Progressives As Pushovers

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 12:11:54 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

I'm obsessing on this, but it bothers me so much, I can't stop writing about it. Matt Yglesias writes:

[Chris] Bowers likes to make the point that the administration does more to lean on progressives than it does to lean on moderates. This, however, ignores the basic reality that the administration has more leverage over progressives than it does over moderates. It also ignores the basic reality that progressives are actually the good guys. If you decide to adopt an attitude of sociopathic indifference toward the gargantuan looming catastrophe of climate change, this gives you a lot of bargaining power in a legislative negotiation But progressives can’t adopt an attitude of sociopathic indifference merely in order to strengthen our bargaining position, because refusing to adopt such an attitude is part of what it means to be progressive.

(Emphasis supplied.) According to Yglesias, being a progressive means sucking at political bargaining. More than that, trying be be a good political bargainer means you have "sociopathic indifference" to issues. Of course it should mean the exact opposite on both points. A good progressive is the one who can bargain most effectively for important progressive issues. The milquetoast "progressive" Yglesias in fact represents is really the worst type of progressive in that he does not think there are any issues worth some hard bargaining. This impulse is truly one of the most dangerous in the Democratic constellation. It is a new version of The Third Way really. One last point - Yglesias is right in criticizing Bowers about this being an issue of "trust." Only a fool trusts a pol.

Speaking for me only

< Political Bargaining: Reconciliation, Health Reform, Subsidies And The Public Option | "Blue Dog" Jane Harman Supports "Robust Public Option" >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Progressives As Pushovers | 23 comments (23 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Why in Hades is this so hard to (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by oldpro on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 12:48:12 PM EST

understand?

"....because refusing to adopt such an attitude is part of what it means to be a progressive."

It's also a BIG part of what it means to be a loser. What the Hell pride can anyone take in that?

Zezus, people...get a clue. This is politics 101. Just basic. Kindergarten. Think LBJ.

Not exactly a reality-based community (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by Democratic Cat on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 01:43:10 PM EST

"Progressives" of the Yglesias ilk want us all to just be better people so they can avoid dirtying their hands. The ends don't always justify the means, but it is not enough simply to play nice and hope (pretty-please) that everyone else will play nice too.


: Feckless enablers. n/t (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by oldpro on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 03:31:22 PM EST

Back in the primary (5.00 / 5) (#6)
by Steve M on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 12:51:01 PM EST

I had a thought-provoking debate with some Obama supporters on the issue of whether "progressive" even refers to a set of policy positions in the first place, as I always assumed it did.

My question, then, is: am I wrong about what it means to be a progressive? Is progressivism not, as I thought, a set of substantive positions on the issues, and is it instead the sort of mushy process-based thing that these commentors allude to? I'd like to see if we can come to an understanding, because when someone tells me their candidate is the most progressive, I at least want to know if we mean the same thing by that term. I commented a few days ago, prior to the [Iowa] election, that I was having more and more trouble recognizing some of the Obama supporters as my fellow travelers in the progressive movement (or, at least, what I had thought was the progressive movement).

Some folks here might even agree with my conclusion:

I don't think these people are being dishonest at all when they seek to redefine "progressivism" from how I understand the term. Rather, it increasingly seems to me that they simply understand "progressive" to mean whatever Barack Obama happens to be for. If Obama makes a disdainful comment about unions, well then, unions are no longer an essential part of the progressive movement, they're just a special interest. Ultimately you arrive in a place where progressivism is not about Paul Krugman's economic arguments, it's not about the netroots agenda, it's simply about "bringing people together" and restructuring "our participatory form of government," as the above comments suggest. It's almost as if the rest of us had no idea what progressivism meant before Obama came along.

I don't think "progressive" means anything any more, I think it's just a brand whereby you can establish yourself as one of the good guys. I might even retire the term if it were up to me.

Progressive is the new black. (5.00 / 2) (#8)
by jeffinalabama on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 01:06:34 PM EST

I'm not a progressive. I'm a liberal.

Check out Anglachel's take on progressives... a social class, not a political movement.


: She's back! Thanks for the headsup (none / 0) (#21)
by oldpro on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 03:46:08 PM EST

and the link. Great column...as usual.

I'm glad it's not just me. (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by Anne on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 01:08:23 PM EST

It's a term, a label, that came into being, I think, to move away from the demonized term "liberal," but in the process, those who adopted it seem to have moved away from what "liberal" meant and what it stood for.

