Chris Bowers: 3 Reasons Why Progressives Are So Frustrated

[highplainsdem]

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/144783/3_reasons_why_progressives_are_so_frustrated


I thought this was an interesting analysis of progressives in our party versus Third Way Democrats, and I haven't seen it posted here yet.

It's too long to quote very much of it, so I'll quote one paragraph about the Third Way Dems (which Bowers says include "the White House, the Democratic leadership, and indeed perhaps most Democrats in Congress") and the last three paragraphs since I think they're key, not only to why this is an interesting analysis, but also to why I haven't seen much discussion of it here, so far.

These are the three major examples of the difference between the left-progressive view of government and the Third Way view of government. To solve major problems, from health care to climate change to the financial crisis to education (an example Kilgore discusses in his piece), the Third Way philosophy is not for the public sector to take over where the private sector has failed (which would have meant temporary bank nationalization, carbon tax, single payer / expanded public options, and equitable education funding) but instead to use a heavily subsidized and moderately regulated private sector (which meant purchasing toxic assets and loan interest loans to struggling banks, non-auctioned cap and trade, health insurance mandate with subsidies, and charter schools).

-snip-

That last point is made particularly difficult for progressives due to the Obama administration's demonstrated willingness to use its political clout to back members of the coalition who break with rank and file opinion to the right, and to crush those who break with rank and file opinion to the left. While the Obama administration will give support to Blue Dogs facing primary challenges from Progressives, they have also been willing to support right-wing primary challenges to Progressives if those Progressives break with administration policy. As Rahm Emanuel has often done throughout his career (see here and here), the White House is is using their leverage against Progressives, not on behalf of them.

Overall, this leaves progressives on the short-end of an ideological divide within the American center-left, with relatively little organizational ability to shift that hierarchy, and facing the very real prospect of being squashed if they step out of line. This is why so many progressives are frustrated right now.

The choices in this environment are to lash out and hurt the coalition's leadership for the sake of revenge, give up altogether, and keep struggling through a long slog to try and make whatever gains you can. I go with the latter, because I want to keep fighting over the long haul, which makes splitting with the coalition or just giving up not real options. However, after writing this all out, I hope I at least articulated why some people are frustrated enough to choose other paths for themselves.

I want to make a few points here.

1) Bowers did support Obama:

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4795

2) This analysis Bower did has obviously, judging by the posted comments, angered many progressives who think they could win with a third-party progressive candidate.

3) Even though this analysis annoys many progressives, it still isn't getting cheers from diehard Obama supporters since it's a cold analysis of just what his policies have been, including favoring Blue Dogs to Obama's right over progressives to Obama's left.

Which might be why we haven't seen a lot of discussion of it here, so far.

Hell, I hesitated to post about it, but finally decided it was too interesting not to mention.

For what it's worth, I think progressives could split from Third Way Democrats IF the US had campaign finance laws favoring democracy over wealth, including the Fairness Doctrine.

We don't, of course, and that has hobbled progressives and liberals who don't serve the interests of corporations and the wealthy.

That doesn't mean, though, that the Third Way is anything to cheer about. Especially when -- as one person commenting on this wrote -- the result of Democrats thinking they might be able to use private corporations to achieve public ends turns into those corporations using the government for their own profit instead.

Bowers isn't offering any real solutions here (the path he's choosing for himself isn't ideal, and the basic conflict between progressives and Third Way Democrats is so clear it's obvious why many progressives would find it impossible to accept). But the analysis explains a lot of the disagreements on this board.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[clear eye]

4. I don't get that at all.

Seems to me Bowers says clearly that Obama is selectively tough on progressives (presumably intentionally).

[clear eye]

2. Obama's "make me do it" has turned into

"make me do it if you dare".

[Goldstein1984]

3. It does explain a lot of what I've witnessed...

in my two short weeks here.

Of course, it also explains why Progressives have been so disappointed in the Obama Administration.

In the end, I will stick to my principles. Look where compromise has gotten the country: even our "Left Wing" administrations (remember, Obama was called a socialist) end up Right-of-Center. If that makes things worse, then so be it. I'm beginning to think that conditions need to get worse before they get better.

On edit: fixed typo

[democracy1st]

9. +1

[DJ13]

5. K&R

Thanks.

[highplainsdem]

26. You're welcome! Thanks for the rec!

[Gman]

6. From the article...

#1 (Progressives) are on the short-end of a left-progressive vs. Third Way ideological divide with the leadership of the American center-left coalition;
#2 In attempts to not be on the short-end of #1, and persuade the coalition rank and file to join them, (progressives) face a massive organizational deficit against the coalition leadership;
#3 Finally, if progressives look to split with the coalition in response to #1 and #2, more often than not they just end up getting squashed for it.

