home

The New Progressivism: What Do Issues Have To Do With It?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 02:13:37 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

To the New Progressives, nothing:

For me, 'progressive' means 'committed to progress' which may be incremental or sweeping, but which doesn't get bogged down in ideological roadblocks.

This of course leads to the question - what is "progress?" And do issues have anything to do with that? At the end of the day, this campaign to drain issues and ideology from progressivism is self defeating. Better to just call yourself a "Democrat" and stop with the "progressive" part. In fact, there is a model they can use - the Democratic Leadership Council. They were not into "ideological roadblocks" either.

Of course, like there were New Democrats, there could be New Progressives.

Speaking for me only

< Incorporating GOP Ideas | The New "Progressives" >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The New Progressivism: What Do Issues Have To Do With It? | 110 comments (110 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Famous last words (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 02:16:16 PM EST
    "Triangulation is passing your opponent's agenda on your terms and then taking credit for it. Obama is passing his agenda on the terms the system will bear."

    How about: (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 02:30:05 PM EST
    "With the health reform fight over"?

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 02:31:10 PM EST


    Parent
    But of course, it goes without saying ... (none / 0) (#94)
    by BruceMcF on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:33:02 AM EST
    ... that there was never anything that the system would have trouble bearing about Obama's agenda.

    Indeed, triangulation in reality is where the same signal can be received at two distinct locations and you can therefore pin down its location relative to those two locations.

    If you are standing at the same location as the other receiver, and they have just turned their receiver off to pretend that you are not standing in the middle of their turf ... its not really triangulation, now is it?


    Parent

    OMFG (5.00 / 14) (#3)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 02:27:39 PM EST
    A small minority of progressives prefer to judge the president's progressiveness entirely but what he does and not by what he says or who he is.

    Ummmmm, well, yes. Shouldn't we?

    Yet, there is nothing in Obama's personal history nor in his voting record to suggest that he is anything but a committed pragmatic progressive. Fortunately, he is smart enough to understand the political space for progressive policy in our country and the role of a president.

    Alrighty then, he is too smart for us, he works in mysterious ways, and we shall soon see the magic (when he allows us to see it).

    Obama is the leader of the entire country and a shepherd for the Democratic Party.

    Gag me.

    No kidding (5.00 / 8) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 03:49:23 PM EST
    How dare I be so shallow as to judge a man by his deeds instead of his hot air and his organic kitchen garden weeded by his staff.

    Parent
    But it turns out he has a great (none / 0) (#14)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 03:52:42 PM EST
    sense of humor.  Must be worth something, no?

    Parent
    It was on my list of things (5.00 / 9) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 04:25:41 PM EST
    a husband must have :)  But stabbing me in the uterus immediately prevented you from even making the first cut no matter how many boxes you had checked.

    Parent
    I thought of you while watching the video. (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 04:27:31 PM EST


    Parent
    'He's your President, not your Boyfriend' [/Maher] (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by Ellie on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 05:22:31 PM EST
    New Rule.

    In closing, Jeez Louise.

    Parent

    Sheeple (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 04:20:13 PM EST
    Has anybody told Chris Bowers?


    Parent
    He is our Shepherd. (5.00 / 11) (#19)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 04:25:55 PM EST
    We shall not want.

    Parent
    He is our Shepherd we shan't say boo, man (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 05:02:02 PM EST
    just baaah.

    Parent
    Can't ....... stop ...... laughing .... (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 04:42:09 PM EST
    I'm glad you quoted the Booman piece - I don't have the patience to read him.  Seriously funny stuff.

    Obama is the leader of the entire country and a shepherd for the Democratic Party.

    So we the sheeple should just keep quiet and rest easy.  Just keep repeating, "Obama is my shepherd, I shall not want ... Obama is my shepherd, ..."


    Parent

    I shall not want. (none / 0) (#34)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 05:56:59 PM EST


    Parent
    At night (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Warren Terrer on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 10:01:28 PM EST
    he dreams progressive dreams. That's not enough for you? ;-)

    Parent
    Better to (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 02:28:15 PM EST
    Better to just call yourself a "Democrat" and stop with the "progressive" part.

    Better to call yourself a center-rightist than a Democrat OR a progressive.

    This is why I've never liked the term (5.00 / 10) (#7)
    by shoephone on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 02:32:34 PM EST
    "progresive." No one can agreee on what it actually means.

    All I know is, I'm a liberal, and Obama is not.

    I take it that you mean a liberal ... (none / 0) (#95)
    by BruceMcF on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:36:02 AM EST
    ... in the Cold War Liberal sense, in favor of expanded civil rights and a strong defense budget to be able to take on the Soviets if they get too uppity?

    Or was "liberal" just as hard to pin down when it was the preferred moniker?

    Parent

    Progress: A Fiction? (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 02:36:01 PM EST
    The face of the angel of history is turned toward the past.  Where we perceived a chain of events, he sees a single catastrophe which keeps piling wreckage and hurls it in front of his feet.  The angel would like to stay, awaken the dead, and make whole what has been smashed.  But a storm is blowing from Paradise; it has got caught in his wings with such violence that the angel can no longer close them.  This storm irresistably propels him into the future to which his back is turned, while the pile of debris before him grows skyward.  The storm is what we call progress.