With the rise of Obama on the political scene, I think "progressive" has taken on yet another identity, one which shifts and re-shapes depending on what Obama's position-of-the-day is - which has rendered the term utterly meaningless.

It's clear to me that the two words are not synonymous; I refuse to call myself a progressive because I am a liberal. Period.

Will we ever see liberals back in power? A girl can dream.


It came to the point during the last (5.00 / 2) (#17)
by MO Blue on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 01:58:44 PM EST

election cycle, that being told I was a "bad progressive" or "not a progressive" became a badge of honor to me.


It's a Clinton DLC word actually (none / 0) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 01:10:53 PM EST

Progressive Policy Institute for example.


: Considering the number of people (none / 0) (#15)
by cawaltz on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 01:50:26 PM EST

who savaged Clinton and other people under the guise of being a "progressive" I can understand the antipathy of the word for many and the belief that the value system between liberal and progressive, while similar, are not the same.
I'm inclined to agree.

I remember (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 01:56:56 PM EST

this post and it's why I refuse to call my self a "progressive". IMO progressive is synomous with wimp in my book.


Let see if I have this correct (5.00 / 4) (#7)
by MO Blue on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 12:51:45 PM EST

I should continue to support a political party that allows the sociopathic indifferent elements of the party to draft all final legislation.

Sorry, no can do.

: Ding! (none / 0) (#9)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 01:07:24 PM EST

On Charlie Rose last night, Joe Califano and the (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by jawbone on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 03:39:41 PM EST

rest of the panel had several big laughs when Charlie asked Califano what LBJ would have done that Obama hasn't done.

No one said it absolutely obviously, but finally Califano said LBJ "had balls."

That lead to a nutcracker joke, etc.

But, even to these consummate mainstreamers it was clear the current WH resident is not a strong leader on legislation.

Gonna be interesting.

(I have to use the library's PC to get online, and I haven't figure out how to cut and paste URLs from another screen--I just get logged out. So, just look up CharlieRose.com and check it out--transcript should be up soon and video is there as well. Look under guests if the day's program isn't listed.

Electrical storm took out my PC -- btw, backups are such a good idea....)

Lord (none / 0) (#1)
by lilburro on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 12:28:35 PM EST

If you decide to adopt an attitude of sociopathic indifference toward the gargantuan looming catastrophe of climate change, this gives you a lot of bargaining power in a legislative negotiation.

THEREFORE, DO IT. Duh...

Again, Yglesias has the President's reputation in mind foremost. Right now the progressive block DOES have this power, and they are basically controlling how President Obama (Blue Dogs too) will fare in the next election. That's pretty powerful.

Ezra wrote a column on bargaining today too. It's not that his example of bargaining is wrong - it's just that he does not ever, ever follow it. He has spent weeks devaluing the public option. You can't make a trade when you tell the person you're trading with that what you're trading is actually a piece of junk. Plus it's crazy to think that Obama is going to ask Congress to write a new bill NOW, when his entire pitch is "we're almost there!"

Ezra writes a good one (none / 0) (#3)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 12:32:14 PM EST

that was my point last night.


: I know it's the same point (none / 0) (#4)
by lilburro on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 12:45:20 PM EST

it's just ridiculous coming from Ezra, who doesn't even believe in the "camel's nose under the tent" theory.

Is Yglesias even qualified to say that? (none / 0) (#2)
by ctrenta on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 12:29:53 PM EST

Does Yglesias even have any experience in political bargaining at a federal level? Doubt it.

Amen (none / 0) (#12)
by Doc Rock on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 01:31:29 PM EST

This is funny (none / 0) (#14)
by maddog on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 01:44:53 PM EST

Obama treats progressives like he treats our allies!

Matt and Ezra are at their best as policy wonks (none / 0) (#18)
by s5 on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 02:55:20 PM EST

But they're not so good on the politics.

Write your titles like a wing-nut (none / 0) (#22)
by msobel on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 04:33:03 PM EST

You title should be "Yglesias Calls Blue Dog's Sociopaths" since Blue dogs do what he is accusing the Progressives of doing if they hold together.

"Sociopathic Indifference"? (none / 0) (#23)
by shoephone on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 05:45:59 PM EST

Fer chrissakes, Yglesias needs to step back from the blog.