Is Obama "Progressive"? (101)

[H2O Man]

{1} Definitions

"In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place. It is slavery to be amenable to the majority no matter what its decisions are." – Gandhi

There have been a few interesting threads on DU recently, which included discussions about two topics that I think are related. The first has to do with if Barack Obama is a progressive or liberal democrat, and the second has to do with the debate over how progressive and liberal democrats should respond if they believe Obama is taking an action they strongly disagree with.

Different people have different ideas on what "progressive" means. The definitions of the word in this essay are merely my own understanding of the concept. I do not intend to say that it is the single correct answer, or of any more value than other people’s.

More, last week another DUer told me that I was using "Rhetoric 101," when "Rhetoric 401" or "Rhetoric 501" was required on this forum. Although I did not think my friend was offering me a compliment, I took it as one, anyway, because I had paraphrased Minister Malcolm X. And Malcolm believed that it was more important, in trying to achieve results, to use language in such a way that everyone understood exactly what he meant.

I believe that the word "progressive" has a meaning that expands. Let’s take a look. On the individual level it has to do with ideas, beliefs, and values. As Gandhi pointed out, an individual’s values should not depend on the larger society for confirmation. In our society, despite the fact that many people have progressive and liberal values, the corporate media attempts to package them in one of two ways: the first is to marginalize those who speak out as being "quaint," and the second is to bottle their message with a skull & cross-bones. As long as a decidedly unprogressive society can isolate progressive people, they have little political power.

{2} Political Power

Q: We heard you changed, Malcolm. Why don’t you tell us where you’re at with them white folks?

A: I haven’t changed. I just see things on a broader scale. We nationalists used to think we were militant. We were just dogmatic. It didn’t bring us anything. …. We’ve got to be more flexible. …. I’m not going to be in anyone’s straitjacket. I don’t care what a person looks like or where they came from. My mind is wide open to anybody who will help us get the ape off our backs."
--OAAU meeting in Harlem; reported by Marlene Nadle; Village Voice; February 26, 1965.

The word "power," we know, comes from the Latin root "posse," which means "to possess the ability." In looking at Malcolm X’s life, we can see it means possessing the power to change. In the period of his life when he belonged to the Nation of Islam, Malcolm represented an example of individual change: he went from being a dope-peddling pimp and robber, to a clean-living member of a community.

As a NOI minister, Malcolm helped numerous other people change their individual lives. Yet he became frustrated, because many people in the larger black community noted that the NOI talked tough, but that other groups such as the NAACP, CORE, and SCLC were out on the front lines, attempting to achieve progress for everyone.

At a certain point, Malcolm came to recognize that power leads to one of two things: either it evolves into something larger and more progressive, or it degenerates and twists the vessel which contains it into a regressive force. By the time he left the NOI, it had become as corrupt as that which it previously defined as "the enemy."

In his attempts to harness the political power necessary to achieve meaningful change in the larger community, Malcolm began to make attempts to work with the leadership of the groups such as the SCLC. He also broadened his views on the potential to work with white allies. This was, of course, what caused the man at the OAAU meeting to question him.

Recently on DU, there was an interesting poll regarding the most progressive cities and towns in the United States. Among the ones listed was Ithaca, NY. I am familiar with Ithaca, and the progressive community there. In order to achieve their goals within the larger community, the progressive activists there have created linkages with numerous other segments in the region.

In the current political climate, progressive community activists have several options. These include things from working on an individual level, to being part of a larger group that coordinates efforts with other groups that are not as progressive. Each of these types of progressive activity – from writing a letter-to-the-editor, to registering voters, to running for local office – is important. Those who focus on one area benefit from the work of others in different areas.

{3} Achieving Goals

"We must come to see that human progress never rolls in on the wheels of inevitability."
--Martin Luther King, Jr.; Letter From Birmingham City Jail

There are numerous values that members of the progressive members tend to share in common. These include things such as individual freedoms, the environment, and placing value on the Bill of Rights. They also include opposition to the anti-democratic agenda of the Bush-Cheney administration.