Aside from the differences in wonkish policy issues discussed, the politics of it are that progressives have zero choices other than to remain with the Democratic Party. The last time they tried anything other than the Democratic Party, they supported Ralph Nader and the world was struck with the catastrophe that was George W Bush. In many ways, that catastrophe that was George W Bush can be laid at the feet of progressives for supporting Ralph Nader over Al Gore.

[MH1]

7. uh-oh....

you are gonna be in trouble. ;)

[highplainsdem]

10. That doesn't mean Third Way policies are GOOD policies, and Bowers offers no apologies for them.

[HillbillyBob]

14. WE would have been amBushed anyway

the election was rigged. period. I was eyewitness to our ballots being shredded at the polling place on election night in fla that was down the street from us because only one idiot would have voted for him and that same idiot was out there in the street gloating, the rest of the neighborhood was black and gay democrats. Then there were the electronic voting machines that have been since proven to have been flipping votes to dim W then and in 2004.
I will not be voting democrat in the next election, unless we can get some real progressives. Yea the old man and the cuda would be worse for us..but by how much?
Obama threw us under the bus with his fisa vote to allow retroactive immunity to AT&T et al

[Gman]

15. There were other states besides FL that if you add Nader's votes to Gore's total

Gore carries that state. FL was also one of those states, BTW. It's an old, heated discussion here at DU. But that fact remains. The Greens and other Nader supporters argue that we shouldn't assume their votes would have gone to Gore. I say it's not like they were going to vote for Bush or Buchanan.

[Ken Burch]

16. Why can't you accept that Nader was at least partly the PARTY's fault?

Why can't you admit, at long last, that progressives didn't deserve to be treated like dirt for eight years under a "Democratic" president? Why can't you accept that it's just wrong to tell people they're not going to get anything from the politicians they elected and then STILL insist that they're obligated to stay loyal to those politicians?

Progressives NEVER did anything to deserve the brutal penance they were made to do by Bill Clinton.

[walldude]

17. Even Gore admits that it wasn't "Nader"

I find it amusing that people are still blaming him for the 2000 election.


And for the poster above you Gore won the state without the votes Nader got. That is a fact. Bush did not win that election, the recount was illegally shut down by the supreme court.

[Laelth]

21. +1

Well said.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Gman]

22. I willl never understand why progressives thought during the 2000 election that

running the risk of allowing Bush to be elected was worth their "principles". Everyone knew it was going to be the closet election since at least 1960. Everyone knew, or should have known the risks to the country, if not the world if Bush were to win. Yet progressives chose to support Nader who had no chance of winning and would do nothing but split the liberal vote and potentially allow Bush to win. And they chose to support Nader because of "principles".

And, Nader's candidacy and support were NOT the party's fault. Nader was simply a selfish opportunist that took the headlines about himself over the years entirely too seriously. Ultimately the blood of Afghanistan and Iraq are on Nader's filthy hands. Nader himself took advantage of a bad situation. Progressives wanted to make a point to the party and it caused a disaster.

And, before it became so obvious in 2004 that Nader was nothing but a self-centered opportunist, I wrote an OP here on DU in 2004 describing Nader as the wonderful fancy Cadillac I would love to have, but I can't afford. I described supporting Nader as akin to buying the Cadillac anyway, only to have it repossesed and I end up continuing to drive the Bush clunker I had before. Randi Rhodes picked up on that OP and told Nader to his face that we "can't afford him" using all of my points when she told him that. So I do appreciate what Nader represented and what could be under a Nader presidency. Only thing is it was never going to happen.

The time to make a statement about your principles is when you have the votes to win. Progressives simply are not a big enough voting block. Getting 70%, 60% or even 50% of what progressives wanted under Gore would have been infinitely better than what everyone got under Bush.

And as for Clinton, I think a comparison of the economy during his presidency and Bush's presidency says it all. Millions upon millions working versus millions upon millions laid off. 401K's that made record gains versus nothing left in 401K's. Hell, the fast food places here where I live were advertising help wanted at $10.50 an hour on their marquis in the less desirable parts of town in 1998-1999. Now, 10 years later, they advertise $7.00/hour. I gage everything by people working, feeding their families and planning for retirement. By that yardstick the Clinton years were the best in my lifetime and where pretty damn good.

