Unwittingly, I think your last paragraph points to a major problem with building a “progressive movement”: I mean, who the heck are the Jefferson Airplane? I’m almost forty and I recognize the name from my older brother’s record collection, but how is anyone younger than me going to have a clue?
The point being that the younger generation seems to have a very different perception of politics than folks my age and older. Many of them see themselves as “unaffiliated political freelancers”, forming their own opinions independent of any larger “movement”. They’re justificably skeptical of organized politics. It’s just too unwieldy, too bureaucratic, and unable to respond quickly to changing conditions. Their political independence is an asset to be preserved, not a problem to be solved.
And let’s face it: the older generation of progressives engages in an awful lot of America-bashing. Many younger progressives have a hard time identifying with this. Too much nihilism, not enough hope.
So the prospects of forming a cohesive “progressive movement” seem slim. But is that necessarily a bad thing? Time will tell…
Posted by marcello09 on Aug 5, 2008 at 9:51 AM
The fourth-to-last paragraph also provides a useful insight into the problem. The image of a “movement” being “in the very air we breathed” has long stood as both a beautiful ideal and as not-entirely-realistic nostalgia.
On the other hand, the overall historical success of “progressive” politics might explain the current lack of a galvanizing critical mass.
For example: The draft having been abolished (plus plenty of propaganda), national feelings about war might be less visceral because fewer parents and children have to face the raw reality of war. Abortion (and birth control, divorce, etc.) having been legalized (despite recent erosions), images of dead fetuses may create a more compelling mass sentiment than do images of women (no longer) legally condemned to pregnancy. The Mayor of Chicago having officially courted gay-lesbian-bi-and-transgender votes (which, when Da Mare says it, remains hilarious), gay pride carries political clout.
All of these remain “progressive” causes. On the other hand, what about kids getting killed and ill-educated in the ghetto? The May 1 06 marchers? No Child Left Behind?
What do all of these causes have in common? Do their leaders speak to each other? Do the people spoken for even know each other?
Posted by francis frank on Aug 5, 2008 at 7:12 PM
Progressive. That has a nice positive ring to it.
The Progressive movement in the United States was active in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Republican President Teddy Roosevelt was a leading Progressive reformer. Some of the adherents of Progressivism had unsavory aspects, such as racism and euthanasia.
Communists became active in the United States about this time, but no one wanted anything to do with Communists, particularly after the murders and starvation in Ukrania and Russia starting in the 1920s. Communists ran for office in the United States, but no one would vote for them. The Communists changed their name to Socialists, but no one was fooled, and the followers of Marx could not get elected no matter what label they used.
After WWII, Henry Wallace, businessman, politician, mystic, and Communist, hijacked the Progressive label for his run for the presidency in 1948. He lost.
So then, in a stroke of brilliant larceny, the Marxist began to call themselves
Posted by scorp on Aug 9, 2008 at 5:20 PM
For years, I have asked people online what they mean by progressive. I have not asked people this question offline as much, simply because the progressive movement seems to thrive mainly online or in a small group of self-interested political insiders.
The flower power of the 1960’s may only have been experienced in a few select communities, but the essence of breaking free from the restraints of a suburban male-goes-to-work / woman-stays-at-home society was widespread. The progressive movement, so far as I can tell, seems to emphasize that computers are our friends and we should live life tied to them.
Now, I cannot but link Obama and the modern progressive movement. That is not good. I have yet to figure out what Obama means by change, just as I have no idea what progressives want. For me to be part of the movement, I need to know what is being changed. Otherwise, it is merely a cult. Throw out the magic word (eat the magic mushroom, vote for the magic candidate) and all will be revealed.
From what I can piece together, progressives are for more cars, cheap gasoline, excessive personal consumption, societal controls, more governmental controls over individual choices, greater national debt, and reduced economic freedom. Thus, I most decidely am not a progressive and will not support so-called progressive candidates.
Posted by SillyLeftist on Aug 10, 2008 at 7:01 PM
Perhaps the best evidence that there’s not much of a “progressive movement” (whatever exactly that is—the term seems to be constantly shape-shifting) in America is the lengths Obama goes to make people think he’s not connected with it. If McCain & co. are even reasonably successful at exposing Obama’s true ideological sympathies, I doubt he’ll have a chance in what is essentially a center-right country.
I’ve always been a little hesitant to link Progressives/Democrats with Marxists, but it’s getting really hard to discern much difference anymore. And the fact that it’s nearly impossible to discern a difference between the Communist Party USA platform and Obama’s is not exactly encouraging.
But this may be more of an Internet/media illusion than reality. I think that a majority of even those on the left in America are nowhere near the thinking of the CPUSA or are hostile to the concept of private property, for instance. If they are made aware of just how “progressive” Obama really is, they will help to prove that indeed there is no significant progressive movement in America. Sadly, I have very little confidence in McCain’s ability and/or willingness to point it out effectively.