    Walter Benjamin's description of aul Klee's painting "Angelus Novus", a painting he owned.

    But if we define progress as moving toward a specific goal.. well then, many will argue about progress because there appear to be many different goals.  

    If I'm unemployed (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 04:23:01 PM EST
    and the banks just took my house, I can't eat a painting and it doesn't work very effectively to keep the falling snow off of my person either.  I enjoy art enormously though.  My life would feel spartan without it, but I don't have art in my life in order to meet maslow's basic needs.  Art requires self actualization in order to be appreciated daily and hourly.  When you are starving or dying from your cancer treatment being denied, it's pretty hard to be self actualized.

    Parent
    Ah, you little realist, you! (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 04:34:56 PM EST


    Parent
    What is Progress? (none / 0) (#25)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 05:13:00 PM EST
    An Opiate.

    X

    The objects which the monastic rules assigned to monks for meditation had the task of making the world and its drives repugnant. The mode of thought which we pursue today comes from a similar determination. It has the intention, at a moment wherein the politicians in whom the opponents of Fascism had placed their hopes have been knocked supine, and have sealed their downfall by the betrayal of their own cause, of freeing the political child of the world from the nets in which they have ensnared it. The consideration starts from the assumption that the stubborn faith in progress of these politicians, their trust in their "mass basis" and finally their servile subordination into an uncontrollable apparatus have been three sides of the same thing. It seeks to give an idea of how dearly it will cost our accustomed concept of history, to avoid any complicity with that which these politicians continue to hold fast to.

    XIII
    Yet every day our cause becomes clearer and the people more clever.

    - Josef Dietzgen, Social Democratic Philosophy

    Social democratic theory, and still more the praxis, was determined by a concept of progress which did not hold to reality, but had a dogmatic claim. Progress, as it was painted in the minds of the social democrats, was once upon a time the progress of humanity itself (not only that of its abilities and knowledges). It was, secondly, something unending (something corresponding to an endless perfectibility of humanity). It counted, thirdly, as something essentially unstoppable (as something self-activating, pursuing a straight or spiral path).

    Each of these predicates is controversial, and critique could be applied to each of them. This latter must, however, when push comes to shove, go behind all these predicates and direct itself at what they all have in common. The concept of the progress of the human race in history is not to be separated from the concept of its progression through a homogenous and empty time. The critique of the concept of this progress must ground the basis of its critique on the concept of progress itself.


    Thesis on the Philosophy of History, Walter Benjamin.

    Progress is a sham... a tool used by those in power to placate those who have hope for a better life.

    Parent

    khayyam (none / 0) (#28)
    by ZtoA on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 05:26:37 PM EST
    Very pre-postmodernist. Maybe so pre, that he is a pre-post postmodernist.

    73
     Ah Love! could thou and I with Fate conspire
     To grasp this sorry Scheme of Things entire,
     Would not we shatter it to bits--and then
     Re-mould it nearer to the Heart's Desire!

    75
     And when Thyself with shining Foot shall pass
     Among the Guests Star-scatter'd on the Grass,
     And in thy joyous Errand reach the Spot
     Where I made one--turn down an empty Glass!

    Parent

    One thing (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by lilburro on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 02:51:20 PM EST
    that struck me about Bowers and strikes me again about Booman, is their conflation of progressive with Democrat.  They throw around this statistic:

    Progressives have been frustrated and/or skeptical of a number of steps taken by the Obama administration, going back all the way to the appointments that were announced during the transition. But, even there, 90% of Democrats were supportive.

    How does that number necessarily reflect the opinion of active progressives?  

    Aside from that, I call BS:  

    1.  We were told to expect transformational change from Obama.
    2.  Is "incremental" progress OK when it comes to the economy?  Because this "Obama is progressive after all" blogosphere conversation is meaningless  when compared to this very reality-based problem.
    3.  Yeah, Obama's Cabinet picks turned out awesome.  Geithner is doing a great job.
    DLC (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by souvarine on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 03:21:28 PM EST
    I came to the conclusion in the primary, given the reaction to many careful posts showing that Obama's staff were DLC and that his campaign proposals mirrored DLC proposals, that a good portion of Obama's online support was ideologically aligned with the DLC and either unaware of their own ideological inclinations or consciously hiding those inclinations.

    Bloggers like Markos, who's antipathy to the DLC is rooted more in rivalry than any substantive difference, conceal their centrism with populist rhetoric. I don't think Bowers understands his own politics well enough to know what he is, but the DLC best articulates the interests of his favorite demographic segment, the "creative class". In contrast Ed Kilgore, a proud DLC centrist, has examined his own ideas and also taken to time to study and understand the ideas of his opponents from the right and left. Kilgore does a better job articulating how progressives could win than most of the self-proclaimed progressive bloggers.

    Process victories in service of (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 03:32:58 PM EST
    something that, in the hands of Bowers and Booman and others, resembles a serious case of hero worship.  

    Obama is all about the process.  He wants to win, and chooses policy that will enable him to do so, even if it doesn't reflect the party's platform or the interests of those who call themselves "progressives" or those that know they are liberals.  That's why he's all over the place, it seems, veering from one side of the issue to the other, and back again, while polls tick up and down and votes appear and disappear, and wherever it is when the votes are in the bag is "the policy."  It's packaged like what everyone wanted, but the quality of the product leaves much to be desired.

