Libs & Progressives = Natural Allies... Why Let The SYSTEM Drive Us Apart?

[ZombieGak]

Liberals and Progressives... and where some draw that line may differ, should be natural allies in most issues. Yet reading some of the threads here many harbor great animus towards Nader because of 2000.

I see this animus based in one simple fact... that our sense of democracy has become warped by our dysfunctional electoral/political systems. In a democracy citizens should have the simple right to run for office on issues they believe in... and citizens have a right to vote their conscience for whomever they please. That is NOT our system. Ours is an antiquated system rejected by most of the world's democracies. They have introduced modern election concepts that better measure the will of the people and political systems that better reflect that will... reforms such as proportional representation and instant run-off voting. These systems have the added advantage in boosting voter participation because they simply are more responsive to the public. In contrast in the 1990s, the US ranked 140 out of 163 in voting participation

So when will we here in the US wake up and realize it's the SYSTEM that is the problem... not Libs or Progressives?

[MrBenchley]

1. LOL! It isn't "the system" stomping around pouting

that they're going to "quit the party" if they don't get this or that childish demand.

Any more than it's "the system" putting together enemies lists and demanding purges of "DINOs" (by which is meant any Democrat up for reelection in 2006 who is lambasting his or her Republican opponent).

[ZombieGak]

9. it may not be the system.....

It may not be the "system" that's doing the things you cite... but the dynamics of our system force people into two broad parties. I don't think we'd see as many problems with a true multi-party democracy.

[BlueIris]

20. Ah, Mr. B. Beats me to it, every time.

Liberals and "Progressives" can be allies if they're, you know, SANE. As in, if they can recognize who and what we should be uniting to defeat, can think accurately and critically about social issues that sometimes can't be boiled down to cute little slogans based on absolutist, b.s. interpretations of complex situations. The enemy of my enemy is my friend UNLESS he or she is actually calling my friends my enemies 'cause that person is stupid, juvenile, lying about their own motives or totally batshit crazy. As a liberal, I can recognize my enemies. If you can, too, um, then maybe we can be allies, no matter what you call yourself. I guess.

[Marie26]

2. stupid question

What is the difference between liberals and progressives? I've never been too clear on that...

[ZombieGak]

3. what's YOUR definition? n/m

[Marie26]

4. I'm not sure there is a difference

I have this sneaking suspicion that "progressive" became used as a term because it became uncool to be a "liberal." Sort of how many women support equal rights, but won't describe themselves as a "feminist". The right has been so successful in defining the left that it actually makes these terms somehow embarrassing, so Democrats are afraid to use them. Me, I'm a liberal feminist & don't care how cool that is. So that's my little pet theory, but I was wondering if there is a substantive difference between these two labels in terms of policy, philosophy, etc.

[Douglas Carpenter]

5. I think you are right

there are some who would say that a progressive is more apt to challenge corporate power and are looking for more structural change. But, frankly most people use (including myself) tend to use the word interchangeably largely because the word liberal as been successfully demonized to a large extent my the right-wing and the media

[ZombieGak]

7. my dividing line

My dividing line is that Liberals tend to favor a more humane, equitable society.... and they make claims about supporting democracy, but draw the line when it comes to making major structural reforms to our political economic systems. For example Liberals will propose lots of tweaks to our system. So when it comes to elections they favor motor voter, verifiable black box voting, etc... all which are desirable... but would not cross the line and propose changes to our Constitution to make it democratic. Same with economic changes. Liberals would propose to put a leash on corporations with regulations but shy away from attempts to revoke corporate personhood or have corporate charters reflect social costs.

I think Progressives have no problem crossing either line.

[mojavegreen]

6. Progressives

Progressives are interested in downsizing the corporations, taking on the financiers and speculators, the Suits, the IT barons; they also tend to Greenish perspectives, support environmental policy, and scientific thinking to some extent (while questioning its consequences). There are liberals interested in those topics as well, but I think the traditional liberal concerns her/himself with domestic issues, social and educational programs, minority rights and economic justice, and may consider socialistic policies. Progressives and Liberals are generally secular in spirit, I think it is fair to say, though there are some rather religious liberals.

The liberals error I believe in overemphasizing identity politics and a sort of emotional response to everything, and their belief in the virtues of Big Government certainly can be questioned. The liberals are qualitarian in spirit; while progressives and greens are a quantitative in spirit. (These generalizations are not hard and fast of course.) The traditional liberal also tends to a sort of Federalism (not necessarily a bad idea) or socialism, while the progressive is not opposed to some (not all) libertarian and even anarchist ideas.

