Views » March 2, 2008 » Web Only

Liberals, Progressives and the Left

By Ken Brociner

The term “progressive” has evolved a great deal over the past 35 years.

By the ’70s, many ’60s veterans had concluded that working “within the system” had become a viable option. As a result, many leftists stopped using rhetoric and slogans that had marginalized them from the political mainstream. Labels like “radical”, “leftist”, and “revolutionary” sounded stale and gratuitously provocative. And so, gradually, activists began to use the much less threatening “progressive.” Today, “progressive” is the term of choice for practically everyone who has a politics that used to be called “radical.”

On a somewhat parallel track, in the ’80s, liberal politicians found themselves under attack by the Reagan inspired right-wing of the Republican Party. Soon, conservatives succeeded in changing “liberal” into something akin to a dirty word and liberal politicians began to avoid any association with the term whatsoever.

By the early ’90s more and more Democratic politicians began referring to themselves as being “progressive.” For most of the ’90s, though, this shift was so gradual that only the closest political observers seemed to even notice it. Notably, the progressive label was not only picked up by liberals like Ted Kennedy, but also by centrists like Bill Clinton and his cohorts in the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC).

In fact, during the Clinton administration a tug of war ensued between centrists, liberals, and the left over who owned “progressive.” But by the end of the ’90s, “progressive” belonged to the left-wing of the Democratic party as well as to those activists who had one foot in the party and one foot outside of it—to its left.

Since 2001, “progressive” has become considerably more vague in its meaning and application. With a hard right-wing administration in power, the differences between various left of center groups and politicians became less important than the need to stand up in opposition to Bush’s disastrous policies.

************

Since it now appears all but certain that Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee for president, let’s assume—for the moment at least—that he also wins the general election. With Obama in the White House, the left would at last be able to go on the offense—especially if the Democrats can expand their majorities in the House and, most importantly, in the Senate.

Then what? Obviously we would need to help support Obama’s legislative initiatives against the fierce opposition he would face from big business and its Republican allies. But since most progressives see themselves as being to Obama’s left, the question then arises as to how we might push his administration further to the left.

Three basic organizational strategies could be pursued:

1. Building “a party within a party.”

2. Constructing a multi-issue progressive coalition to pull the Democrats to the left.

3. Proceeding in an ad-hoc manner to advance the progressive agenda on an issue-by-issue basis.

The first strategy is being employed on Capitol Hill by the Congressional Progressive Caucus. The 72 members of Congress who make up the Progressive Caucus are left-leaning Democrats who have drawn up an agenda called “The Progressive Promise: Fairness for All” that clearly positions the Caucus on the left-wing of the Democratic Party.

Co-chaired by California Reps. Barbara Lee and Lynn Woolsey, the Progressive Caucus regularly rallies support for causes and legislation that have yet to be embraced by their more “moderate” colleagues in the House and Senate. While the Progressive Caucus hasn’t been able to win passage of any of its legislative priorities, it is widely seen by grassroots activists as providing the movement with an important voice in the corridors of power in Washington.

The “party-within-a party” strategy is also the approach being followed by the Progressive Democrats of America. PDA is in the process of trying to build chapters across the country in order to move the Democrats to the left. So far, though, it has had only very limited success. Perhaps most significantly, the progressive movement itself hasn’t gravitated toward either PDA or its general strategy.

While few progressives would disagree with the desirability of having one grand progressive coalition, those who are most familiar with all the ins and outs of organizational politics on the left argue that such a coalition isn’t in the cards—at least not for the foreseeable future. The reasons for this include: the differences in the agendas of many of the largest progressive organizations—especially those in the labor movement; the all too frequent inter-organizational rivalries and clashing egos; and the genuine differences that exist when it comes to what strategies should be pursued in the first place.

So by process of elimination, we are left with the “ad-hoc, issue by issue strategy” (or non-strategy if you will). Given the shifting nature of groups that mobilize around one issue or another, this ad-hoc approach is the most realistic and viable strategy at our disposal (even if it does lack the strategic coherence that the other two might offer).

Ironically even though this “strategy” has rarely been spelled out, let alone given a name, it has, in fact, been the primary approach that the progressive movement has utilized since Bush became president in 2001.

The grassroots coalition that came together in 2005 to defeat Bush’s attempt to privatize social security is a highly successful example of this “issue by issue” approach—which will almost certainly be the de-facto strategy of the progressive movement in the years ahead.