    It's not about the policy, it's about "victory!" and that is why we are getting a paltry serving of lukewarm gruel out back by the servants' entrance, while corporate America is ushered to their white linen-covered tables and served multiple course, Bocuse d'Or-level meals with appropriate wine pairings.  

    "Progressives" are not making progress on policy, as much as they have allowed Obama to make progress closer to the other side of the aisle, and even try out the seats occasionally; he may have re-written the book on process - and the process that resulted in "victory" on health reform is going to be used again and again to bring us a whole lot more gruel-gone-bad before too long.

    If there were such a word as "processive," that's where I think the Bowers- and Booman-style "progressives" are, so in love with process because it allows them to ignore the defeats on policy.

    Has it always been this crazy?

    Honestly (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 04:25:54 PM EST
    Code Pink would have done this regardless of anything that happened recently.

    I have had mixed feelings about Code Pink (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 04:53:41 PM EST
    doings, not that they give a rip :)  They do speak for a certain social conscience though, and often the room will be divided in response to a Code Pink outburst.  This one was great though!  It was effing great!  They nailed his disgusting a$$ and there was no "social" energy in the room capable of launching an authentic counterprotest.  I swear to God I loved watching it.  And I loved watching Rove generate his own unfounded yet emotional counter.  It is what he is good at, and he provides an excellent demonstration of the service he provides to those who long to be thoughtless yet still emotionally reactionary.

    Parent
    This is an old debating trick: (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 06:51:02 PM EST
    When you know you're losing an argument, you attempt to redefine one of the basic terms of the debate.

    The purpose is to draw your opponent into this new argument.

    It rarely works.  And it's not working here.

    This place hasn't changed much (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 06:56:40 PM EST
    Glad to see that you guys seem more than comfortable laying everything that is wrong with the HCR bill at Obama's feet.

    Sure it took him a year to get even this passed.  Sure he risked his entire Presidency on getting what he did get.  But if he was a TRUE leader he would have convinced Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln to give up their DINO ways and embrace a progressive view on, well, anything.  

    From a policy standpoint this bill doesn't do nearly enough and does some things I'm not keen about.  That's what happens in a democracy.  But had the Democrats pushed any harder they likely they would have failed miserably.  The midterms would have been a bloodbath because Republican smears would still be propagated by the like of Fox News as gospel truth.  Health care and every other policy objective would be over.  The Republican's policy of obstruct at every step would have been vindicated.

    BTD, what happened to your political savvy?  Do you really think that Obama could have strong armed the likes of Lincoln, Nelson and Joementum?  

    It seems to me that the greatest success of this bill isn't the policy aspects but that it was passed at all.  The Republicans lies can now be exposed for what they are.  More steps can be taken in the future.  Failure would have meant 15-20 more years whistling past the graveyard.

    The Democrats have the momentum.  Now it's time to build it.  Hit the Republicans on finance reform.    

    This bill failing would have been far worse than passing an even more tepid measure.

    Lincoln and Nelson voted against reconciliation (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 09:40:31 PM EST
    And yet it passed. Imagine that?

    BTW, I am not even discussing Obama here, but the new progressives.

    Can you imagine that I am cynical about pols and ask for something more from progressives on this?

    Nope. you can;t. Same old flyerhawk.

    Parent

    H (none / 0) (#74)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 09:55:02 PM EST
    Sure, if there weren't a filibuster then things would be considerably different.   A more far reaching bill could have passed.  

    The New Progressive are the same as the Old Progressives.  There are broken into the pragmatists and the idealists.   Idealists fight for ideological purity and the pragmatists fight to actually get things done.  Both are necessary in their own.  Without the pragmatists the idealists would be howling at the wind.  Without the idealists the pragmatists would drift away from their own principles.

    This is the way it is.  While you may get upset with the pragmatists, they ARE crucial to anything getting done.  

    It just seems to me that the better target for your ire should be the ones that are truly the opponents of your objectives.

    FTR, being cynical about pols is easy.  Personally I am more cynical about voters.

    Parent

    Not my point at all (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 10:05:55 PM EST
    Progressives can be pragmatic, indeed need to be.

    But I do think they need to ne HONEST and REALISTIC.

    When you lose, you lose. Saying you won when you lost is counterproductive.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#77)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 10:17:03 PM EST
    the policy itself certainly isn't a victory.  But politically this was a pretty big win for the Democrats, particularly the guys dealing with the midterms.

    Parent
    And the shouldn't be affraid to point out (none / 0) (#78)
    by Salo on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 10:57:42 PM EST
    That the bill has the ovious flaw of having a mandate without a PO. Which will eventually turn into some version of Enron.

    Parent
    I hate my iPhone sometimes. (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by Salo on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 10:58:23 PM EST


    Parent
    Well sure (none / 0) (#80)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 11:02:51 PM EST
    However, IMO, I don't think now is the time to expect to see elected Democrats criticizing the bill they spent a year getting passed.

    I think the PO is vital in the long run.  Actually single payer is where we need to go.  But that can't happen overnight.  And sometimes we have to realize that politics can't just be ignored.