Many people are progressive in most areas, but still hold some fairly conservative views. Gandhi, Malcolm X, and Martin Luther King, Jr., were complex mixtures of both progressive and conservative values. And in each case, their complexity helped them to identify avenues for making progress. Indeed, at the time of their deaths, each was truly "a work in progress."

Today, we have a democratic candidate for president, who began his career as a progressive community activist. At a certain point, he recognized that in order to reach his goals for making progress in the larger community, he needed to change. So he returned to college to get his law degree. Soon after that, he became active in state and then national politics.

On one hand, Barack Obama was not the most progressive candidate in the recent democratic primary. Rather, Dennis Kucinich was. Yet we see that despite the values that he holds, the law, and the democratic majority in Congress, Kucinich lacked the power to achieve his goal of having President Bush and VP Cheney held accountable for their crimes and abuses of the power of their office. This was largely due to the stumbling block that Nancy Pelosi placed in the way. And, while some people who identify themselves as liberal democrats dismissed Kucinich’s efforts as "quaint," many more in the progressive community appreciate that he acts upon his values.

As president, Barack Obama will not be able to achieve meaningful results in every area that progressive democrats would hope for. In part, it will be due the moderate and conservative Pelosi democrats. And in part, it will be because he must also work with republicans in Congress, as well as the corporate interests they pimp for. Finally, it is because our country has far too many serious problems for any one president to "fix," even in two terms in office. However, if he identifies what he believes are the most important issues that we possess the power to change, we can achieve progress.

{4} Progress

Q: So you’re consciously aware that this will have to be part of how you govern?

A: Yes, absolutely. The Internet gives young people a tool to be informed continuously. It gives them an opportunity to speak to each other and mobilize themselves. It gives them the opportunity to hold me accountable when I’m not following through on promises that I’ve made. It gives me a powerful ally if Congress is resistant to measures that need to be taken
--Barack Obama; Rolling Stone interview; July 10-24, 2008.

The internet is a powerful tool, indeed. It has been used in a manner that allows progressive democrats more of a voice in national politics. It is impossible to understand Barack Obama’s candidacy without having a full appreciation for how the internet has made him the democratic nominee.

In the primary season, the moderate and conservative candidates’ campaigns came to the progressive on-line community, much as politicians used to visit minority communities come election time. They understood the power of the internet. They hoped to capitalize on it.

In the general election, we will see non-progressive forces coming into the progressive internet communities. They, too, recognize the power of this tool. They hope to use it to damage the foundation of unity within the progressive community.

This does not mean that progress democrats should always agree with every move Obama makes, or every word that he says. The internet allows us an opportunity to register our concerns with the campaign, and to discuss them openly on progressive forums. But it does mean that we should be aware that not everyone who walks through the neighborhood is our friend.

As Malcolm used to say, just because a man throws worms in a river doesn’t mean that he is a friend of the fish.

[Marrah_G]

1. That was a good read and leaves me something to think about today.

Of course I should be working, but this is more fun :)

[H2O Man]

7. In my opinion,

thinking about politics can be more "progressive" than working ..... at least on sunny summer days.

[wyldwolf]

2. for the last 8 years on the internet, the measurement of "progressive" has been...

..policy stances. If a candidate did not take the generally agreed-upon position on any number of issues, that candidate was branded a "DINO."

Well, now here comes Obama. He doesn't take the generally agreed-upon progressive position on any number of issues. Logic dictates the same voices who defined "DINO" also label him as such or be accused of moving the goal posts (or growing up.)

By the way, this has nothing to do with my feelings on his policies. I'm just making an observation.

[H2O Man]

9. Interesting response.

A lot of the concerns about Obama seem to focus on his willingness to work with republicans on a range of issues. During the primaries, I recall a few people voicing outrage, because they believed he would consider including some republicans in his administration, if elected. History, of course, shows that other leaders have done the same thing.

Your post reminded me, for some odd reason, of a conversation I had with my late father, many years ago. As a teenager, I was blessed in that I knew everything. And I was prone to letting others know that. I was, like others in that era, involved in politics. During one event, I commented on some local politicians; the press quoted my saying things might be a bit better if those politicians would "just do their job." My father and I were discussing that later, and he suggested that I think about two things: first, the difference between "can't" and "won't" when it comes to a person's job performance; and second, to at least consider the possibility that other people's life experiences might result in their viewing a situation differently than did I. At the time, of course, I found this to be further proof that people of my father's generation really didn't "get it."

