Obama and progressivism

Paul Rosenberg of OpenLeft has written a must-read about historical strains of progressivism (his pet topic) and how they correlate to Obama's politics and the current state of the party. Just read it all.

(...I'll also add that the dynamic between working-class progressivism and middle-class progressivism, which Rosenberg touches on here and has been examined extensively by educationinaction, is very real, and probably the main reason that left-populist Democrats like me are so perplexed by and suspicious of Obama.)

The Kind of Hero a Republic Wants

Read Noah Millman at the American Scene and his theory about the difference between "liberal" and "progressive." Millman contends, basically, that liberalism is atemporal and focused on principles, whereas progressivism is context-based and aims at directly improving the future. I'm of two minds on this idea: part of me thinks that he's found an interesting distinction that illuminates a divide in the modern left coalition, and part of me thinks it's a totally false dichotomy that Millman pulled out of his ass two days ago. I may have a real opinion on that later. But meanwhile I want to question this (emphasis mine):

What I think is a fairer criticism to level at progressivism is that it does not have a strong conception of the heroic. We all know what a heroic liberal looks like - like the twelfth man who wasn't angry, and stood his ground against eleven jurors ready to convict in an open and shut murder trial. What's a heroic progressive? By this I don't mean to say, name a person who was arguably heroic who was also a self-identified progressive. Not everybody likes old TR, but he is on Mt. Rushmore and he certainly considered himself progressive. What I mean is: I know how to describe a hero in liberal terms - and, for that matter, in conservative terms - but I'm not sure how to describe one in progressive terms. Indeed, it is when you start to think about the heroic that it becomes clearest why both Ross Douthat and Jacob Levy find progressivism kind of scary: a hero in progressive terms must be somebody who can see the future better, and who has the will to push society forward towards that future. And that is not generally the kind of hero that a Republic wants.

Ahem. May I introduce:

Not exactly a bad starting lineup, eh?

I find it continually amazing -- these people are so out of touch that they really think the "progressive hero" is a difficult or dangerous idea. The American public has always been more comfortable with bold, transformative, aggressive leadership than its sniffling intellectuals like to admit -- this has been true since Andrew Jackson (who was denounced as "dangerous" by none other than Thomas Jefferson, incidentally).

Similarly, Americans hold a firm faith in constant historical progress through technology and social change, despite those same intellectuals' curious insistence that such a view of history has been "discredited". I highly doubt that most people in the United States today, "liberal" or "progressive" or conservative or fascist or whatever, dispute the idea that we should be continually improving our nation -- and that history does, in fact, propel us forward. As opposed to, I don't know, sideways.

(The exception here is of course libertarianism and its radical, atomistic view of society, which I maintain is less of an ideology than a psychosis.)

Sure, the story of most of these progressive heroes -- JFK particularly, sad to say -- is hagiography. But they are nevertheless stories that resonate. Americans like progress; and it is not by coincidence that "progressive" is the most favorably viewed political identification in America. If this is the direction our party's turning towards, a real embrace of progressivism in the sense of optimism and progress, then -- objections of the New Republic set notwithstanding -- it bodes very, very well for our future.

Calm Down, Stoller

Matt Stoller's feeling bad at MyDD this afternoon, complaining about the Iraq capitulation and the continuing omnipresence of sellout DLC Dems. It's the usual stuff, the same cognitive dissonance any progressive Democrat runs into, and I think we all understand his frustration. But Stoller has a bit of a lapse this time and takes his logic in a very destructive direction. Read:

Progressives are in a bit of a bind these days. The Republicans are still sadistic extremists, and with the challenge to Hagel in Nebraska, they will remain that way for at least another few cycles. Despite the victory in 2006, liberal Democrats are still cut out of power and policy-making... [many valid examples...]

Now, this might sound depressing, and it is. But it's also a reality of politics these days, and it's the consequence of 35 years of organizing by the right wing and only around eight years on our side. The people in charge of the political system are the swing votes and the people that those voters want to work with. Steny Hoyer and Rahm Emanuel have positioned themselves to be this swing vote, and they have chosen to basically throw some crumbs our way (minimum wage) while voting with the Republicans on the big issues, like Iraq...

The ultimate point here though is that we are not a partisan movement and should no longer think of ourselves as such. We are an ideological movement. We have ideas, and want to see those ideas driven with power. This means that we need to get down to the hard work of disabusing ourselves of candidate-centric politics, and work to create primary challenges wherever possible, as well as keep building forums for the dissemination of new ideas.

I respect Matt Stoller immensely, but this is horseshit. First: modern progressivism, i.e. the ideology espoused by the blogs and many young/outsider Democrats, would be suicidal to reject partisanship. The only way progressives have ever managed to claw their way into power has been on the backs of people like Howard Dean or the 2006 netroots candidates (Tester, Webb, etc); the only way we have made any difference has been through Democratic-led legislation.

Second: a pragmatic partisanship is at the very core of this progressive belief system. For Stoller to call for a transformation to "ideological movement" is nonsensical and redundant -- our ideology holds that ideas are useless until they're implemented, and as a result we focus on results as the ultimate source of value, hence our interest in political gamesmanship and the destruction of conservative infrastructure. A puritan idealism would be totally in contradiction with our ideals.

(This, after all, is how progressives strive to avoid the marginalization that ruined the 1960s New Left -- we come down hard on the Kucinich-vintage flower children who present ideas without regard for their practicality. One must keep one's eye on the ball.)

Third: we obviously need to protect and promote our ideas, and obviously the results of the Democratic Congress thus far are unsatisfactory, but there is no equivalent need for a departure from "candidate-centric politics". What other type of politics does Stoller have in mind exactly? You can't pry a person's leadership apart from their principles, and you can't keep ideas in a vacuum -- attempts to do that have led to the mute, soulless centrist technocracy that I always thought we opposed.

Ultimately: To reject partisanship is to neuter the progressive movement.

I'm troubled that Stoller, one of the leading lights and sharpest minds of online progressivism, would find himself going down this kind of alley. It speaks to an exhaustion, almost a giving up of hope; a retreat into the easier territory of wonky debate or (at best) interest-group-style scratching at the shins of political leaders. And I can understand why that's tempting given the shock of the Iraq defeat, the crushing vapidity of the presidential race thus far, and all the other things that embitter us daily; I can understand wanting to get away from the Democratic Party and all the problems it entails.

But what this proposal amounts to is a reach for the ceremonial hara-kiri sword. We can't give up on partisanship any more than Harry Reid can give up on legislating -- it's a dirty job, but it's our duty to our beliefs and our country. And Stoller (who incidentally is a Harvard grad, and a resident of my proud Mather House) needs to clear his head, man up, and get back to work.