    Parent

    The politics were, and are (none / 0) (#85)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 11:16:42 PM EST
    that having a public option or expanding Medicare are widely popular among the public and even the Dem. senators, but Obama bargained that away from the get-go in return for reduced opposition from the insurance and for-profit hospital industry plus the hope of a big chunk of campaign cash for Dems.

    So "politics" me no "politics," please.  The politics of this thing were determined by Obama, not the people or the politicians outside the White House.

    Parent

    Fine (none / 0) (#86)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 11:25:35 PM EST
    So you prefer to blame Obama rather than Joe "I will never vote for a public option" Lieberman, Ben "DINO" Nelson, and Blanche "I'm terrified of the conservatives" Lincoln.  

    You realize that the Democrats barely had a super-majority prior to Scott Brown?  And, like it or not, guys like the above and the other Blue Dogs had tremendous influence on what was in the bill.  

    Perhaps Obama could have strongarmed those guys to get them to yield but that is unlikely.  Instead it would have meant huge concessions.  Not because of the insurance industry or for-profit hospitals but because the Blue Dogs have to worry about getting re-elected.

    Parent

    Joe was scoundrel of the week. (none / 0) (#88)
    by Salo on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 11:28:19 PM EST
    It was high level collusion.

    Parent
    I honestly don't even know (none / 0) (#90)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 11:36:18 PM EST
    what that means?

    Maybe he was the scoundrel of the week to you but he is the scoundrel of the decade to me.   And to pretend that he is a kept man of the Democrats is to just ignore the past 6 years.

    Parent

    I'm not so sure that public option (none / 0) (#99)
    by dk on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 08:45:53 AM EST
    or expanding Medicare is "widely popular" among Dem. Senators.  While a stronger President may have been able to twist enough arms in the Senate to get a positive outcome, I actually believe Obama when he said that there were not 50 votes for a public option in the Senate.  

    Blaming the Nelsons and the Pryors etc. is a red herring in my opinion.  There were many others.

    Parent

    Though, I should also point (none / 0) (#100)
    by dk on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 08:47:28 AM EST
    out I agree with gryfalcon that means that the senate is out of touch with the majority of Americans, who I think from the polls would be quite favorable toward a Medicare buy in or some other public system in which all Americans (not the small percentage that would have had the chance under the House bill) would have been able to participate.

    Parent
    My point wasn't (none / 0) (#101)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 09:10:26 AM EST
    to blame Nelson specifically.  I was simply pointing out that Obama wasn't the obstacle to a public option.

    Parent
    This flaw will transform the system into (none / 0) (#87)
    by Salo on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 11:26:56 PM EST
    A very predictable mess. They are still profit driven companies.

    Parent
    No more (none / 0) (#89)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 11:30:15 PM EST
    than the mess it is currently in.

    And this law makes it MORE likely for greater changes to occur in the future.

    Parent

    What's interesting (none / 0) (#97)
    by lilburro on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 08:03:24 AM EST
    about this comment is it seems to me that you don't believe the PO was ever possible.  Which is fine.  

    But people like Booman explicitly laid out exactly how Obama was not going to betray progressives on the Public Option.  This diary for example.  And there are maaaaany others.

    The issue at hand is that the PO was the progressives' favorite part of the bill.  There were strategies that could have been used to pass it (The Schumer Plan).  It did not pass.

    So do you say "Obama, you p*ssed me off, when do I get mine?"  Or do you say "Obama did the best he could" and pretty much negate your ability to complain about being shafted, and use those complaints to get something else that you want?

    Parent

    Personally (none / 0) (#102)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 09:13:32 AM EST
    I complain when I feel that someone betrayed the agenda I expect them to carry out.

    If I honestly feel that Obama and the leadership did the best they could reasonably expect to, why would I complain about them?

    Parent

    Was the public option (none / 0) (#103)
    by lilburro on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:03:58 AM EST
    on your agenda?  If it was you would have reason to complain.  

    If you didn't expect Obama to carry out the PO, then there would be no reason to complain.

    Parent

    and (none / 0) (#105)
    by lilburro on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:08:04 AM EST
    if you did expect Obama to carry out the PO, then I think you must realize that a) lack of a PO was an important failure and the effectiveness of progressives and progressives in the House and Congress needs to be evaluated or b) that Obama was just playing with you, and did not care about it one way or another.

    This is important to me because the people who wanted FDL to shut up in the beginning did so because they simply believed Obama would get the PO in.  Which was obviously an ill-founded belief, as it was merely a bargaining chip.  We know this because of the for-profit hospital lobbying story and from watching the debate.  So clearly just believing Obama is going to do something does not work as a strategy.  But I doubt that strategy is going to lose much traction.

    Parent

    Here's the thing (none / 0) (#108)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:35:45 AM EST
    My PRIMARY objective isn't a public option.  It isn't even health care reform.

    My PRIMARY objective is changing the entire tone of political discourse in America.  It's making it so that liberalism stops being a 4 letter word.  I want liberals to start setting the agenda rather than reacting to the conservative agenda.

    Did I want a public option?  Yes.  Until we have one, our health care system will continue to be screwed.

    OTOH, did I want the health care debate to continue on until the mid-terms?  No.  Did I want to do something that

    The political victory supersedes the policy outcome.  