Another key advantage of this approach is that it doesn’t require the same degree of ideological unity that would be required by the other two strategies. It allows moderate- liberal Democrats and leftists to continue to cohabitate under the progressive banner. And, given the strength and power of our common adversaries, maintaining a mutually beneficial relationship between mainstream Democrats and the left is of the utmost importance for the future of the progressive movement.

• Help In These Times publish more articles like this. Donate today!
• Subscribe today and save 46% off the newsstand price!

• subscribe to print magazine

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  I really think this article misses the mark in some very important ways.  With regards to option 1, there’s no discussion of DFA, one of the more prominent groups advocating something like a “party within a party” strategy.  DFA is significantly more successful than PDA, and has more than a handful of victories under its belt, and they are very well integrated into the progressive movement.  Moreover, the Progressive Caucus has had some success with its agenda - the minimum wage was raised, EFCA passed the House, and so on.

  With regards to the multi-issue groups, I was surprised to read no mention of MoveOn, one of the most successful multi-issue coalition groups in recent memory, also clearly well enmeshed within the progressive movement.

  The option cited as the most obvious by process of elimination has not been in effect since 2001; it’s been in effect for at least a few decades, and it gets less successful with each passing year.  Our success with Social Security was the product of a broad coalition that included DFA and MoveOn, two groups who clearly represent options 1 and 2 respectively, and I think that fact undermines the conclusion of this piece.

  Posted by ssachs on Mar 2, 2008 at 9:40 PM

  Your point about DFA is well taken, but it is far from clear that DFA stands to the left of Obama. A quck glance at DFA’s website reveals very little about where it stands on any important issues - other than it suports candidates who are “socially progressive and fiscally responsible.” While there is, of course,  nothing wrong with “fiscal responsibility “, it’s pretty clear that the use of such rhetoric typically doesn’t lend itself to the kind of expansive social programs that the left considers basic to its agenda. No surprise here - after all Howard Dean is not really on or of the left.

  As for the two pieces of legislation you refer to in the first par., was the increase in the minimum wage a Prog Caucus led bill? It is my understanding that it was not. Unfort. - as you point out, EFCA has yet to be signed into law.

  MoveON is certainly a huge success - but it is not a “coalition”. It is a membership organization. In my column, I was discussing the possibility of forming a grand coalition of the many membership orgs that are part of the prog mvt.

  Sure - the ad hoc, issue -by -issue approach hasn’t been terribly successful in recent years. With Bush in the White House and the Republicans able to block any serious reforms in Congress - it was nearly impossible to move forward. But if Obama (or Clinton) becomes president - and we also have Dem control of both houses of Congress, the ad hoc approach will have a lot more chances to produce solid prog victories.

  Posted by kenbrociner on Mar 3, 2008 at 7:14 AM

  The term “progressive” has evolved a great deal over the past 35 years.

  Well, yes, and it evolved even more in the years before that. 

  Within the last century, in the USA, the Communists could not get themselves elected during the Great Depression, so they began calling themselves Socialists.  The Socialists could not get themselves elected, so they began calling themselves Progressives, hijacking a perfectly honorable name (except for the racist and eugenic aspects) for their Leftist objectives.  The Progressives could not get themselves elected, so they began calling themselves Liberals, hijacking another perfectly honorable name for their Leftist objectives. 

  Now Hillary is calling herself a Progressive again.  The last Communist who ran for President while calling himself a Progressive was Henry Wallace, in 1948.  He lost.  Badly.  Hillary undoubtedly does not recognize the symbolism and irony.

  The whole liberal philosophy developed in the Enlightenment in the 17th Century, and upheld the rights and powers of the individual as opposed to the powers of the priests, kings, and commissars over the people.  The finest and most concise statement of liberal philosophy is contained in the Constitution of the United States and in particular in the Bill of Rights. 

  So, why are Leftists calling themselves Liberals while enforcing speech codes, attacking religious expression, and restricting firearms?  Leftists are not trying to uphold the rights and powers of individuals, they are trying to suppress the rights and powers of individuals in favor of a Collective power.  It does not take a village.  “Soviet” translates as “committee”.  Leftist bureaucracies destroyed the Soviet Union and are now doing serious damage to Europe, and they will joyfully destroy the American experiment if allowed to do so.

  The Left is having an Identity Crisis; they can’t fool all of the people any of the time no matter what they call themselves. 

