The surrender of the left? Activism and electoral politics

[ProSense]

The surrender of the left? Activism and electoral politics

by Armando

In a provocative article in this month's Harper's Magazine ($) (non paywall version here), Adolph Reed argues:

(D)uring the 1980s and early 1990s, fears of a relentless Republican juggernaut pressured those left of center to take a defensive stance, focusing on the immediate goal of electing Democrats to stem or slow the rightward tide. At the same time, business interests, in concert with the Republican right and supported by an emerging wing of neoliberal Democrats, set out to roll back as many as possible of the social protections and regulations the left had won. <...>

In the absence of goals that require long-term organizing — e.g., single-payer health care, universally free public higher education and public transportation, federal guarantees of housing and income security — the election cycle has come to exhaust the time horizon of political action. Objectives that cannot be met within one or two election cycles seem fanciful, as do any that do not comport with the Democratic agenda. Even those who consider themselves to the Democrats’ left are infected with electoralitis. Each election now becomes a moment of life-or-death urgency that precludes dissent or even reflection. (Emphasis supplied.)

In the Bill Moyers post on his interview with Reed, the commentary seemed to see Reed's analysis as vindicating their views that the modern Democratic Party, especially Hillary Clinton, has nothing for progressives. I strongly disagree. Indeed, it reflects a misperception I saw in the comments to my own post, Hillary Clinton and a left flank: How a Clinton presidency could redefine progressive governance—a focus on the pol as savior or devil. What I actually argued for is thinking about the issues and how to best forward the progressive (or if your prefer, liberal) position. Rather than embracing "electoralitis" (to use Reed's term), I was rejecting the idea the each presidential election will be the determinant of the fate of the progressive position.

In short, I think that while Reed's pessimism and diagnosis of what ails the left, the electoralitis, is accurate, I'm not sure that I agree with his prescription. I'll discuss this on the other side.

Reed argues that "When Democrats have been in office, the imagined omnipresent threat from the Republican bugbear remains a fatal constraint on action and a pretext for suppressing criticism from the left." I think this has been true and quite a mistake. But in that sense, Hillary Clinton would be the perfect president for a rejuvenated left. In my post last week, I argued:

(T)here is another benefit for progressives to a Hillary Clinton presidency, a less fettered ability to establish the left flank of politics outside a Democratic White House. <...> I want to add one last, and I think, crucial point—which is in fact the title of my post, "Hillary Clinton and a left flank: How a Clinton presidency could redefine progressive governance"—a Hillary Clinton White House will not, by definition, define the left flank of the Democratic Party. The fact is President Barack Obama, THROUGHOUT HIS TIME ON THE NATIONAL STAGE, was and is perceived as more progressive or liberal than his policies have ever been. But that did not stop the establishment media from presenting President Obama as the left flank of American politics. <...>

A President Hillary Clinton will not be, nor be perceived, as the left flank of the Democratic Party. This permits, in my view, real arguments, initiatives and negotiation from strong progressive elements in Congress. There will be more room for independence, initiatives and influence. This was not possible in my view under the Obama presidency. In 2009, Chris Bowers wrote:

President (Bill) Clinton told the assembled bloggers that one of the best things they could do for elected Democrats is to function as a "counterveiling" source of progressive pressure. That is, he encouraged us to offer left-wing criticism of Democrats on key policy areas, and that we should urge our leaders and elected officials to favor further reaching, more community-focused public policy. In fact, he indicated that he would have wanted more such progressive media pushing him during his time in office.

I think this is a much more likely approach under a President Hillary Clinton than it was to President Obama. In the longer term, increased independence and, hopefully, influence, from progressive segments in and out of Congress would be a good thing that could be produced by a Hillary Clinton presidency.

Who on the left will be biting their tongue regarding their criticisms (from the left) of Hillary Clinton? What progressives will not be utterly suspicious of every initiative and policy a President Hillary Clinton will propose? What progressive will not be questioning Hillary Clinton about everything? What progressive will not be tough on Hillary Clinton about everything? "Suppressed criticism from the left" will not happen during a Hillary Clinton presidency. And this, I argue, would be a very good thing for progressivism.

<...>

There is much to agree with there but I cannot agree that the abandonment of electoral politics, as Reed seems to advise, is wise. Reed, it seems to me, like too many persons, sees elections as only the presidential election. The hard work to do necessarily includes electoral work, especially at the state and congressional level. And there is no better period than the coming election cycles.

Hillary Clinton, if she chooses to run, will be very difficult to beat for the Democratic presidential nomination. Indeed, if Elizabeth Warren does not run, as she will not, there is not even a credible left alternative. But I think despair is the wrong reaction to this realization. The left should see the opportunity.

More so than any national Democratic politician I can remember, Hillary Clinton will be met with that attitude of suspicion from the left. Finally, we will be able to openly see and say that pols are pols and do what they do. Certainly, if the left can defeat her with a genuinely progressive alternative (Elizabeth Warren) then that is the best of all worlds. But what if the left cannot? What if the left instead concentrates on winning hearts and minds—in the Congress and in the country? Will Hillary Clinton stand in the way? In my view, no. YMMV.

A Hillary Clinton presidency will present a unique opportunity to a resurgent and committed left, willing to take on a president and to fight to win battles in Congress and in the country.

Let's not let electoralitis stand in the way.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/02/1280928/-The-surrender-of-the-left-Activism-and-electoral-politics

The hilarious thing about this is having watched the author slam Obama over the years (and more recently Kerry), knowing that future hyping of Hillary was the ulterior motive.

Last week's installment:

Hillary Clinton and a left flank: How a Clinton presidency could redefine progressive governance
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/23/1279308/-Hillary-Clinton-and-a-left-flank-How-a-Clinton-presidency-could-redefine-progressive-governance

Selling Hillary is job one!





Note:

Kos Media, LLC Site content may be used for any purpose without explicit permission unless otherwise specified

[ProSense]

1. Kick! n/t