My father was a moderate-to-conservative democrat, who thought highly of Governor Robert Casey. One of my favorite memories is from when we watched Jesse Jackson speak in 1988. Even though my father and Jesse Jackson were from different wings of the democratic party, my father thought that Jackson was serving as an important influence in the party. That is, I think, one of the potential strengths of the party: we can have a wide range of different viewpoints, and still share common ground on the most important issues.

[wyldwolf]

14. nice

I, too, have a memory of my father, sick with lung cancer, watching Newt Gingrich and saying "He thinks he's a little Hitler."

I express sarcastic/fake outrage during the primaries when Obama spoke of reaching across the aisle and working with Republicans. After all, that's one of the main tenants of the Third Way, something many early Obama supporters claim to hate.

[laststeamtrain]

3. Nicely done. Recommended.

I needed some thoughts. I'm feeling tired myself. Tired of reading the same thoughts over & over, too.

[H2O Man]

10. Thanks.

I think that DU goes in cycles. Some of the on-going "debates" are a bit tedious. I'd prefer to focus on coordinating grass roots efforts to elect progressive and liberal democrats.

[TahitiNut]

4. I regard myself as a liberal (small-d) democrat - because neither includes (nor precludes) the other

As I've said before ...

Liberalism places bounds on majority will that precludes victimization (e.g. abrogation of civil liberties) of minorities. As a democrat, I recognize and support the sovereign authority and responsibilities of the people, and the subordination of government to the will and authority of the people.

I'm an independent since I do not subordinate my conscience and autonomy to any partisan interest. I do not pretend to be intellectually or ethically agile enough to split the difference.

Perhaps it's time to expand on this.

I do NOT regard a person as a 'liberal' merely because they protest and advocate for the fair and equal treatment of a demographic of which THEY are a part. Women speaking for women, gays speaking for gays, blacks speaking for blacks ... all are engaged in the politics of self-interest ("identity politics") and that's no more inherently legitimate in a 'liberal' sense than white males speaking for white males. Indeed, it's with some bemusement that I note when a female claims "males should STFU" with regards to women's issues. On the liberal-to-conservative spectrum, that's hardly 'liberal' and certainly not 'democratic.'

Conservatism is, at its core, about the establishment and legal entrenchment of privilege, whether it be about the privileges of race, the privileges of wealth, or the privileges of gender. When I hear (or see) folks advocate in favor of ANY of the existing biases of Selective (National) Service (no females, DADT, etc.), I regard it as a conservative (morally reprehensible) posture and not a liberal posture.


Liberalism is about just and equitable treatment for all, independent of the advantages of one's own demographic. There is nothing inherently 'liberal' about folks pursuing the politics of special self-interest ("identity politics"), particularly when pursued to the exclusion of other issues.

[H2O Man]

11. Good points.

I think that it is important for people to recognize that in every election, there are three groups: (1) those who definitely support your candidate; (2) those definitely opposed to your candidate; and (3) the "undecided." In this case, a part of the "undecided" includes the progressive & liberal left that is not affiliated with the democratic party. It includes people who identify themselves as "greens," etc. The progressive and liberal wings of the democratic party can expand their influence by reaching out and finding common ground with those non-democrats (like yourself). That is the way that we can best move the democratic to the left.

[AtomicKitten]

5. What he is is the Democratic nominee.

Obama is very difficult to pigeon hole ideologically and reading his books is a must for those taking on that task. Plus he's knee-deep in the general election now and tactical strategy is in play. Bottom line is that he is the party's nominee and I intend to do all I can to see to it that he is elected.

K&R

[H2O Man]

12. Right.

It is the time for people to focus on getting democrats elected in November, including Obama, as well as in state and local contests.

[LWolf]

6. I always enjoy reading your posts.

I know I'll have something of substance to think about. :thumbsup:

In this case, I'm thinking in a lot of different directions.

I'm thinking about your question. About Obama. And about the term "progressive."