  I propose that the followers of Marx and Gramsci be identified as Sinisteres (n.) (adj. Sinister), an apt name and description that suits them fine.

  Posted by scorp on Mar 4, 2008 at 5:16 AM

  Fascism and communism are two sides of the same coin, and the name of that coin is capitalism.  Every other form of government is an amalgym of communism (on the left) and fascism (on the right), national socialism or international socialism, privately owned enterprise or state owned enterprise, warfare or revolution.  In other words, political conflict, like the religious conflict which preceded it, is just another excuse to dispose of the people rendered socially useless by the transition from feudalism to industrialism.

  Posted by Major Major on Mar 6, 2008 at 6:40 PM

  MM -

  So, if Fascism and Communism are the two sides of the capitalist coin, how do you account for the collapse of the Soviet Union into corruption, inefficiency, and bankruptcy, while the United States staggers from triumph to triumph?  This despite the Sinisteres’ decades-long predictions and insistence that the USA is “failing”.

  In fact, Fascism and Communism are each collectivist and totalitarian, while American democratic capitalism is uniquely individualist and thrives in a (relatively) free environment, both in theory (the Constitution of the United States) and in practice.  The Sinisteres want the USA to fail, but so far, no luck.  They point to our current problems, but our current problems are quite trivial compared to some of the hellacious trials we have been through in the past: the War Between the States, the Great Depression, and WWII were the biggest. 

  Marx promulgated the labor theory of value that declared that all value was derived from the value of the labor that was put into it.  This is nonsense, of course.

  At its root, capitalism is an information system.  In a free market, the price of an item tells you whether it is a good deal or not, or if better offers are available.  In a stable economic environment, prices do not vary much.  But the value of, for example, MicroSoft was quite small thirty years ago, and is much higher now.  No amount of labor could have driven up the price of MicroSoft to its current level.  The value of MicroSoft is a function of it’s utility that is, in turn, a product of the innovative labor-saving function.  Recognizing the changes in cost and the potentials that drive changes in cost are the basic elements of the capitalist information system. 

  There are hundreds, probably thousands, of similar capitalist technical innovations that add huge amounts of value to our economy and our society.  People who recognized the potential of automated data after WWII were in an excellent position to capitalize on their knowledge and insight.  The rest of us just benefit from the productivity and efficiency of computers, which is considerable. 

  In contrast, the Soviet Union had a single master list of all products and their prices throughout the Soviet Union.  As a result, they frequently charged less for a product than the sum of the material, labor, and overhead that went into the product.  That is why they went bankrupt, they did not know the true cost and value of anything, which only a free market can value correctly.  And they certainly did not encourage innovation, except as a criminal enterprise. 

  Just as an exercise, can you name a single Socialist innovation that produced economies of, say, one-twentieth that of the automation developed in the USA under the capitalist system?  No, you cannot. 

  In other words, political conflict, like the religious conflict which preceded it, is just another excuse to dispose of the people rendered socially useless by the transition from feudalism to industrialism.

  You really ought to give a little thought before making weird-ball pronouncements such as this.  You just said that “religious conflict … is just another excuse to dispose of the people rendered socially useless by the transition from feudalism to industrialism”.  I am certain that religious conflict much predated both feudalism and and industrialism, and there is no obvious connection between “religious conflict” (or “political conflict”, for that matter) and “the transition from feudalism to industrialism”.  The grand practitioners of disposing of people were the Fascists and Communists; their victims were not disposed of because they were “socially useless”, but in order to instill terror and thereby control the populace.  After executing great chunks of the Red Army officer corps and the Communist appartchiks, Stalin suddenly needed these people and recalled all he could from the Gulags to fight Hitler, just as an example.

  Posted by scorp on Mar 7, 2008 at 4:18 AM

• extended discussion >>>Continued...

  Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 9 posts.

Also by Ken Brociner

• Progressive Blind Spots
  Since its formation in 1997, the Campaign for America's Future (CAF) has been… morePosted on June 30, 2009
• Israel and the Klein Doctrine
  The recent meeting between President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu… morePosted on May 31, 2009
• The Cuban Revolution and the American Left
  For countless leftists who came of age politically sometime between the late 1950s… morePosted on April 28, 2009
• Israel, Gaza and the Left
  One of the left's most significant ideological failings in recent years has been… morePosted on February 22, 2009
• Moving Forward Without Dogma
  Despite the severity of the current economic crisis, the morale of the progressive… morePosted on January 25, 2009