George W. Bush will go down in history as one of this country’s worst presidents ever. But there is at least one thing we can genuinely thank him for: He has succeeded in bringing moderates, liberals, and progressives closer together than at any time in decades. But do the many political connections created since Bush took office actually add up… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (7)Page 1 of 1 pagesUnwittingly, 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 10:51 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 8:12 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 – Liberals! Liberalism, the philosophy of the Enlightenment, the basis of the Constitution of the United States, hijacked by Marxists, those dark and bloody fools that ruined Russia, China, Korea, and Cuba, and every country they touched.
But now the Marxists have destroyed the Liberal label, and in a desperate search for a suitable replacement, they have gone back to calling themselves Progressives?!? Oooo-K!
The Leftists have a long history of nominating Marxist slugs to the presidency, and losing: McGovern, Dukakis, Mondale, Gore, and Kerry. The only two Democrats voted into the presidency in the last forty years, Carter and Clinton, were not Marxist ideologues.
This year, the Dims had an opportunity to nominate another Marxist slug, Hillary, but they chose to gamble on an unknown with no accomplishments, unsavory associates, and a resume that would fit on the back of his driver’s license.
Do you ever get the impression that Dims are insane?
Posted by scorp on Aug 9, 2008 at 6:20 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 8:01 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 11, 2008 at 12:28 AM Marcello,
Sorry for not replying to your post sooner. As for citing the Jefferson Airplane, you may have a point. On the other hand, more young people may know of them than you seem to think is the case. Either way, the message contained in the quote I used applies no matter what generation a group is from.
I agree with your point about “most” young people being political freelancers., but an awful lot of other people from your generation - and younger - consider themselves to be connected to either MoveOn/ the netroots - or in a more general sense - to the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.
I heartily agree with you that independently forming one’s own political opinions is a healthy thing. But doing so and being part of a larger movement are not all mutually exclusive.
Yes, I agree that some progressives do engage in what you call “America bashing” - although I would describe this tendency in different terms. Seems to me that some progressives have fallen into the trap of seeing the world (and America’s role in it) in an oversimplified and dogmatic way. Not only is this view a distortion of reality, it also serves to turn off a lot of people who might otherwise be sympathetic to our movement.
Your skepticism about the importance of even having a movement to begin with is, I believe, extremely misplaced. The existence of a nationwide progressive movement in the United States can only increase our chances of bringing about the kinds of changes this country -and the world as a whole- so desperately need.
Ken
Posted by kenbrociner on Aug 14, 2008 at 8:46 PM Francis,
To reply to your question about what the different causes you cite may have in common - I would answer it this way: they place a greater value on fairness, empowerment, and human dignity than they do on the profit motive.
As for your other question about whether or not the leaders and people involved in these different causes are in touch with each other, I would say the short answer is “yes.”
One of the main reasons I believe that a nationwide progressive movement has come into existence is that there is such a higher level of coordination now taking place between the various groups that think of themselves as being “progressive.”
Of course there is a lot of room for improvement - as you have pointed out. But the pace of cross-fertilization and communication between progressive groups has been picking up speed - especially in the context of the upcoming presidential election.
Ken
Posted by kenbrociner on Aug 14, 2008 at 9:11 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Ken Brociner
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1972 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2008 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