The problem with the term "progressive" is that it can be spun so many ways, depending on which definition you choose.

At it's core, "progressive" means to move forward, to make progress, with an agenda. It doesn't have to be a "liberal" agenda. Conservatives, and fascists, can be "progressive." The DLC, the conservative/corporate wing of the Democratic Party, has a think tank: "The Progressive Policy Institute." Whether you consider that an Orwellian use of the word or not, we might be able to agree that their goals are not traditionally "liberal" or "left."

Then there's the common assumption that "progressive" is a politically correct version of the abused "liberal." I don't think this is particularly accurate at this point in time. Plenty of progressives are not particularly "liberal."

In that case, Obama can be fairly called a "progressive," even though he's clearly not a "liberal." The casual use of the term, without specification, is much like his campaign. It uses all kinds of terms that lead people to envision something that may or may not be what he intends. I think part of the problem is that some people who voted for him in the primary thought they were getting a liberal progressive, rather than a PPI progressive, despite the number of times it was pointed out to them. Now they are experiencing voter's remorse.

I don't think there IS unity within the "progressive" community. We've seen "progressives" that are willing to sell liberal principles, and even Constitutional protections, down the river for Obama's sake. And, of course, there are others that are less willing, or not at all willing.

A look at Obama's history is instructive. You refer to him as a "progressive community activist" early in his career. This, too, leaves me wondering: do you mean he was a liberal/left community activist, or the same kind of progressive he is now?

You mention his need to change. Did that "change" mean learning to work the system, instead of fight it? Did it mean adopting centrism as a vehicle to "progress?" It surely meant learning to fight "dirty," as he did when he challenged petitions to nominate all his challengers in 1996, clearing the ballot of any challengers at all, including the liberal activist Alice Palmer.

I see that he has the political skills to win an election. The big question is what, exactly, will we be achieving with him in the White House? Will we get someone who puts his obvious fighting skills to work for actual liberal/left causes? Or will we get someone who, in guise of "working with" republicans, gives away the issues? We've seen more compromise than fight on issues since he hit Washington. Why would we think he will be different in the oval office?

As president, he'll have to show up to sign or veto everything that gets sent to him. No skipping the tough votes, a reputation he gained in the Illinois Senate, according to David Ignatius.

Obama is not a win for the liberal left. At best, there is a possibility for guarded cooperation. That's certainly more than McCain offers, of course.

It's also not enough to earn the enthusiastic "trust," the blind faith, that some of his supporters are pushing for.

The real question I'm left with is this:

To use your metaphor, just WHO is fisherman Obama tossing worms to? Some would say he's fishing for centrists and republicans. Some would say he's luring liberal/left votes with the deliberately vague "change we can believe in," which can of course be shaped to the differing beliefs of each person who hears it. Who will end up gutted and fried in the process?

Time will tell.

[H2O Man]

8. You raise a lot of interesting points.

I'll focus on two. First, when Obama recognized the need to change, when he found parts of being a community organizer/activist frustrating. What he recognized is something that holds true for every community organizer/activist, and that is this: in order to do more, we must become more. And to become more, one must willingly give up parts of their self-identity, and replace it with something different.

The "rules of the game" remained the same, but Obama changed. By investing in a higher education, he gained access to a higher level of the game. A community organizer/activist can take up voter petitions, but they tend to be for the benefit of another person. That same community organizer/activist may even question the validity of another person's petition(s), but in order to make a successful challenge to the petition, he/she will likely need the help of someone else, likely an attorney.

Obama indeed challenged petitions. But that isn't really "playing dirty." It's quite the opposite: if the petitions met the required standards, the candidates in question would not have had any problem. In fact, had Obama challenged several people, and all of their petitions met the standards, then he would have looked like a fool. Instead, he took advantage of his knowing the rules of the game, and was in a position to make sure that others followed the same rules. Some of the people from other candidates' campaigns were upset that Obama didn't play by the "good old boys" rules, which allows for those in the seats of power to bend or break the rules of the game, without worrying that another person would call them on it.

If local republicans had invalid voter petitions, few here would advocate letting them slide. Obama's actions were simply making sure that everyone followed the rules. And, yes, he absolutely benefitted from that.

[LWolf]

18. I really like what you've said here:

"when Obama recognized the need to change, when he found parts of being a community organizer/activist frustrating. What he recognized is something that holds true for every community organizer/activist, and that is this: in order to do more, we must become more. And to become more, one must willingly give up parts of their self-identity, and replace it with something different."

I agree with part of it. I just don't know that this is what motivated Obama's change; the "replacing it with something different" doesn't automatically ensure that it's replaced with something better.

Time will tell. If I'm skeptical, it's because of his admittedly short record in the Senate. Starting with funding the war he says he didn't support, continuing on to FISA today.

Alice Palmer is another story, though.

While I certainly agree that it's legal to challenge petitions, it's also a way to make sure you have no competition for the nomination. Smart? Yes. Admirable? No.

At least one of the challengers complained that petitions were invalidated for things like voters printing their names instead of signing. Technically still legitimate, but it somehow doesn't feel "democratic."

It's probably not surprising that Palmer campaigned for Clinton in the primaries.

Obama has shown himself willing to play hardball to get elected.

Will he do the same as President when it comes to achieving change? And will it be the change we wish to see (or, at least, the change I wish to see?)

Time will tell.

[H2O Man]

19. In the past,

I was one of the people who got petitions signed for candidates. Sometimes I was volunteering my time, and other times I was hired to do it. In both cases, it was my respoonsibility to make sure that every single signature was done correctly, and I always, always made sure that "my" candidate had more than the required number .... because it isn't rare in any election that I was ever involved in to have the opposition look very closely at those petitions.

Hence, I can say very seriously, and only slightly tongue-in-cheek, that if one supported Alice Palmer, it was indeed smart but not admirable; while if one supported Obama, it was indeed both smart and admirable. Around here (upstate NY), "local" politics -- be it village, town, county, or state -- is often far more vicious than making sure everyone follows the rules. I know that I'm not telling you anything that you don't already know as well as I. But a person who plays tough by the rules is what I want in a candidate.

[TexasObserver]

13. Yes, Obama is a progressive. He's not a Kamikaze Democrat, however.

There's a tendency by some self styled progressives to consider theirs a life of political purity, and for them, everyone to the right of them on any issue is a sell out. Being pig headed isn't really a progressive ideal. Some who claim to be progressives are simply left leaning fascists who think it's their way or the highway on every issue.

Accepting that one doesn't always win in a representative democracy is a truly progressive ideal. Accepting that one's point of view, however heartfelt and based upon some liberal theory, will not always prevail, is a progressive ideal.

[H2O Man]

15. It will take

at least twenty years, in my opinion, to repair the damage that has been done to the foundation of our Constitutional democracy since 1980. If Obama serves two terms, that is still only 40% of the coordinated effort that is required. Thus, it seems highly unrealistic to expect him to have 100% of The Answers today.

It is important that progressive and liberal democrats view things in the context of both long- and short-term efforts. There is a lot of work to be done. And we really don't have anything more important to be doing as citizens in the next two decades!

[TexasObserver]

16. I agree. It's like turning around a large sea vessel in a small channel.

You're right about the 1981 movements. Reagan gave us privatized prisons, the fraud known as The War on Drugs, and set in place the mechanisms to keep those private prisons full of otherwise innocuous drug users. Our prison population has more than doubled, and the entire increase is due to drug laws and drug convictions.

I hope Obama can and will begin the process of turning this thing around. We've been on a soulless journey since 1981. "I got mine, you get yours" isn't much of a mantra, but it's been THE mantra for 25 plus years. Greed is not good. Sharing is good. Compassion is good. Freedom is good. Treating, not imprisoning, drug problems is good.

I don't expect Obama to fix it all at once.

[SidneyCarton]

17. K&R

Thank you for the read, it gives a welcome breath of fresh air into some relatively stale arguments.

[Ian David]

20. Obama Says His Critics Haven’t Been Listening (‘I am someone who is no doubt progressive’)

Obama Says His Critics Haven’t Been Listening (‘I am someone who is no doubt progressive’)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3390982&mesg_id=3390982