Progressivism Is a Positive Movement.

[MineralMan]

However, rabid progressivism without any compromise defeats itself, as we saw yesterday in Ohio.

Some candidates, and their supporters, too, insist that their way is the ONLY way. Their goals are generally good, but their insistence that everyone who does not support all of their goals 100% all of the the time is akin to Satan himself is self-defeating. Again, as we saw yesterday.

Nina Turner, who famously likened voting for Joe Biden to eating a "bowl of shit," has no compromise as a tool in her armamentarium. She has fixed ideals and cannot, for the life of her, work with others who don't share her zeal.

So, she ran for a House seat and lost to a more moderate Democrat who understands how politics actually works in this country.

Will Nina Turner learn from this? I think that is doubtful. She appears to have many fixed ideas about which she will not bend. Democracies tend to reject people like that as representatives. We all have to give sometimes. We live in a society that is very far from being agreeable about fixed ideas.

So, Nina Turner lost. I believe we all gained. Shontel Brown will make a good representative from her district, and will fit right into the Democratic Caucus in the House. She will not liken President Biden to a bowl of anything noxious, thank goodness.

[LizBeth]

1. Most of the Democratic party are Progressives. Sanders and Turner are little "p" progressives.

blow it up and go big. The total 180 of what progressive is. It is like the Republicans owning pro life. They are anti abortion because there is no other pro life in their agenda.

[empedocles]

2. I couldn't quite get over one of the news reports on turner's loss last night, that

said turner was 'bitter' about Sanders losing the Democratic nomination for President.

[Can you imagine where we might be now if Sanders had won the nomination?]

[LizBeth]

4. They were bitter enough in the past to lose voters and look at what we had for four years.

I think we can all imagine, and quite accurately, what we would have now.

[MineralMan]

9. We would be in the second term of TFG's Presidency.

That's simple.

[empedocles]

21. and worse

[bigtree]

3. 'rabid progressivism' is a subjective term based on your own biases

...and that labeling is actually a progression from the successful efforts of the right to demonize progressives and create a wedge in the Democratic party.

I'd point out that self-identified 'moderates' and 'centrists' are organized to stifle progressivism, organized to offer the American people less to appease conservative interests and mollify republicans - offering us half a loaf or less- and pose a more substantial threat to progress in America than those folks advocating for more.

[LizBeth]

5. It was not the Republicans who created that wedge with the voters.

[bigtree]

14. I disagree

...that there's some significant 'wedge' with voters. At least not in the last election.

The wedge I'm referring to in my response to MM is the way in which progressivism has been portrayed as detrimental to the party in elections by self-identified 'moderates' who advocate less change, less expenditures, less direct action, less progress on key issues like the environment, health care, immigration, gun safety, LGBT rights, etc., all for the dubious goal of appeasing republicans and conservatives at election time.

[LizBeth]

17. I am addressing how little p progressive actively strived to create division within the Democratic

Party and we have recent documented evidence of it.

[bigtree]

18. it was the 'blue dog' centrists who actually challenged the Democratic Speaker of the House

...Nancy Pelosi's seat, not progressives.

It's been moderates and centrists standing in the way of President Biden's agenda, not progressives.

What you're selling here is patently false.

[empedocles]

28. Disagree. 'The Squad' has been challenging the Speaker. Exploiting the slim

margin the Speaker has - the 2020 seat loss thanks largely to voter discomfort with aggressive, left 'socialism', etc.

The wide appealing Biden was challenged and costly so, throughout the 2020 by Sanders, turner, AOC, et al.

[bigtree]

33. progressives did not challenge the Speakership

...however, blue dogs did, twice now.

Progressives have not held up any of Pres. Biden's agenda. Moderates famously have.

[Sympthsical]

32. I remember when LGBTers were blamed for the 2004 loss

This "blame progressives" movement reminds me very much of it. Moderates who never think it's the right time to push for progress. They never realize or recognize that the hard pushing is exactly why progress becomes possible. If my community didn't push as hard as it did for as long as it did, we probably still wouldn't have marriage equality.

Incrementalism is why our planet is about to burn. Incrementalism is why we still don't have universal healthcare. Incrementalism is why we have historic income inequality.

And so on.

When the Republicans are pulling hard Right, and we're merely nudging Left, guess which direction we move in?

And let's not discuss how "rabid progressives" is a complete right-wing talking point. My shocked face it's so readily adopted and disseminated when useful.

[MineralMan]

7. Perhaps so. I do not consider anyone who likens voting for Biden to

eating a "bowl of shit" to be anyone deserving of election, though. Those were her words. Do you agree with Ms. Turner?

That is behavior that ensures a loss in just about any election. Rabid? I'd say so. You might say otherwise, though, of course.

[bigtree]

11. you generalized in your op

...and you know well that Turner isn't the be-all, end-all of progressivism in any form or fashion.

This is just a screed against Turner then? Why didn't you say so?

I fail to see why that loss is supposed to be definitive of the progressive movement. Many progressives advocating what Turner did (really mainstream progressive policies, btw) win elections.

[MineralMan]

13. You read selectively, it seems, and not thoroughly.

Do I like Nina Turner? No, I do not. However, my post was not solely about her.

[bigtree]

16. you made a definitive statement about progressives and that's what I responded to

...I couldn't give a bowl of shit about discussing the loser in that primary race.

[MineralMan]

19. As I said: Progressivism Is a Positive Thing

That was the title of my post, and represents my own point of view.

I also mentioned "rabid progressivism," which is not a positive thing, but a negative one.