But just like the current HCR, progressives just weren't happy even though millions upon millions benefited. They just didn't benefit as much as progressives wanted. So that little marginal difference was enough to not support Gore and allow Bush to win. Sorry, but I just don't understand.

[BeFree]

25. Damn truth, Gman

This idea that it was ok to have bush as long as "I stood on my principles" has cost us dearly. Nader's idea that there was no difference between the parties has been thoroughly discounted and shown to be the wedge that bush used to divide the democrats.

Even today, we have people claiming that having Gore from 00-08 wouldn't have helped!!
Insane. Bat-shit-crazy!!

It's no wonder that progressives are marginalized and excluded when such ideas are still held closely by so many progressives. To be clear, I hold myself to be a progressive, but some members are just plain whacked.

In congress, Obama is going after the fence sitters. He has to spend his capital on them because they swing what happens. He knows the progressives desire most of what he is working for so when they give him shit it is nothing more than an irritant as he strives to get the blue-dogs to come on board.

We have no choice but to support Obama. No choice. It isn't sad or disgusting unless one makes it so. We simply are going to have to dance to the music if any progress is to be made. No third way. No nothing, but complete unity.

[laughingliberal]

8. Just about nails it.

I am not of the belief Obama cuts deals with Blue Dogs out of a pragmatic sense of what is doable but, rather, that it is his preference. I don't think liberals (progressives) have a chance of seeing the kind of change we would prefer under this administration. And, yes, we're stuck cause we don't want a Republican. Bill Maher nailed it when he said we have 1 right wing party and 1 bat-shit crazy party.

[HughMoran]

11. "Third Way"

Is this an actively promoted philosophy by those who are implementing it, or is it a name given to "what can be accomplished" given the political reality that the Dems are confronted with at this particular time?

I think it's otherwise a fair analysis, other than making the "third way" sound like some sort of deliberate scheme to punish progressives. It may seem that way, but I'm not so sure it's deliberate. There has been name-calling on both sides though - that cannot be denied.

[WeDidIt]

12. IF you wnt Obama to be more Progressive, you have to give him a Progressive Senate

Right now, he has a conservative Senate.

The very nature of the Senate favors conservatism. Sad, but true. The Senate is a conservative body by the very nature of the Great Compromise. when you combine that fact with the fact that at least nine out of the current 60 members of the Democratic Caucus are conservative and you start getting the picture.

So the only way to alter everything is to move the Senate to the Left.

That's how our government works. Complaining about it won't help. Taking your ball and going home will only make it worse. Working to get more progressive Senators in place and expanding the current Democratic Caucus will move the Senate to the left and will ultimately move Obama to the left.

It's an amazing testament to a huge amount of leadership on Obama's part that you got the health care reform bill out of the Senate that you did. Had he not demonstrated true leadership, the bill would have died in September.

[WhiteTara]

18. his chief of staff helped make it conservative n/t

[ThomCat]

19. He chose a conservative staff

including a chief of staff who helped make the senate (and the Democratic Party) conservative. So there is absolutely no evidence to support your claim other than the fantasy in your own mind. Obama surrounds himself with corporate oriented centrists, and he is choosing corporate oriented policies because that is what he believes in. There is nothing progressive in any of that.

The only people he and his staff he chose to attack throughout the entire negotiation for the health care bill were progressives. They kept coddling people to the right, compromising, cajoling, and trying to build relationships. Meanwhile they kept lashing out to the left, keeping everyone to the left out of the loop, and making sure the left had no place at the table.

Again, there is nothing progressive in any of that. There is no desire to be progressive in any of that.

Appearing to be progressive was a Public Relations move during the campaign. Nothing more.

[SharonAnn]

24. Thank you. You're absolutely right. We need to work to get progressives elected.

It's not easy and not every state is a potential opportunity for a progressive senator. However, if we target the opportunities and support those progressives who have a real chance, we can have a very real effect.

And you're right about "dropping out". That's exactly what the conservatives, both Dem and GOP, want us to do so that they continue their "conservative" policies.

[madfloridian]

13. That's a good post by Chris.

"That last point is made particularly difficult for progressives due to the Obama administration's demonstrated willingness to use its political clout to back members of the coalition who break with rank and file opinion to the right, and to crush those who break with rank and file opinion to the left"

Only using political clout for 4 or 5 Democrats.

[Laelth]

20. That's an incredibly good essay. k&r for exposure.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Umbral]

23. If progressive voters aren't willing to use what little power they have...

...their whining is just so much flatulence. These politicians will take your support for granted just as long as you let them - you can't really blame them either.