    Parent

    #56 Flyerhawk (none / 0) (#106)
    by ZtoA on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:18:39 AM EST
    "Do you really think that Obama could have strong armed the likes of Lincoln, Nelson and Joementum?"

    Of course Obama could have. And Obama is responsible for his strategy, he takes blame and credit. He has much stronger arms than you are admitting.

    Do you really think the real foes of any bill were these three senators? That Obama just walked into a room and said "Oh! there's these three senators! Now what are we to do?" Nonsense. The real foes were dealt with much earlier and deals were made with the huge lobbying interests involved.

    I think there is room for legitimate disagreement and debate on whether this is desirable or not,   but I really think Obama's strategy was to find a way FIRST with corporate powers, and then see whatever else could be done. The important part was the deal with corporate powers. Otherwise none of it would have happened. (at least it is asserted that non of it would have happened if the corporate beasts were not fed first).

    IMO this is not DLCish so much as DLC cubed. Maybe repub-ish. Probably does not matter, as it works. I think pragmatists would argue this.

    Parent

    But those are just assertions (none / 0) (#109)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:41:56 AM EST
    We can always blame the nefarious corporate interests for anything with want to.  

    HOWEVER, what we DO KNOW is voting records and public statements.  What we do know is that Joe Lierberman said this back in October.....

    ""We're trying to do too much at once," Lieberman said. "To put this government-created insurance company on top of everything else is just asking for trouble for the taxpayers, for the premium payers and for the national debt. I don't think we need it now.

    Back in May of 2009 Ben Nelson said he would build a "coalition of like-minded centrists opposed to the creation of a public plan, as a counterweight to Democrats pushing for it."

    And to be clear, I am NOT talking about just these 3.  They were just the most glaring examples.

    You can't just ignore political leverage.  With universal opposition by the Republicans, and no hope of any sort of defections, the Blue Dogs had enormous leverage.   I don't understand why you guys think that Obama could somehow overcome political realities and do whatever he wanted.  Even George Washington couldn't do that.

    Parent

    What are just assertions? (none / 0) (#110)
    by ZtoA on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:05:59 PM EST
    I did not say corporations were nefarious. They, (like the people the SCOTUS seems to think they are) are simply out for their own interests. Simple.

    But they are very powerful and will fight for their interests. Yes, yes, yes, political leverage is important, but much less so than corporate leverage.

    Lots of this TV and radio hoo-ha is distracting. It was the deals with corporate players that set the stage where the characters played their parts.

    I think Obama did exactly what he wanted, and his strategy, is, frankly, brilliant. Agree with it or not, I think it was brilliant. I bet he uses it again. He had to work with corporate power, political power (some insane opposition, tho as you pointed out he did have a mere supermajority in both houses), and public opinion. Corporations did not want single payer or a meaningful PO, the public did, and the political players did their loud thing. He organized that neighborhood and got a bill and he did it by prioritizing the players as to their power/importance.

    All the "Obama actually wanted a PO, but poor dude could not manage it and it was not his fault", IS flat out assertion.  It assigns populist liberal ideologies to him that he does not seem to actually have and then it makes him out as weaker and less effective than he actually is. Speaking for "me guys" only.

    Parent

    Fair enough (none / 0) (#111)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:23:10 PM EST
    I've never thought of Obama as an ideologue.  On the contrary he has always seemed to me to be a center-left pragmatists.

    Parent
    But, didn't the President just say (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 02:25:47 PM EST
    he got HCR passed on GOP terms and point out Bill Clinton couldn't do it but he did?

    I don't think "progressive" (none / 0) (#26)
    by ZtoA on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 05:18:14 PM EST
    has any real tangible meaning. It is sort of like "modern". I remember my mother telling me that when she was young she wanted to be "modern". It was very important. I asked her what that meant and she said "not to be old fashioned".

    That may sound like a simple statement, but IMO it is a very deep way individuals define themselves and when enough of them do so it creates a cultural movement. People now want to be "progressive". It is just something to be, like modern (except that "modern" is so old fashioned now).

    BTD your view that Obama has "media appeal" really hits the target. We all like to see Obama looking cool using his blackberry. These visual messages are more important than most realize.

    assdk (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 05:38:34 PM EST
    We all like to see Obama looking cool using his blackberry. These visual messages are more important than most realize.

    Speaking for YOU only.

    "We all" don't like anything of the sort. When people wonder if they'll have a job tomorrow or where their next rent check is coming from, how cool Obama looks with his blackberry is not even on the radar screen.

    Parent

    Obama gets great comfort from his (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 06:17:12 PM EST
    blackberry. link

    According to The Hill,  Obama's daily diet includes a 'prayer devotional' that he gets delivered to his Blackberry:

    Obama is the first president to carry one of the mobile devices, and said that he uses it to read prayers sent to him by several pastors from around the country who prayed with him during the 2008 campaign.


    Parent
    I laughed when he was asked by Matt Lauer (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 06:19:39 PM EST
    what he and his family had decided about attending a church.  My father, who was a Protestant minister, used to rail against people who sd. they were worshipping God on the golf course on Sunday mornings.  

    Parent
    Had Gore won (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 06:28:01 PM EST
    ...well had the Supreme Court not played Republican politics....

    then Gore would have been the first prez to use a Blackberry.  Would he have looked as cool?  (LOL!)  Was it even possible for Gore to look "cool"?