Posted by Natalie on Aug 10, 2008 at 11:28 PM
Reader Comments
Unwittingly, I think your last paragraph points to a major problem with building a “progressive movement”: I mean, who the heck are the Jefferson Airplane? I’m almost forty and I recognize the name from my older brother’s record collection, but how is anyone younger than me going to have a clue?
The point being that the younger generation seems to have a very different perception of politics than folks my age and older. Many of them see themselves as “unaffiliated political freelancers”, forming their own opinions independent of any larger “movement”. They’re justificably skeptical of organized politics. It’s just too unwieldy, too bureaucratic, and unable to respond quickly to changing conditions. Their political independence is an asset to be preserved, not a problem to be solved.
And let’s face it: the older generation of progressives engages in an awful lot of America-bashing. Many younger progressives have a hard time identifying with this. Too much nihilism, not enough hope.
So the prospects of forming a cohesive “progressive movement” seem slim. But is that necessarily a bad thing? Time will tell…
Posted by marcello09 on Aug 5, 2008 at 9:51 AM
The fourth-to-last paragraph also provides a useful insight into the problem. The image of a “movement” being “in the very air we breathed” has long stood as both a beautiful ideal and as not-entirely-realistic nostalgia.
On the other hand, the overall historical success of “progressive” politics might explain the current lack of a galvanizing critical mass.
For example: The draft having been abolished (plus plenty of propaganda), national feelings about war might be less visceral because fewer parents and children have to face the raw reality of war. Abortion (and birth control, divorce, etc.) having been legalized (despite recent erosions), images of dead fetuses may create a more compelling mass sentiment than do images of women (no longer) legally condemned to pregnancy. The Mayor of Chicago having officially courted gay-lesbian-bi-and-transgender votes (which, when Da Mare says it, remains hilarious), gay pride carries political clout.
All of these remain “progressive” causes. On the other hand, what about kids getting killed and ill-educated in the ghetto? The May 1 06 marchers? No Child Left Behind?
What do all of these causes have in common? Do their leaders speak to each other? Do the people spoken for even know each other?
Posted by francis frank on Aug 5, 2008 at 7:12 PM
Progressive. That has a nice positive ring to it.
The Progressive movement in the United States was active in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Republican President Teddy Roosevelt was a leading Progressive reformer. Some of the adherents of Progressivism had unsavory aspects, such as racism and euthanasia.
Communists became active in the United States about this time, but no one wanted anything to do with Communists, particularly after the murders and starvation in Ukrania and Russia starting in the 1920s. Communists ran for office in the United States, but no one would vote for them. The Communists changed their name to Socialists, but no one was fooled, and the followers of Marx could not get elected no matter what label they used.
After WWII, Henry Wallace, businessman, politician, mystic, and Communist, hijacked the Progressive label for his run for the presidency in 1948. He lost.
So then, in a stroke of brilliant larceny, the Marxist began to call themselves
Posted by scorp on Aug 9, 2008 at 5:20 PM
For years, I have asked people online what they mean by progressive. I have not asked people this question offline as much, simply because the progressive movement seems to thrive mainly online or in a small group of self-interested political insiders.
The flower power of the 1960’s may only have been experienced in a few select communities, but the essence of breaking free from the restraints of a suburban male-goes-to-work / woman-stays-at-home society was widespread. The progressive movement, so far as I can tell, seems to emphasize that computers are our friends and we should live life tied to them.
Now, I cannot but link Obama and the modern progressive movement. That is not good. I have yet to figure out what Obama means by change, just as I have no idea what progressives want. For me to be part of the movement, I need to know what is being changed. Otherwise, it is merely a cult. Throw out the magic word (eat the magic mushroom, vote for the magic candidate) and all will be revealed.
From what I can piece together, progressives are for more cars, cheap gasoline, excessive personal consumption, societal controls, more governmental controls over individual choices, greater national debt, and reduced economic freedom. Thus, I most decidely am not a progressive and will not support so-called progressive candidates.
Posted by SillyLeftist on Aug 10, 2008 at 7:01 PM
Perhaps the best evidence that there’s not much of a “progressive movement” (whatever exactly that is—the term seems to be constantly shape-shifting) in America is the lengths Obama goes to make people think he’s not connected with it. If McCain & co. are even reasonably successful at exposing Obama’s true ideological sympathies, I doubt he’ll have a chance in what is essentially a center-right country.
I’ve always been a little hesitant to link Progressives/Democrats with Marxists, but it’s getting really hard to discern much difference anymore. And the fact that it’s nearly impossible to discern a difference between the Communist Party USA platform and Obama’s is not exactly encouraging.
But this may be more of an Internet/media illusion than reality. I think that a majority of even those on the left in America are nowhere near the thinking of the CPUSA or are hostile to the concept of private property, for instance. If they are made aware of just how “progressive” Obama really is, they will help to prove that indeed there is no significant progressive movement in America. Sadly, I have very little confidence in McCain’s ability and/or willingness to point it out effectively.
Posted by Natalie on Aug 10, 2008 at 11:28 PM