Tactics, Strategy, and Coalition Building: A PROGRESSIVE MANIFESTO

Many of us are drawn to the tactical clash of politics. It’s a sport: Blue Team bests Red Team; we win news cycle or legislative victory or message war. Opportunities are presented to heap scorn and ridicule for misstatements, errors, or rank hypocrisy. Since there are effectively only two parties, we struggle to make our party more like us and less like those other guys inside our tent. It’s a fun game to play and I will never give it up entirely.

However, the most successful and most persistent strategic thinkers are those powerful interests that devote considerable resources to finding new ways to bend the system in a manner that serves their interests. They are relentless in their search for weaknesses in the system and amoral in their efforts to exploit them. The corruption they engender has infected both major parties (Republicans more so, IMO, but I acknowledge that I am not without bias) and it twists and perverts the struggles we wage at the tactical level.

HCR, for example, was a huge tactical victory for Democrats but strategically it represents only an insignificant and possibly temporary reversal of the power equation. Still, even baby steps are to be celebrated.

Strategic thinkers recognize that many of the various systems that overlay our democracy have been developed to thwart the will of the majority and to frustrate the people’s desire to reach consensus. Playing a rigged game will always bring rigged results. Third party efforts are doomed not only to fail, but will advantage the Major Party whose objectives are least in alignment with supporters of the third party (e.g., Bush v Gore v Nader). The Dems and the GOPpers are the sole gatekeepers and democracy suffers another blow.

Tactically, the smart move for progressives is to reject the Green Party and rally behind the Democratic nominee. Strategically, however, this still leaves the wizards behind the curtain with their hands on the levers. Therefore, I hope that the American Progressive Party will explore very specific reforms that will make the USA more democratic and breaks the grip of the Demo-Repo duopoly.

Additionally, we need to appreciate that long-lasting, effective political movements are built on broad-based coalitions. Historically, many of the components of these alliances had seemed quite incompatible with one another. FDR’s supporters were workers & intellectuals, socialists & segregationists. Reagan’s very effective governing coalition included libertarians, social conservatives, militarists, and corporatist oligarchs (does my nomenclature reveal any biases here, guys?). These coalitions endured for a number of decades because the various members were able to subordinate their various differences in order to strive toward a higher principle. The moral imperative and fierce urgency of the moment really did drive them to unite.

I dream of a new progressive coalition of combinations that haven’t worked together, at least in many decades. I envision a big tent for liberals and libertarians, workers (from Black to Brown to White and with all hues in between) and environmentalists, and the regular folk who realize that the diet of resentment and revenge fantasy that they have been served in heaping portions for four decades has done them and their beloved country a world of harm. You can come to the tea party or you can come to our party but ours is more satisfying morally and better for your children’s and grandchildren’s futures.

p.s.: Corporatist enablers —Democratic or Republican— will not be welcome.

Defining 21st Century Progressivism

Perhaps this is the time to clear up the confusion about what people at the Facebook page, American Progressive Party*, mean by the word “progressive”. Some write as if there is already a consensus, but it is evident that at least three distinct schools of progressivism are represented. My observations:

1. “Progressivism” is a synonym for “liberalism”. During the Reagan years, “liberal” took on a pejorative connotation and liberals thought they would make themselves seem less objectionable if they adopted a new term for themselves.

2. “Progressivism” is as Glenn Beck describes. It harkens back to the anti-capitalist theorists of the early 20th Century like Saul Alinsky. Top-down lines of authority, rigid ideology and quasi-religious terms like “collective consciousness” have been used by at least one of the members here. I also note that some call for radical action, even at the expense of democratic processes or consensus-building. It seems rather quaint but unless they are being disingenuous, there is a desire to rekindle an ideology based on a reformulation of Marxist-Leninist principles.

3. “Progressivism” refers to a movement for good government, accountability and structural reform. While it is quite compatible with liberalism it is also a cause that libertarians and responsible conservatives can support. This kind of progressivism sees the enemy is the corporatist oligopolies that have entrenched their hold on most of the levers of government and have corrupted both of the major political parties.

Any thoughts on my analysis? Did I miss something? Am I off-base? Most importantly, what type of “progressivism” do the fans of that page seek?

*[ http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?topic=13620&uid=195858376158#!/pages/The-American-Progressive-Party/195858376158?ref=ts ]

Judicial Activism and Other Conservative Myths

One of the most irksome traits common to many (most?) conservatives of the early 21st Century is the catalogue of myths to which they faithfully cling despite empirical evidence to the contrary. Many of these myths are applied to people whom they are not (e.g., liberals, non-Caucasians, non-Christians, etc.). Examples include the “wisdom” that liberals love taxes and desire to appease terrorists and other enemies and that character, values, and choices are the most important determinants of one’s relative wealth or poverty.

Another type of conceit in which conservatives like to indulge is the myth that their positions are determined by godly principles that are at odds with the self-serving expedience favored by the usurpers of the left. One particularly damnable myth is that conservatives are strict constructionists who are offended by efforts to “legislate from the bench.” This presumes:

1. that it is an easy, straightforward process to determine the original intent of the writers of words the Constitution and its amendments. There is much potential for misunderstanding and ambiguity for passages that were composed with utmost care last week. Why do they believe that there is only one correct way to understand that which was written a couple of centuries ago?

and

2. that opponents of judicial activism will, on principle, reject it even when legislating from the bench brings a decision they find favorable. Examples of this include Bush v Gore and the recent Citizens United decisions.

Conservatives should admit that honorable people can reach different conclusions about what a given written passage may mean or what the writer may have intended them to mean; if it were simple, judicial review would be unnecessary. They should also hold themselves to the same standards to which they hold their adversaries. If “judicial activism” is morally unjustifiable, then it’s also bad when the benefit accrues to the Red Team, too.