    Parent

    And (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 06:32:07 PM EST
    And Gore even invented the internet (I kid).  Without Gore, "Facebook" would have been what happens when you slam your face in a book.

    Parent
    Can't think of a soul who I think looks cool (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 08:24:49 PM EST
    using a Blackberry. I don't even remember being impressed by those things when they were brand new. I like it when the boss is gone and out of touch/reach. Those darn devices make micromanagers out of people trying to look cool using them.

    Parent
    I'm a neanderthal, I guess (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 11:06:35 PM EST
    Can't understand the appeal of those things at all, at all.  Don't even own a cell phone, never answer my home phone unless the caller ID (best invention since sliced bread, IMO) shows it's somebody I feel like talking to right that very minute.

    Parent
    Me Too (none / 0) (#91)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 11:40:51 PM EST
    I have the same setup, and no cell phone.

    Parent
    don't know what assdk means (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by ZtoA on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 08:06:15 PM EST
    but I was being a bit tongue in cheek with the blackberry comment. Plus, I'm seriously attached to my Iphone. And I only look cool to some people who really love me and are lying if they say I look cool.

    But my point was that image counts. It may not count with everyone (probably not you or other sharp minded individuals) but it counts with a lot of "progressives". Just my opinion. And I'm not saying image is some stupid superficial thing. In fact it is not, it is a very deep and integral part of self identity and cultural identity. In fact, reality (policies in this case) will be ignored and even sacrificed if the image is threatened. This is what I got from Booman's post.

    Do I LIKE this? Does it matter? I suppose that is another discussion.

    Parent

    You have a need to look cool, and be told (none / 0) (#64)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 08:32:51 PM EST
    so?

    I don't remember ever over-hearing anyone in a public place exclaim someone else looked cool because they had a hand-held device of any kind. A pair of Jimmy Choo shoes, yes. But, technology is just too common and even the Seniors are using them.


    Parent

    I see (none / 0) (#66)
    by ZtoA on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 08:37:55 PM EST
    my feeble attempts at jokes fall flat.

    Parent
    Naw, I chuckled (none / 0) (#68)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 08:52:42 PM EST
    when I read it....and know your commenting well enough to believe you aren't that shallow. Just wanted clarification :)

    Parent
    Glad you did (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by ZtoA on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 09:01:01 PM EST
    NOT want photographic clarification!

    Parent
    And besides (none / 0) (#31)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 05:39:57 PM EST
    He should be using an iPhone, much cooler than a Blackberry.

    But I kid.  My original message still stands.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#33)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 05:50:04 PM EST
    Now you are talking... lol

    Parent
    Well, he gets a daily religious (none / 0) (#35)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 05:59:15 PM EST
    inspirational message via his Blackberry.

    Parent
    Nonsense (none / 0) (#32)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 05:49:09 PM EST
    If you were honest you would reduce the statement to something like
    we all don't like looking at Obama.

    As it has nothing to do with the poor blackberry, but Obama. iow, the blackberry is the proverbial baby in you view..

    Even for those who are financially strung out, new technology is very appealing... the lure of progress, no? A basic tenant of capitalism

    I do not think that the people you are referring to are communists.

    Parent

    Not liking (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 06:04:47 PM EST
    Obama's policies is not the same as not liking Obama.

    I'm sure Mr. Obama is a very nice man.  It's just that superficial nonsense like how cool he looks texting means nothing to serious people.

    If you don't get that, I can't help you.

    Parent

    And (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 06:06:08 PM EST
    That has nothing to do with capitalism or not.  He was talking about cool-ness, not capitalism.

    You are so stuck in that meme, that "oooh, everyone hates my man" you don't see the forest for the trees.

    He's your president, he's not your boyfriend.

    Parent

    BS (none / 0) (#39)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 06:16:32 PM EST
    This has everything to do with capitalism. Everyone, likes looking at the Blackberry, or should I say those who do not have the means to get anything close to that shiny object.

    And I am not stuck in anything, just pointing out the fact that the  distinction you made, only has to do with Obama, not his blackberry.

    It is rather obvious.

    Parent

    Although certain of my friends become (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 06:18:14 PM EST
    very irritated when I look at my Blackberry.

    Parent
    My daughter can't focus (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 06:42:14 PM EST
    on a present conversation without the text ringading going off that someone has texted her.  She has two small children and alot of daily challenges that need addressed.  I itch to snatch the thing and chuck it out the backdoor constantly.

    Parent
    My ex-husband now texts instead (none / 0) (#53)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 06:44:41 PM EST
    of e mails or calls.  He blames it on his younger daughters.  Kind of funny.

    Parent
    I remember when I was stronger person (none / 0) (#57)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 06:57:00 PM EST
    who didn't need so much voiceless conversation to enjoy my days :)

    Parent
    And I remember when I didn't answer (none / 0) (#58)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 06:57:57 PM EST
    the house phone.  It meant I was busy with a life and it was okay that I had one :)

    Parent
    Why? (none / 0) (#46)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 06:24:50 PM EST
    Is it because your are not being present?

    Is it because they can't afford a blackberry and are jealous?

    Or is it because you should have gotten an iPod?