Nina Turner is one such "rabid progressive." She is not alone in that. I use her as an example of the inability of such candidates to win elections, generally.

I am a progressive, which you can easily see if you actually read my words in all of my posts. I am, however, not a rabid, authoritarian progressive.

I seek progress toward progressive goals. However, I am forever aware that a rabid progressivism tends to result in losses in elections and an inevitable movement toward reactionary and conservative goals, as we saw for the past four years.

We move in progressive directions only in fits and starts, because we are not a society of people in the majority who seek progressive actions and directions. Short of establishing an authoritarian progressive government, we must stabilize our government into one that is progressive over the long term. We have not done so. Until we do, we will continue to move forward only slowly and with frequent backwards movements.

I do not accept authoritarianism from either end of the political spectrum. Neither will the society in general.

If you want progressive movement, you will have to obtain it through education and a cooperative spirit. Nina Turner and her ilk do not believe that. They continue to push toward an authoritarian method for achieving goals. That will not succeed.

[bigtree]

26. like I said, it's a definiton of your own biases

...and not very helpful to the campaign in question, where Turner supporters need to be energized for the upcoming vote.

I think it's significant that Turner is the subject here and not the winner, Shontel Brown.

I do know who benefits from the continued carping. Not Democrats.

[Demsrule86]

22. Moderates are willing to win half a loaf rather than nothing. And that my friend is how we make

policy. A good example is the ACA...it was not a perfect bill but it helped make Americans realize that health care is a good thing and a right...and thousands perhaps millions of lives have been saved. Hubs is on it now as he is unemployed...so we must be willing to compromise. We won't get everything but we won't go home without anything either.

[bigtree]

34. you don't get to claim the mantel of pragmatism

...when you're the ones actually blocking passage of legislation, like Manchin and Sinema.

[Wounded Bear]

6. Radical Progressives remind repubs of what they hate about authoritarian socialism...

Biggest example in history of the right v left battle is WWII in Eastern Europe. Basically radical right wing Nazis went up against radical left wing Communists. It was the most vicious war of modern times, with no real "good guys" on either side.

When far right meets far left, there is little to choose between them.

[MineralMan]

8. Authoritarianism from either end of the political spectrum

is not compatible with a democratic system of government. Period.

[jalan48]

10. Climate change will create millions of "rabid" progressives in the near future.

Are we ready for that or will these voices be demonized for demanding immediate change? Our current debate around the infrastructure package isn't encouraging.

[MineralMan]

12. Actually, climate change is just as likely to create millions of reactionaries.

It is always a mistake to believe that people will suddenly come to their senses and agree with you. That virtually never happens.

The real issue that gets in the way is that people in our system of government vote for whatever based on no particular logic or reason. They simple vote. On one hand, that can lead to aberrations like TFG. On the other hand, it can react against such aberrations.

Fortunately, we do not live in a solidly authoritarian society. However, that also leads to periods of time when we are not in the majority. That has been amply illustrated throughout the history of the USA, and is unlikely to change.

We are always at risk from authoritarianism. We can avoid it, but we cannot escape the risk. Instead, we must band together to prevent it, from either extreme of the political spectrum.

Be careful what you wish for. It might end up not being what you expected.

[jalan48]

15. True, our Party could get more Joe Manchin's which would be a disaster I think.

[MineralMan]

20. Joe Manchin is one Democrat, elected in a place that will

not elect any progressive to office any time in the near future. If not him, then it will be a conservative Republican who wins that seat. In some places, the alternative to a conservative Democrat can only be a conservative Republican. West Virginia is one such place.

We cannot focus on individual House or Senate seats in that way. Instead, we must expand our point of view and elect Democrats to more seats across the nation. Focusing on Joe Manchin is a waste of energy. West Virginia will not elect a progressive. Period. We must look elsewhere to gain larger majorities.

[bluewater]

25. +1000

It's sad but true.

We are lucky to have Manchin as a senator from West Virginia considering the overwhelmingly likely republican alternative.

As you said, that's just the political reality in that state.

[jalan48]

27. It is unfortunate that our ambitious $3.5 trillion infrastructure package, which contains programs

to help fight climate change, can be blocked by just two Democrats, (if these are indeed the only two Democrats opposed to enacting it through reconciliation). I've been a registered Democrat for 50 years and agree we need to elect more Democrats. However, as we can see (especially younger environmental activists) not all Democrats are same. We're running out of time to solve the biggest problem we face which will lead to more rabid progressivism IMHO.

[MineralMan]

30. Are you represented only by Democrats in your own state and district?

Politics is all local. Individually, we have little influence in electoral politics anywhere but our own local area. There, however, we do have influence, and can work to help progressive people win.

Long ago, I realized that I can do nothing about elections in West Virginia or other places where I do not live. So, I focus all of my efforts near to me. The most one can do outside of our local area is to donate money to candidates elsewhere. I have not seen where small donations actually affect elections, though, in other places.

So, look around your local area. Find ways to influence elections there, and in neighboring districts. That will be the most productive use of your resources.

[jalan48]

31. Yep, keep fighting the good fight. I'm sure our current political process will find a way to deal

with the unfolding environmental catastrophe coming our way (especially future generations). Hopefully the young voices won't be too rabid.

[Demsrule86]

24. It would not be a disaster to get more moderate Senators from red districts. We would achieve some

policy and protect our majority. What would be a disaster is losing either Manchin's or Sinema's seat and putting Mitch McConnell back in charge. We have to face facts there are more states that will not elect a progressive than those who will elect a progressive.

[empedocles]

29. Of course

[Demsrule86]

23. No it won't.