[Iris]

10. " a sort of emotional response to everything"

Can you explain what you mean by this?

Because, in my experience, whenever someone tries to point out the complexity of certain issues, such as crime rates or poverty, conservatives, failing to look beyond black and white, label all the arguments as "emotional responses" even though there are plenty of articles, studies, and research to illustrte the complexity of issues like these.



And welcome to DU!
:hi:

[mojavegreen]

13. "emotional responses"

Thanks for response. It is a bit of a generalization, but one based on a few years of some interaction with CA democrats (including the Kerry Campaign). BushCo may be corrupt, incompetent, greedy, even "evil" to some degree, but chanting "Bush is Hitler" or suggesting it is not effective politics, and that is how many of the dems seem to operate. Progressive politics which is driven by data, research, logic even, is the proper course.

Progressives may have to call into question what democracy is anyways. That may offend some liberals, but if millions of people are voting for Bushes and Schwarzenegger, then voting and democracy itself should be questioned and examined.

[Iris]

22. Perhaps the frustration is emotion.

But at any rate, I haven't seen a single Democratic leader call Bush Hitler in public.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

19. Shit Really? I always thought they were pretty much the same. I guess

I'm a bit of both then. Really I'm just me, but I can't argue with any of the issues that each of them care about.

Really, more than progressive, liberal, democrat, etc... I've just always considered it to be that I'm just simply a decent human being :)

[ZombieGak]

24. I think the parties are the same in that....

I think the dynamics and imperatives our system creates work to drive politics to the center resulting in two parties that share more than the GOP and Dems care to admit. For instance in the US both parties have a huge common base they don't even discuss... implicit assumption that the Framers got it right and our political system needs no fundamental reforms... and our economic system got it right and there's no need to look at fundamental changes there either. All the debate is about how to tweak these systems... never to reform either. So as much as the debate rages about the tweaks... the fundamental assumptions, themselves, never get debated... only reinforced. Soon those core assumptions become a secular religion that most can't even rationally discuss. We see that here discussing the Constitution. We've been brought up to understand WHY the Constitution is as it is... never to ask WHETHER it should be as it is. So when some common sense objections are raised about how un- or anti-democratic it is... even most Dems reflexively resort to those rationalizations they learned in grade school.

[Coexist]

8. Umm... the system isn't driving Liberals and Progressives apart

they are the same thing.

Many Liberals (myself included) are tired of voting for politicians who are too moderate and give in whenever threatened. Who "speechify" to appease the left, then vote with the right.

Call me what you want - but no cash, no volunteering and no support for Democrats who I don't believe in anymore, just because they are running with a D by their name.

I've been burned too many times, and would rather vote Green if that is where my conscience lies.

[ZombieGak]

11. of course it's the system

If we had a true multi-party democracy we'd not have the problems between Liberals and Progressives we now have.

US Liberals are merely trying to game a dysfunctional system and that means they have to coax Progressives to vote Democratic... and if they don't, they hold them responsible if the SYSTEM throws the election to a minority candidate. We saw that in election 2000.

Progressives hate being stuck voting their conscience and never getting representation because the SYSTEM doesn't allow for proportional representation. They also resent voting the lesser of the evils.... especially for a party that is thwarting true reform that could allow Progressives to have a multi-party democracy.

It's our dysfunctional electoral/political system that creates these unhealthy and anti-democratic dynamics and with the constant short term imperative to win the next election, long-term thinking about reform never gets any traction.

[mojavegreen]

14. Question Voting

OK, I'm not John Maynard Keynes here, but I do think progressives and greens and rational liberals could sort of examine the voting process. It's amazing that all these college-educated democrats and leftists have no problem believing that voting leads to equitable politics. The CA Recall, and Bush victories (if he did win, which I grant is quite debatable) demonstrated that the voting public is not to be trusted to vote in the most qualified or intelligent candidate. How do the non-conservatives prevent the populists or celebrities or business candidates from succeeding?

Putting into effect educational standards for all candidates for public office, and perhaps requiring poll tests are two solutions. That might offend some liberals, but could keep some rednecks out of the booths too.

[ZombieGak]

18. equitiable politics?

mojavegreen wrote: "It's amazing that all these college-educated democrats and leftists have no problem believing that voting leads to equitable politics."