    Parent

    Because I am not 24/7 paying attention (none / 0) (#47)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 06:26:08 PM EST
    to them.  (Problem is I can't read the damn thing under the table like the really cool people do.)

    Parent
    Perhaps he's even kewl enuf to be sexting. (none / 0) (#83)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 11:10:29 PM EST
    I don't know what this statement means TIS, do you:  
    iow, the blackberry is the proverbial baby in you view..


    Parent
    New tech is not always (none / 0) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 06:38:50 PM EST
    appealing to me.  Just ask my husband.  All these freakin phones and stupid computers and drives and mp3 players, and just when I can finally find my butt and the stupid phone at the same time the damn thing is outdated.  I can get enthused by a new Dyson, but I have a sort of "cleaning" personal problem that I can't say is always healthy.

    Parent
    New tech only gets to be cool (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 11:51:59 PM EST
    during the lead-up phase -- from teaser preview to release. As soon as the lineup outside the tech stores has made it all the way through the check stand the cool is done -- 'cause enough people have them to eliminate the element of unique that is required to be cool.

    Now, show me someone wearing a new pair of Jimmy Choo's and you've found cool.

    Parent

    What's a blackberry? (none / 0) (#81)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 11:03:40 PM EST
    I don't know, must be cuz I'm so far out there on the bleeding edge of technology.

    Parent
    I don't need my president to look cool, (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 08:27:36 PM EST
    or even BE cool; that's just not one of my deal-breakers.  I've known some seriously cool people in my almost-57 years, and for some of them, that's all they had going for them - the coooool.

    People in positions like the presidency certainly need to be able to connect with people; that's part of being a leader, part of making people know that you're in control and all is well.  Fail to connect and even great ideas will fail to resonate.

    But watching someone handle a Blackberry just doesn't do that for me; it breaks a connection of attention and focus.

    I'm jaded and cynical and I have a pretty sensitive BS detector; the needle went off the dial with Obama pretty early, despite my best efforts to ignore it.  I don't get sincerity from him, or conviction, or commitment to something bigger than himself - and all the cool in the world doesn't give those things to him, or make up for their absence, sorry.

    Parent

    No need to say "sorry" !! (none / 0) (#65)
    by ZtoA on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 08:36:41 PM EST
    I actually agree with you. Image is not necessary for me, and I've already defined my basic identity and do not need to do it again. It is a great benefit that comes with age (and hopefully maturity).

    But I'm trying to posit that what we are seeing is a systemic.... a cultural shift in identity. Of course not everyone agrees and this feels like a cultural transition time. So tensions are high. But the battlefield is image, which is one reason politics is so extremely frustrating to those who care about and/or know policy. The battlefield is image is the basic deep way the culture defines itself. It seemed clear reading Booman that this was an identity issue for him, not policy.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#71)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 09:01:55 PM EST
    Times are a changing. Your radar did pick up something rather contemporary, if not cool.

    There has never been a President who was photographer using a blackberry. The fact that the POTUS holding a blackberry is so normal, to the point of being mundane, is one marker that we are in a different era, so to speak.

    Parent

    Meaningless or Not (none / 0) (#30)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 05:39:15 PM EST
    The term implies moving forward. It is not possible to escape that connotation, nor is it easy to escape the literal meaning of  progress.

    The question is what are we progressing to? Does it have an endpoint? Or is it a perpetual loop of dissatisfaction/desire/failure akin to Tantalus

     

    Parent

    Ridiculous.... (none / 0) (#38)
    by masslib on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 06:13:02 PM EST
    You could move forward straight off a cliff.

    Parent
    Lemming-like? (none / 0) (#43)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 06:20:37 PM EST


    Parent
    My Point Exactly (none / 0) (#44)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 06:22:37 PM EST
    The notion of progress as it is commonly understood, is a fiction.

    It is an illusion that progress promises things are getting better, as progress can equally mean falling off a cliff.

    That is why Benjamin urges a critical look at the word in the scope of homogenous empty time.

    In relation to the history of organic life on Earth," notes a recent biologist, "the miserable fifty millennia of homo sapiens represents something like the last two seconds of a twenty-four hour day. The entire history of civilized humanity would, on this scale, take up only one fifth of the last second of the last hour." The here-and-now, which as the model of messianic time summarizes the entire history of humanity into a monstrous abbreviation, coincides to a hair with the figure, which the history of humanity makes in the universe.

    link

    Parent

    The term "progressive" has (none / 0) (#45)
    by observed on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 06:23:10 PM EST
    had a fairly concrete meaning in US politics.
    I can tell you're enjoying your riffs, but they're no more relevant than discussing what the Republican party is by referencing Plato's Republic.


    Parent
    OK (none / 0) (#49)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 06:30:21 PM EST
    Well you should address your complaint to the management, as it was he who asked the question.

    This of course leads to the question - what is "progress?" And do issues have anything to do with that?

    But I guess you missed that.

    Parent

    I'm going to have to review some Benjamin (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by ZtoA on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 08:28:07 PM EST
    but the words "progress" and "progressive" do not seem to share much. The words are not meaningful in the way they used to be. They are being re-defined.

    We need to also consider the word "progression".

