and ineffective government.
Ideology has been necessary historically to bring people together. Democracy is an ideology. Doesn't end in "ism" but it is nonetheless. In order to have a community, you must have people accepting a common set of assertions, theories and aims. I believe that Liberalism is the ideology that best fits the needs of our society. The word "liberalism" has been bastardized by the right wing press to mean "big government, raising taxes", but that is not it at all. Here is the Webster's definition of "Liberalism":
"LIBERALISM-- a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties"
Thats it. Thats all it is. So what is wrong with wanting politicians elected who subscribe to this theory of liberalism, and who should proudly call themselves liberals? The problem is in that definition. "the essential goodness of the human race" The right wing is full of evangelican christians whose religious beliefs specifically DENY the essential goodness of the human race. Original sin. You are born evil and must be saved. This is the essential battle going on, a battle between those who believe in evil, and those who don't believe in evil. I don't believe in evil. I believe in the essential goodness of the human race. I want human beings to love, protect and care for each other. The way I express that desire is through politics, and trying to get politicians elected who see the world the way I do. I believe that is better than seeking politicians who won't tell me what they believe, and simply attempt to avoid upsetting either side. You can't have real progress with politicians like that. With centerists.
So yes I want an ideology. I want liberalism, and there is nothing scary or evil or wrong about that. If you do not have a vision or philosophy of the world, of who and what the world is, you shouldn't be in elective office. This is why I dislike this move to the "center", its a movement away from having opinions, towards not having opinions, towards finding some middle ground in between those who think the human race is essentially good, and those who think that the human race is essentially evil. There is no middle ground. You don't eliminate the argument by refusing to have it. This isn't a way to have a progressive government. The way to have a progressive government is for voters to demand philosophical likemindedness among those whom they vote for.
Again, we're not taking about specific views so much as the guiding principles that should be behind those views-- that the human race is essentially good, that we are all connected, that we all have a stake in each other's lives and should all love, protect and care for each other. That the act of loving, protecting and caring for each other must involve standing for the autonomy of the individual, and the protection of political and civil liberties. Liberalism in a word. Yes its an ideology and it is one we should expect of our elected leaders. We should want leaders who see government as something good, something that brings us together. We should not want leaders who see government as this 'necessary evil'. There is nothing "evil" about government. Government is or should be the great instrument we use to bring us together, to make us understand, and yes love, protect and care for each other. Government should be a mechanism for effectively expressing and acting on our philosophy of liberalism.
But...
Submitted by Bouldin on 18 November 2006 - 10:51pm.
...Democrats aren't all liberals. Progressives aren't all liberals. So what do you do with them?
Liberal and progressive are the same thing
Submitted by rwallnerny on 19 November 2006 - 4:59pm.
First of all what is your definition of "progressive"? It seems to me that progressive and liberal are more or less the same thing, that use of the word "progressive" in political circles came up when the right started attaching too many negative distortions to the word "liberal"
Here's a citation from wordreference.com
http://www.wordreference.com/definition/liberal
LIBERAL OR PROGRESSIVE-- a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties
Now I think that definition is too vague. Anyone can define any political act as "progress" if they favor it. Progressive seems to me to be pretty much a term used by those who favor reform but are otherwise reluctant to define themselves.
Wordgames aside
Submitted by Bouldin on 19 November 2006 - 5:31pm.
...and not accepting your definition - because 'Progressive' is something else than liberal, cf. Teddy Roosevelt - what are you going to do with the non-liberals in the Democratic coalition? Purge them? Re-educate them?
You really are missing the point here, Wallner. What I'm saying in this post is that ideology is per se a bad thing on its own merits, and that the problems we have in the main don't lend themselves to being solved by tired old ideologues. The Rs just convincingly demonstrated that. And now you want to repeat their mistakes, because your ideology is, you claim, better.
So tell me: how are you going to stop the sclerosis that always afflicts ideologues in power?
What is progressive
Submitted by rwallnerny on 19 November 2006 - 6:18pm.
Bouldin, if progressive is, as you say, "something else than liberal", then what is it? I have offered definitions, you have not. I'd love to hear a good definition of progressive, I didn't particularly like the one I cited either. Right now, progressive seems to be this all encompassing vague word that democrats who don't consider themselves conservative or centerists choose to call themselves.
Obviously, any good liberal believes in the strength of liberal arguments, and that others-- so long as they have the same broad philosophy about building and maintaining community-- can be won over to their side.
Also how can ideology be "a bad thing on its merits" when ideology is simply
"the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program"
Simply having ideas can't be "a bad thing on its merits" can it? You can have bad ideology, you can also have good ideology. Democracy is a good ideology, because having those who run government be elected by the people is a good idea.
What you seem to be pushing for is government that is governed by no ideas, because if you have ideas and get others to accept them, you create an ideology. A government with no ideas, based on no ideas, pushing no ideas, is a government that accomplishes nothing. The very last thing we need in this country, in my opinion, is a bunch of politicians elected to office who specialize in not defining themselves, who take no stands and adhere to no ideology. Fear of ideologues is fear of ideas.
Wrong.
Submitted by Bouldin on 20 November 2006 - 10:25am.
Ideology does not 'produce' ideas; rather, it offers a set of prescriptions based on what its adherents believe to be true in all circumstances. As noted above, so-called 'conservative' ideologues have one policy approach to everything: cut taxes and involve the private sector. Problem is, that hasn't worked.
The practitioners that have come up with ideas - Schweitzer in Montana, Sebelius in Kansas, Richardson in New Mexico, and now, Spitzer in New York - all have one thing in common: they're not ideologues. Not coincidentally, they're at the head of the rebirth of the Democratic Party.
Ideology is the refuge of those who are too intellectually lazy to adapt to new situations, and too timid (or smug) to explore the possibility that they may be wrong on occasion.
The Meaning of Progressive
Submitted by Gatemouth on 20 November 2006 - 9:56am.
Progressive is a word from which all real meaning had been squeezed. Mole once told me that "progressives are not a uniform group". I would go further: they are not a group at all. The word is used to describe things which are so different as to have little commonality whatsoever. I think the purpose or language is to clarify meaning, and even when the purpose is to actually obscure meaning, it should be done knowingly. I think with the word progressive, the obscuring of meaning has become reflexive and unintentional, and several months ago, I did a littler "Strunk and White" type piece about it:
http://www.r8ny.com/blog/gatemouth/i_guess_it_all_depends_upon_your_defi...
Ideology
Submitted by rwallnerny on 20 November 2006 - 2:15pm.
bouldin said: (Ideology is the refuge of those who are too intellectually lazy to adapt to new situations, and too timid (or smug) to explore the possibility that they may be wrong on occasion)
Thats ridiculous, you are saying that just because some people have bad ideas, and then won't or can't admit those ideas are bad, nobody should have any ideas?! Those reformers you mentioned ARE ideologues. They are adhering to a set of principles. What, do you think Spitzer has no ideas, or that he's not egotistical enough to think his ideas are right? You obviously don't know that the man has a serious reputation for having a bad temper and not listening to others. Spitzer knows what he thinks is right and acts on it.
Having ideas is NOT being intellecutally lazy. Quite the opposite in fact. If you have strongly formed ideas and can back up those arguments, it more often than not shows you have taken the time to think things out well and do your research. Religion is ideology. Are you an atheist? Well wait, atheism is an ideology too. Bouldin, your problem is you FEAR ideas, you fear those who think things out more than you and come up with ideas that you haven't had the time or inclination to embrace yourself yet. You fear what you don't know. You are a coward.
Gobbledygook
Submitted by Bouldin on 20 November 2006 - 4:41pm.
It would appear from a cursory reading of this that you don't know what you're talking about, Wallner. I'm getting the feeling that you think the meaning of "ideologues" is "people who have ideas".
That's simply not the case. Neither is that the meaning of the term, nor is it true in practice.
As to the examples I gave here, the people you'd characterize as ideologues, I've had conversations with several of them, and they'd be aghast to be characterized as such.
My argument here is precisely that ideas come out of a reluctance to embrace ideology. But then again, you know that, because before wasting my time with this poli-barf, you presumably read the post.
Progressive vs. Liberal
Submitted by mole333 on 20 November 2006 - 2:43pm.
These are not synonymous though recently have started to be used interchangably by those who fear being labeled "liberal."
Liberal is an older concept originating in the Age of Elightenment and French politics. It's lating root is, of course, the same root as for "liberty" and that was intentional. With its roots in Europe, its main emphasis is a rather Bourgeous one, emphasizing individual rights, freedom of expression, the right of law, free and transparent elections, free trade, etc. It originated mainly as a middle class movement opposing the Divine Right of Kings and heriditary privilege.
Although this term has evolved to include other things, I think at root it maintains its original meaning with its emphasis on the individual, right of law, open and free elections, and opposed to excessibe privilege. Economically I feel it maintains its belief in free trade, though recognizes the need for moderate government regulation, something it got from the Progressives. America in a very real way was founded on Liberal values, but NOT progressive values, which came later.
Progressive is an American term with far more of a working class focus. It was much more viewed as a counterpart to conservativism that really liberal was. Progressives, including Presidents Teddy Roosevelt and Taft, believed that government needed to step in to mitigate the excesses of industrialization. In this it would differ quite sharply from the more free trade view of early liberalism. Progressives pushed for legalization of unions, agrarian reforms, 40 hour work weeks, child labor laws, etc. While Liberalism focused more on individual rights versus the government, progressivism focused on the role of government in regulating corporations and hence in preserving the individual rights of workers from exploitation by other private individuals.
Liberalism really grew out of the need to reform land laws and a system based on heredity. Progressivism grew out of a need to reform an indusrtial, corporate system.
The modern Democratic Party inherits both legacies (which is why I am proud to call myself both liberal and progressive), while the modern Republican Party opposes both legacies in practice, even if it maintains some degree of lip service to the original Liberal values that America was founded on. I think many rifts in the Democratic Party are really points of conflict between these two legacies, in trying to balance the limitation of government interference in an individual's rights while maintaining that there is a need for government to protect the rights of the underprivileged from expoitation by the wealthy and powerful.
And you still haven't told me what "progressive" is
Submitted by rwallnerny on 20 November 2006 - 2:46pm.
Bouldin, you still haven't given us *your* definition for "progressive". Because I believe you don't have one. I think Gatemouth is right, that progressive has become this all encompassing term that has no real precise meaning. Even conservatives who think what they are doing is positive and constructive, can call themselves "progressives" Newt Gingrich probably thought he was a "progressive" in 1994 when he came up with the "Contract with America" that gop house members ran on.
Bouldin, your problem is you are trying to take a clinical, dispassionate approach to politics. You want to stay above the fray, refuse to commit yourself too much one way or the other, and approach legislative matters like they are some sort of medical problem that have objective solutions. Politics doesn't work that way. Reformers can only go so far, because after you fix a broken car, you still have to drive it. You still have to decide what direction to take it. You can't just leave it parked in the middle of the road. There are times when its good to have a reformer in office, when the car needs fixing, but there are also times when you need direction more than you need repairs. When the issues don't lend themselves to objective solutions, when you NEED to take sides.
Having a strong ideological framework, knowing what direction you'd drive once you get the car fixed, is just as important as fixing the car. You elect leaders without ideology, you elect leaders without vision. And that is bad.
And then there's populism...
Submitted by mole333 on 20 November 2006 - 3:26pm.
Well, some people might agree with you that Gingrich might call himself a progressive, but I think the word you are throwing in here is populist. [Note: first time I wrote it I misspelled it "poopulist," which may well be what Gingrich is!]
I am pretty sure Gingrich never would honestly call himself a "progressive," either in the original or current meaning. What he was and probably WOULD call himself is a "populist." The Populist and Progressive movements in the US more or less co-evolved during the 19th Century. But populism is essentially a belief in the "common man" over the elite, and has often taken right-wing as well as left-wing forms. Religious revival movements against established clergy were populist.
Let's try to make this clear:
Liberal: Middle class based, belief in free trade, belief in the rule of law, belief in protection of individual rights. Maintained some level of elitism in that it believed in protecting against a "dictatorship of the masses" where mob rule would violate things like rule of law, free trade, etc. Favors a Constitutional government. Main focus is on the right of an individual to wealth and a vote and equal protection under the law.
Progressive: more working class, focus protecting the weak against the powerful elite through government intervention.
Populist: generally working class, focus on fighting the power of BOTH the elite and the government (often lumping them together). Will of the masses often considered more important that Constitutionality or rule of law per se.
Of course all overlap, and each term has evolved somewhat in meaning, but in my experience all three maintain their distinct meaning even in modern politics.
the dispute within the democratic party
Submitted by rwallnerny on 20 November 2006 - 5:28pm.
The old dispute in the Democratic Party used to be between liberals and conservatives. Then came the 90's, where things changed. The conservatives left the democratic party en masse feeling it had become too liberal, whereas moderate republicans left the gop thinking it had become too conservative. The effect has been to push one party (GOP) way to the right, and the other (Democrats) to the center. The consequence is that the GOP may be too well defined at this point, and the Democrats not defined well enough. This lack of definition on the part of the Democrats has made it fertile ground in recent years for libertarians and reformers (ex-Ross Perotistas, ex-Green, ex-libertarian) to join up. Now to be a democrat you don't have to have a particularly positive view of government or what it can or should do ideally, you just have to think government can be better, work better, than whatever it is.
The problem is that this new democratic coalition of liberals, reformers and libertarians is imperiled by the lack of ideological consistency. There is a significant wing of the party that wants ideology, that wants to believe that the democratic party should be championing not just better government, but a movement. Because, the thinking goes, the world's problems aren't primarily mechanical, its not a matter of fine tuning and greasing the wheels. The world's problems are primarily philosophical. If you cannot get people to believe in the value and role of government, you can't get them to believe in the ideal of community. Without community, without recognizing the connection we all have and that we should value each other, you can't solve the world's problems. Thats the liberal line. They are thinking long term. Any immediate solutions need to fit into the big picture. The other line, the reformers and libertarians, think short term-- they don't want to think in terms of the big picture. They simply see something thats broken in the short term and want to fix it. They believe that government can exist in a way and manner that applies to whatever philosophy you want to apply to it.
This is a substantial debate. Dick Morris in his new column calls it a war between the "New Left" and the "New Democrats" I think that if the GOP manages to all agree on the size, scope and ideal purpose of government, and the Democrats cannot, that the electorate will realize this. They will say, "how can you govern when you're not on the same page philosophically?" Government can't just be about mechanics. It has to MEAN something. It has to be backed by ideas. The main goal of this primary season coming up should be the Democratic party defining itself. It cannot be all things to all people.
Well...
Submitted by mole333 on 20 November 2006 - 5:57pm.
I have to kind of agree with Michael that you have a tendency to write at length while only grasping a small part of the picture.
Some of the shifts yu mention certainly took place. But they are only a tiny part of the long, very divided history of the Democratic Party.
The disorganiztion of the Democratic Party goes way back, allowing the famous Mark Twain quote about the Party to apply as much today as it did then...and as much in between. The Republican Party since the 1920's has been the Party of the rich and powerful. They can afford to have a monotone message because they appeal to a narrow group of people who vote fairly consistently. Since the Reagan era that coalition has been the wealthy and the ultra-religious who see anything but right wing Christianity as a one-way ticket to Hell. Some populist (see my other comment) lip service sometimes attracts a fair number of working class voters who like certain buzz words (like "morality" and "cut taxes) without realizing that they are largely lip service and the real Republican message is government intervention into private lives and fiscal mismanagement in favor of big business. It was true in the 1920's and it is true now.
The Democratic Party has never been so monotone. It has always been a broad, loose coalition party whose component parts don't always get along. It takes a very charismatic leader (FDR and Clinton, for example) to hold the coalition together in an effective way for any length of time. But to aim for a more monotonous message would be the death of the party. Why? Because we appeal to diversity, not monotony. For quite some time the Democratic coalition was stereotyped as blacks, Catholics and Jews. That has changed somewhat, and always (since FDR) also included labor, but let's take it as an example. When those were the most reliable Democratic voters, those three groups did not always agree, making it hard for a Democrat who wanted to play to the most reliable Democratic voters to have a single message.
This does not mean that Democrats should tell people only what they want to hear and tell other people what they want to hear, contradictions be damned. But while we find the common message, the common thread (which is where the basic ideas of both liberalism and progressivism come in), and an effective way of delivering that message (what has been working these days is a populist frame), we also should never forget that we ARE the party of diversity and need to live with that. How can we govern if we aren't on the same page? That is the wrong question. Americans never demanded that we all be on the same page. The question is what pages represent our common ground and how can we compromise on the other pages.
My beef with your comment here is that you seem to be implying that somehow we lost a unified message we once had. In reality the Democratic party never had a unified message and never should because it doesn't represent any single group, but rather the broad coalition of what America is. The reason why the words you use matter is because there are strong liberal, progressive AND populist threads in the Democratic Party. It had the liberal and populist threads from the beginning, and those threads alone carry contradictions. The presidencies of Jefferson and Jackson already illustrated those contradictions, yet they governed just fine, most would agree. Add the progressive thread (which we took over when the Republicans abandoned it in the 1920's) and you add further contradictions. But there is a reason we adopted all three threads: they are all good threads. The strengths of the American system come from those three threads, despite contradictions. The weaknesses of America have usually come from the anti-liberal and anti-progressive forces that give no dignity and rights to the worker in the face of management greed or that give no equality in power to all people regardless of skin, gender, sexual preference, etc.
Looking only at what happened in the 1990's, when right wing populism (poopulism!) was briefly ascendent, and ignoring what happened before or since (now progressive populism is growing and winning at least in Western states) misses the bigger picture.
holding the coalition together
Submitted by rwallnerny on 20 November 2006 - 6:18pm.
Clinton didn't always do a good job of 'holding the coalition together'. The first two years of his administration, with a democratic house and senate, were a disaster. Clearly showing that if you can't get enough lawmakers on the same page, you can't get anything good passed, you can't get anything good passed, you have gridlock and you lose the confidence of the voters. Which is exactly what happened in 1994, after two years of Clinton and the Democrats solidly in power.
Also Mole, you forget that the Democrats used to be the more conservative party. Up until the New Deal, blacks voted republican. I've just been reading a book on the civil rights movement, and it points out that Martin Luther King, King's father and his grandfather and every one of King's minister friends voted republican up until the 1950's! They were good liberals, but the democratic party was run by the southern whites who were segregationists. The GOP once had the black vote and they lost it. The republicans were the party of Lincoln. Both parties were not nearly so defined in such polarized terms as "left" and "right" until recent decades. There was a time when both parties had big tents. When Kennedy and Nixon ran, they agreed on almost everything.
So I think your attempt to go well back into history to define both parties is necessarily inaccurate. It is probably better in my opinion to look at more recent history, where the parties have been defined as we know them. I think we as democrats have to define ourselves because the republicans define themselves. This is how you win landslides, mandates. Republicans win landslides. Democrats win by one vote. Its because people tend to vote for what they know, not what they don't know, and a party that doesn't define itself is harder to know than a party that does define itself.
Sigh...
Submitted by mole333 on 20 November 2006 - 6:34pm.
Look, Clinton and FDR are the Democrats who could get re-elected and who were wildly popular, despite what the right wing media claims. Democrats always were the more rough and ready, less defined party...it's just like AS I SAID the nature of their coalition varied. Jefferson and Jackson were populists and staunch advocates of liberal values (read what I wrote above as to what THOSE are)...even though they were wealthy slave owners. I never, ever said that the Democratic coalition was static or their party platform static. In fact, I said the opposite.
Republicans didn't even exist until just before the Civil War...it was the more conservative Whigs that were up against the DEmocrats. No one...NO ONE (except you? Don't know...) would say that the Democrats were more conservative than the Republicans during the 1920's when the Republicans were inventing trickle-down bullshit and merrily leading America down the same kind of wrong path as today economically (though NOT in foreign policy).
I find your grasp of American politics just a tad like my step-daughter's grasp of Japanese culture. She gets what she knows from Japanese cartoons like Inuyasha and such. She gets some facts quite correct in detail if they happened to catch her attention, but the overall subject is lost on her and myths get mixed in. I am sure you will come back extolling your great knowlege of these things, but from what I have seen you don't have a clear idea of the Bill of Rights, the historical and ideological underpinnings of liberalism, progressivism and populism, and you have a tendency to focus on specific cliches without actually listening to whoever you are talking to. Although I often disagree with Michael, and sometimes even agree with you, I find it quite trying to discuss things with you.
I leave you in Michael's hands.
(ideological underpinnings
Submitted by rwallnerny on 20 November 2006 - 6:52pm.
(ideological underpinnings of liberalism, progressivism and populism)
I never said I disagreed with your take on those. I know the bill of rights as well as you do (I carry a little booklet copy of it around in briefcase that Norman Siegel gave out during his campaign for public advocate) I simply have a broader view, I paint in different strokes than you do. You can't sell politics to the masses unless you simplify the message. Not every voter is going to take the time to go into the kind of detail you do, so you've got to construct a condensed SIMPLE message. In recent years, republicans have beaten democrats because their message, in my opinion, has been simpler to understand than the democrats. We only seem to win when the electorate gets fed up with the republicans (as just happened), and thats the only time we can win without being on-message and it doesn't happen that often.
What I'm finding here from your posts is a lack of tolerance for argument. You assume that you listen better than me or the next person that posts, so you have less tolerance for their arguments. It is not a valid assumption to make. If someone is posting, participating for good and decent reasons, you have no reason to question their motives or to criticize their methods. Just accept the arguments in the good faith in which they are given.
Well, but...
Submitted by mole333 on 20 November 2006 - 7:17pm.
You aren't selling a message here. Or, at least, you are doing it among people who will call you on oversimplification.
If you were arguing only that we need better sound bytes, I would probably agree, though also point out that we have had some great ones that just never got picked up by the tame lap dog media. But you seemed to encompass oversimplification in your very arguement, as when you said liberalism and progressivism are the same and that Gingrich adopted progressivism for his own ends. Those were just plain wrong.
Lack of tolerance for agruement? No...though I can be intolerant of what I perceive of as foolishness. I never questioned your motives, either (though you seem to accuse me of that). I have criticized your methods because you tend to argue against a straw man caricature of what people say rather than what they actually say...and you keep characterizing that oversimplification of what they say as if they say it.
You may notice that I have never called you a Hillary bot or any such thing. But when I jumped into this particular arguement is when you seemed factually incorrect. Your response to my pointing such out was to essentially try to argue that you were in some way right. I won't let that pass. You were wrong in calling the 22nd Amendment part of the Bill of Rights (which was my point in that particular thread) and you were wrong in calling liberalism and progressivism the same and saying Gingrich had been pulling a progressive act (my initial point here). I also felt that your characterization of the Democratic party as the conservative party once was wrong, although if you wanted to argue that about particular issues (slavery before the civil war and how to approach reconstruction afterwards) I would have agreed. But they never really were substantially more conservative than their opponents and generally have been the more in line with liberal and populist themes (though not always progressive!). And I stand by all of my points so far. Perhaps my characterization of you was off base, but it is the image you are projecting.
We each have our opinions
Submitted by rwallnerny on 20 November 2006 - 8:03pm.
The point is a lot of these things aren't laid out in black and white. They are open to interpretation. For instance, the word "progressive", regardless of whether you insist otherwise, doesn't have to lend itself to such a detailed definition. Wordmaster defines "progressive" as:
"a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform"
Therefore by that definition, if Newt Gingrich thought that his political philosophy was leading to progress and reform, which HE DID, then he'd hvae considered himself a progressive. So I'm not wrong on that. You are not the grand authority on the definition of words and neither am I. Its all a matter of how you define things. And the way a lot of people use the word "progressive" these days is as a substitute for the word "liberal", and you know that full well. You never heard the the word progressive used so often in political circles twenty years ago. Its in vogue because the word liberal got stigmatized. Don't deny it.
I admitted I was wrong on the bill of rights being technically defined as the first ten amendments. No need to keep harping on it.
The Democratic Party in Congress at least used to be run by southern CONSERVATIVE democrats. By those staunch segregationists like Strom Thurmond (he was a democrat before he was a republican) and Richard Russell. There were always liberals in the democratic party but they didn't always control the power and there were civil wars within the party even back then (Thurmond and other democrats running as "Dixiecrats" in 1948 for instance) The Democrats have generally been greater champions of the poor and the oppressed, but not always and not all democrats. The big money and the wealthy elite were democrats in the past as often as they were republicans. The lines used to be a lot more blurred than they are now. Which made it more difficult then for the lower classes, the disenfranchised, the minorites .etc to have great confidence in either party. Kennedy actually beat Nixon by running to the right of him, by being more staunchly anti-communist.
As for my methods, I only respond to my interpretations of what you and others say. Perhaps what your saying isn't coming across well enough if you think its being misinterpreted. My tendency to repeat or reiterate things is precisely because I know how easy it is for even things you think are clear when you type them to end up getting misinterpreted. What reads one way to you can read differently to others.
Ah...
Submitted by mole333 on 20 November 2006 - 9:40pm.
Wow...so you ignore the entire history of the word progressive, something which is intellectually lazy and inaccurate, since, contrary to what you say, a major split within the Democratic party today is between a group which is more traditionally Liberal (hence bougeous and free trade and elitist) and a group which is more progressive (more working class oriented and recognizing the need for government intervention into business).
Dude, words MEAN something and in poltics there is a HISTORY to things. You seem very selective in how you apply those things.
Southern Conservative Democrats? Yeah...they existed right along with other aspects of the LOOSELY ASSOCIATED COALITION called the Democratic Party along with NON-Southern NON-Conservative elements. AND that Southern Democrat group prominently included Lyndon Johnson...remember him? Great Society and the Civil Rights laws that alienated the most conservative of the Democrats. Furthermore, your statement was that the Democrats in that era were more conservative than the Republicans. Not so. Not by a long shot. From the 1920's on the Republicans have pretty solidly been the more conservative party. Despite what you claim.
That was my whole POINT! The Democrats are a COALITION of COMPETING intersts and ideas. Always have been. Mark Twain said as much as have many others since him. I agree. We are a disorganized bunch of squabbling interests who happen to come up with most of the progress that ever happens in Amerca, with the exception of Lincoln and TR and a handful of others in the pre-1920's Republican Party.
history
Submitted by rwallnerny on 21 November 2006 - 3:22pm.
mole, contrary to what you may think, people can and do define things differently. You gave one definition of 'progressive' as if you were a preacher citing gospel and you KNOW you are right. I cited a broader definition which is also cited in various reference books and can also apply. Both definitions are right. The way you use the word progressive does not necessarily have to be the way other people use it. Clearly other people use the word "progressive" in a much more broader sense than you do. This would include those who have become afraid to even utter the word "liberal" because they think the right has stereotyped that word so completely that people can't be objective when they hear it. I argue that the way the word "progressive" is used in political circles today is different than the way it was traditionally used, the way you refer to it.
For instance, when you posted that item on Chris Owens' new group, you referred to the people at the meeting as a bunch of "progressives" You did this regardless of whether it was accurate, because many of them could probably have been more clearly defined as liberals. But you won't use the word "liberals" in an item pushing such an organization, even the phrase "liberals AND progressives" because "liberal" scares people away right? You contribute to this blurring of the lines when you find you can type the word "progressive" a lot easier than you can type the word "liberal" in your posts.
For instance, not all liberals are free traders. Remember the NAFTA debate? It seems like there were plenty of so-called liberals, guys like Ralph Nader and pro-union democrats, who were against that extension of free trade. The definition of liberal I posted earlier, which is just as right as your definition, is:
"A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority"
That definition has nothing to do with bourgeois attitudes or class. Saying the middle class democrats are mostly liberals and the lower class democrats are mostly progressives is really misleading in my opinion. They are all liberals in my mind, IF they ascribe to the philosophy of liberalism defined above. The debate within the democratic party today IMO isn't between progressives and liberals, who are really two sides of the same coin, but between liberals and conservatives. And THAT debate isn't always a class debate, as there are MANY lower class conservatives and MANY rich upper-class liberals.
For instance
Submitted by rwallnerny on 21 November 2006 - 3:33pm.
For instance, why is the richest potential democratic candidate-- John Edwards-- a mega multi-millionaire-- considered a progressive, while John Kerry, also wealthy, is considered a liberal? They believe in many of the same things, and they are not separated by class. What separates them is ideological. So it is far more accurate rather than to differentiate them by progressive vs. liberal to differentiate them by liberal vs. centrist. You can even use a broader definition, as I suggested, and call them BOTH progressives or BOTH liberals. But you don't highlight their differences by glossing over such with one phrase or the other.
What's your point?
Submitted by Bouldin on 21 November 2006 - 4:06pm.
...other than constantly telling other people that no, you're right, and everyone else is wrong? Seriously?
Mole gave you a considered response, and really, all you have by way of reply is a long rant full of vagueness that does nothing but reiterate your point. That point being, presumably, that there is no differenc e between 'liberals' and 'progressives', which is refuted by the points Mole has already made. That's the school of argument that holds repetition to be the key to success.
Silliness. Get a hobby, or a therapist. You seem to spend the livelong day on this blog, preaching at people, insulting them while you're at it, and reveling in how smart you think you are.
An utter waste of time, in short. And don't even bother responding, because I don't intend to.
And since you asked about my point
Submitted by rwallnerny on 21 November 2006 - 5:25pm.
And since you asked specifically what my point was, and since you obviously can't read, I'll say it again-- my point is I believe the debate within the democratic party is not between the progressives and the liberals. The debate in my opinion is between the liberals and the conservatives and centrists. Mole lectured me, I disagreed with him. You got a problem with that? Or is it that only some people, you and mole for instance, can lecture, and the rest of us better not disagree or voice our own opinions or we'll get called names. Bouldin, you really don't understand how juvenile your personal attacks are...
Oh and my post where I disagreed with Mole's post was NOT a rant. It was a perfectly calm argumenative response. Your calling it a rant does not make it so, except maybe in your warped egotistical mind where you think you can control and define everything.
Hmm
Can find a lot of things to quibble with here, but like them Democrats, a party of which I am a proud member, what unites me and Bouldin is certainly greater than what divides us.