Not sure what others mean... I believe in civic equality where each vote weighs the same. But I also realize that US "democracy" is a sham. And one of the reasons is that for the most part the majority of the voting age population doesn't vote. But we're so blind to this that most believe that Reagan won a landslide victory in 1980 when he only got the approval of about 26% of the voting age population. In some off-year elections the ruling party in Congress may reflect as little as 18% of the voting age population.... and with Gerrymandering perhaps less.

[mojavegreen]

21. "democracy" is a sham

I agree, and also want to compliment you on a most excellent avatar. As FZ said, "who you jivin' with that Cosmic Debris?" OK that's a bit off-topic.

It's a sham not only because of the low voter turn-out but because, one, nearly anyone can be candidate for public office (even a flunky alcoholic Yale boy who probably needs psychological treatment), and two, and don't let this offend your leftist soul, the American voting hordes generally don't know squat about politics or about what they are voting for. There are the campaign financing, advertising, and PAC issues, but I think the lack of voter intelligence is as important a factor.

Rednecks are generally not making some informed choice. They are following orders, voting their pocketbook as well as making some bizarre moral, rather than political or logical judgements. Red-state conservatives equate the GOP with a strong US Military as well, I believe, and thus define the GOP as good. A UC Berkeley professor, Lakoff, calls it "framing"--and the political process might be viewed in Darwinian terms as well. Schwarzenegger defeats Davis begins he's Big Daddy: richer, stronger, more handsome, probably with a larger d**k as well. Energy policies, economics, stands on education, etc. are secondary.

[ZombieGak]

23. I think our system destroys civic culture

Because our political system is so unresponsive and not in keeping with whatever ideas we were taught about Jeffersonian self-government... I suspect most citizens have become disillusioned just don't bother voting... so why bother becomeing educated about issues? Compare our average voting rate for Congress of about 45% to a nation like Denmark at 84%.... and we see that deterioration. That leaves all the action with those who DO care... party partisans, one-issue voters, and special interest groups. Without more civic participation the system soon revolves around the needs of the above.... making it even more dysfunctional. Of course as long as all the focus is on those who participate as opposed to those who don't... we can ignore this problem forever. When the GOP blows it... the Dems will get in until they blow it... and at which point the GOP will remarket itself and on it goes.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. The "two party" system is a sham.

As is the "democracy" that it gives the illusion of. The fact is, that most of the electorate doesn't give a rip about politics unless it effects them personally. As Tip O'Neil said, "All politics is local." On most issues, the politicians of both parties are almost interchangeable. What we have is one capitalist/nationalist party with two wings. The most they ever do is to tinker with a corrupt system.

So, we are stuck with the Republican Party and the "Not as bad as the Republican Party". Hardly a choice to spur enthusiasm for politics as usual.

[ZombieGak]

15. I think that sums it up pretty well

But how do we get from a dysfunctional mess that's virtually reform-proof to a multi-party system where citizens are free to vote their conscience and be guaranteed representation? The two major parties stand in the way... and even most Democrats can't even conceive of what democracy is... even as our system ranks 140th of 163 in voting age participation?

Of course they are looking at election results where everything totals 100%. They are not looking at the 50-65% of Americans who don't vote. It's this ideological blinder that leads to bogus political constructions such as Red/Blue states.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. Eventually, it will rot from the inside. In the meantime..

I support causes, not parties or politicians, and vote accordingly. I can't imagine ever voting Republican, but I have no qualms about voting third party if the Dems run the usual "not as bad" candidates.

The only "reform" that I can envision that might save the system and restore it to some semblance of democracy would to take the money out and have fully funded elections open to all comers. Alas, the very people who have the power to do so, are the very ones who make the laws protecting themselves from reform.

I suppose when the people get fed up enough they will stop voting in such numbers that even the pretense that this is a "government of the people, for the people, and by the people" will be abandoned. Or, hopefully, it will be changed.

I have small, or even vain, hopes that the people will come to their senses and start acting in their own interests.

See my tagline for what we have now...and why.

[ZombieGak]

17. history proves our system can endure...

History proves our system can endure... even if voting rates continue to drop.

I suspect most Americans are stuck between the Jeffersonian ideal of self-government they learned in grade school, some need to put the Framers on a pedestal... and the reality of how poorly our system actually allows self-government. What's the point in having an election if it doesn't accurately measure the public will? Without either major party or the press discussing real reforms and given the inflexibility of our system, citizen apathy is a pretty reasonable response. The illusion of self-government can go on until the People, the Parties, or the Press wake up and someone starts to call the very moral legitimacy of our system into question.