    "Progress" might be an idea one could prove is illogical or not true, but it feels true. At least it feels true within a cycle. Spring is progressing in my area, daffodils have given way to soprano soloist blooming cherry trees, and soon the chorus of rodies and tulips will start. Then progress to fruit, then the seed, then rest. Progress as a straight line up --never ending with some allusive goal in mind-- is maybe an illusion, but progression is not. And it is just common sense, everyone knows this.

    And this is part of my point, progressives do not deal with progress, but image and self identity which is a progression from modernity.

    Parent

    Straight Line? (none / 0) (#67)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 08:41:28 PM EST
    Spring is progressing in my area, daffodils have given way to soprano soloist blooming cherry trees, and soon the chorus of rodies and tulips will start. Then progress to fruit, then the seed, then rest.

    Sounds more like a circle to me.

    Is going around in a circle progress? Benjamin pointed out that the perpetual [empty] promise that progress offers, through the ever rearranging "new", be it technology or fashion, is what is to be disturbed by revolution.

    The current state of now is more like a speeding train that has lost its brakes. Pulling the emergency brake is akin to revolution.

    Parent

    Squeaky, (#67) Well, I suppose so (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by ZtoA on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 08:59:58 PM EST
    in a way. In the Buddhist way, where karma (the original and enduring energizing force of material existence) is destroyed and all existence stops into an endless timeless moment and pure mind.

    You ask if circulinear movement is progress and I said it was not progress but progression. There is repetition in progression. frankly, Squeaky, I think we are saying the same thing. - about progress that is.

    But whatever Benjamin (who most people haven't heard of or care about) or anyone else says about cultural notions of progress is not what I am arguing. I'm arguing the word "progressive" is being used as a basic cultural identity in a similar way that "modern" was. Definition of progress will come after the new identity of progressive is more settled.

    I'm probably not being very clear. Apologies. I have excuses, but won't bore you. :)

    Parent

    oops (none / 0) (#72)
    by ZtoA on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 09:16:40 PM EST
    sorry was not clear. My first paragraph was in reference to the word "revolution".

    Parent
    I think you're perfectly clear (none / 0) (#84)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 11:10:41 PM EST
    and those are some very good insights.  So there.

    Keep 'em coming.

    Parent

    You are Being Clear (none / 0) (#93)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:17:34 AM EST
    I am only arguing that, despite whether any progress is being made, the name progressive, progression, etc, instantly signifies progress, whether or not the group that identifies with that name actually delivers, or has anything at all to do with progress.

    And sometimes progress can be linear and go off a cliff, or sometimes it can be a circle and develop, but moving forward is what the name implies. Progress often feels good, despite whether or not any actual progress is being made, in the larger sense.

    But all in all I am extremely suspicious of politicians when they talk about progress and the future, because you can bet that it is some sort of snow job. Benjamin was writing during the rise of Fascism in germany, progress was all the rage. Still is today.

    And as far as history as a progression (improving, civilization), I am deeply skeptical. Identifying with progress is mostly self serving flattery, imo.  

    And as far as worrying about being a bore, it seems unlikely, imo.

    Parent

    I completely agree (none / 0) (#104)
    by ZtoA on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:04:24 AM EST
    I woke up this morning thinking "yes, "progressive" is a much better term than, say, "lettuce leaf head"". (besides the Green Party might feel threatened) It essentially means nothing, but implies all sorts of feel good emotions. Obviously, I need more coffee.

    Parent
    lol (none / 0) (#107)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:23:36 AM EST
    "progressive" is a much better term than, say, "lettuce leaf head"".

    good one, and nice empathy for the greens...

    Parent

    True enough. I was just remembering (none / 0) (#54)
    by observed on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 06:45:09 PM EST
    that you posted a wikipedia definiton of "Progressive" a couple days ago.

    Parent
    Actually I enjoyed the comments.. I (none / 0) (#59)
    by observed on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 07:00:47 PM EST
    missed the point. My bad.. been flipping between posts.

    Parent
    interesting comment. (none / 0) (#98)
    by lilburro on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 08:20:27 AM EST
    part of the problem IMO is the definition of progressive is not universally defined.  It seems to me there are two definitions and people switch between them.  One definition is more or less like "Liberal" and the other is more a measurement of whether any policy has moved to the left (even slightly).  So when Chris Bowers argues the health care bill is progressive right before it passes, he does so using the second definition.  By the first definition it is not as much.

    So now Booman says "any change, any change at all is fine!"  But he most firmly believed that the President had a plan to pass the public option all along, because the President is a "progressive," whatever that means to him.  Instead of trying to determine why the PO did not pass and reassessing his evaluation of Obama (because the whole secret PO plan was based on some understanding of Obama as a committed progressive) he just switches definitions.  Which is what I find obnoxious and dishonest.

    Parent

    All to often 'NEW' is an acronym for ... (none / 0) (#96)
    by BruceMcF on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:38:08 AM EST
    ... No Effing Way ... at least in Economics.

    NEW Keynesian is No Effing Way Keynesian.
    NEW Classical is No Effing Way Classical.
    NEW Institutionalist is No Effing Way Institutionalist.

    NEW Progressive as No Effing Way Progressive would seem par for the course.

    The New Progressivism: What Do Issues Have To Do With It? | 110 comments (110 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment