History's Lesson: No Progress Without Struggle

by: Mike Lux

Tue Jan 27, 2009 at 10:30


Get your copy of my new book, The Progressive Revolution: How the Best in America Came to Be

Cross-posted at Huffington Post

As we come off the high of the Inauguration, we have to get ready for what will be some very tough fights ahead.  I have been doing some thinking about the challenges of this whole post-partisan theory of change, and wanted to spend some time addressing it strategically.

As you may know, I recently did an interview with Sam Stein at the Huffington Post about my new book, The Progressive Revolution: How the Best in America Came to Be, where I talked about the fact that history doesn't really support the whole post-partisan, bring everybody together theory of change-that every big change in American history has only come after a very intense and rancorous battle to the end between progressives and conservatives. That caused some heartburn for some of my friends in the Obama White House, but I stick by what I said.  There are a lot of nuances and layers to what is going on right now, and we need to do some real thinking about the strategy going forward.

Mike Lux :: History's Lesson: No Progress Without Struggle
The first point I would I make is that I think it is a very good thing strategically for Obama to be reaching out symbolically to Republicans.  Going to a dinner honoring John McCain the night before the inaugural; going to meetings with the Republican leadership and the Republican caucuses; making a point of saying over and over again that he wants to work with them: all of these gestures build good will, impress voters, and make it harder for the Republicans to be nasty in their attacks of him.  And it might well help in winning Snowe, Voinovich, Collins or Specter on critical votes when we really need them.

There are two things we should be very clear on about post-partisanship, though:

1. At the end of the day, the progressive things Obama wants to do will be strongly opposed by the vast majority of Republicans.  Rebuilding the economy from the bottom up, fundamentally reforming healthcare so all Americans can get reasonably priced coverage, transforming the energy economy so that we save ourselves from the worst consequences of global warming, allowing unions a fair shot at organizing, and many of the other things Obama wants to do will all be opposed by 90%+ of the Republican party and conservative movement.  We already see it in the reaction from Boehner and McConnell and all of the conservative columnists Obama had dinner with the other night to his economic recovery package, even though Obama has made it smaller and put more tax cuts into it than most progressives think make sense.  Making the substantive changes that actually make all of the above policy goals possible will require rejecting conservative ideas and going forward boldly where they can't follow.  Key to actually achieving real healthcare reform, for example, is giving all Americans the option of joining the same public plan members of Congress get, but including that option will lose you most Republican votes.  Making the massive public investments in transforming out energy economy will never be supported by most Republicans, nor will placing a tight cap on carbon emissions that isn't chock full of loopholes.  95% of Republicans will violently oppose any easing of union organizing rules.  Reaching out to conservative Republicans symbolically, personally, and rhetorically can strengthen Obama for the tough political battles ahead, as long as he understands that to get the important things done that we need to achieve, they will still oppose you on virtually everything that really matters.

2. Someone is still going to have to call the charge to attack.  If the upside of all this reaching out to Republicans is that it makes them look pettier when they attack you, the downside is that regardless of that, as with the economic recovery plan, they will still attack.  If Obama is going to play conciliator-in-chief, someone else on our side is going to need to play the attack dog because we know the Republicans aren't going to be all sweetness and light all of a sudden.  People inside and out of the administration- a mix of cabinet officials, White House spokespeople, Congressional leaders, and outside progressive leaders and groups- are going to have to be the tip of the spear, be very conscious and very aggressive about defending the progressive proposals being pushed and attacking the Republican ideas as being the lame turkeys that they are.  Deciding who our leading aggressors will be needs to be thought through strategically and decided early on so that it is not shied away from or done sporadically.  There will always be a vigorous debate when you are trying to make big change, and we need to be ready to engage in it.

In The Progressive Revolution, I quote nineteenth century abolitionist leader Frederick Douglass' great speech where he says:

"If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters.  This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will...men may not get all they pay for in this world; but they must certainly pay for all they get."

Truer words were never spoken.  What history shows is that nothing important was ever done; no big change was ever made, without a knock-down, drag-out fight between progressives and conservatives.  Our ideas and attitudes and fundamental philosophies are just too different.  One side or another gains the upper-hand politically for a while, but neither side ever gives up or goes away, and the conservatives won't this time either.  We need to strike while the iron is hot, and fight like crazy to make the big changes while we can, because we will fail if we don't understand that we are still, as always, in a war of ideas.

Mr. President, I think it is great that you are reaching out in all these ways.  It may well help on a crucial vote here or there in the Senate where we need just one or two Republicans to break a filibuster, and it will make the Republicans look bad when they refuse to compromise at all.  But just remember those words of Frederick Douglass, because they are still true today:  There is no progress without struggle.  There never has been and there never will be.  We have to fight with conservative Republicans to get anything good done, and they will not back down easily because they never do.  The fight will be tough, rancorous, and- yes- partisan, because pretty much everything worth doing generally is, every time.


Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Excellent post, Mike. (4.00 / 2)
Well reasoned and respectful of the Obama strategy.

In the end, the Rs WILL oppose any real change.  I'm okay with some bipartisanship, but it seems to be encoraging bad behavior by Republicans.  I liked Obama's "I won" statement.  We will need more of that.

Obama has to lead.  When it is time, he must be the aggressor.  I think he understands that.  There will be an early showdown where Obama shows steel and refuses to back down on core principles.  


Yes and no (4.00 / 1)
First let me say that I agree with you and Fredrick Douglas that "If there is no struggle, there is no progress." And as progressives our job, despite and because of Obama, is to to press and struggle and push and pay for the demands  that the economy, fairness and rights prescribe to us.
At the end of the day, the progressive things Obama wants to do will be strongly opposed by the vast majority of Republicans.
This may be true, but again as polling is showing, it may not be true for the 'vast majority' of people who consider themselves Republicans. Nor it may not, as we have seen a few times from a few Republiocan Congress Critters, mean all the elected party either

Part of what Obama is trying to do is create  a new centre for the centre left coalition. It does not mean selling out principles to the Congressional Leadership of the Republican Party, not certainly to the Limbaughists, FoxNewsists and the like. He has rejected them, advised not just us or American Voters, but the Congressional Republican Leadership as well, against even listening to them, even rarely engaging in debate withy them. The drive on Obama's part to split off the lunatics from discourse in American political life is exciting xcommendable and surprisingly successful.

I think the "I won" statement is a line in the sand drawn by Obama, that when coupled with his delightful "Quit Listening to Rush Limbaugh if You Want to Get Things Done" is the proof in my mind of this effective position.

None of this is a refutation of your main point about struggle and even crisis. We must look for struggle, look for change that actually alters, change that shifts the power in America morte closely to Democracy, more directly to respect for voters, more strongly protcts those rights and expands what rights are in a modern democractic state. Thje right to healthcare, the right to have your vote counted, a respect for collective bargaining and the entire panoply of advances we need to promote the economy, rights peace and small business.

Part of the social arrangement that needs to be created is the triumph of small businesses ovcer the coercive power of the giant corporation. Small businesses given democratic party leadership could easily see that their success lies in  removing the systems of market control that giant telecoms, banks and energy companies have in their lives and our lives. In that way the reaching out to Republicans that allowed "small business" programs to be added to the bailout is right on track, and helpful to the building of new center.

Remember Democrats 'hurt' themselves by passing the civil rights act, in that the voting block Southern Democrats (Dixiecrats) relied upon disappeared just as it was warned it would. That it also eventually (tragically far too long an eventuality) allowed Democrats to hold their heads high and allowed us to win the windfall of support due for it, also points to the fact that we can do things that hurt us proudly. But it also points to thew creation of a new voting coalition. The attachment of small business as a class to the Democratic Party, not just for economic reasons, but for populist reasons of breaking up the economy controlling monopoly-like power of the giant transnational corporations.

There are many benefits to Obama's recreation of the American center. That it is also moving that centre toward progressives and rights and populism is why I support his efforts.

That progress will only come if we listen closely to you, and struggle as effectively and respectfully and as hard as we can, is why I am giving you a FOUR.

I don't however hold Obama in disrespect for his efforts. Nor do I merely trust him.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.


Thanks. (4.00 / 1)
Great writing, very thoughtful.

[ Parent ]
obama plays by new rules (0.00 / 0)
take funding in the stimulus for birth control (if that is even what it is)...i don't understand the funding stream (or care) but what i know is that obama is insisting on playing by new rules. he is not going to let 'them' define the issue. the gop wanted to debate the quality of the stimulus by focusing on one minor polarizing issue--this strategy has worked for them ten fold in the past. obama would  have no part of it. you can look at it as if pelosi (or obama) caved to the gop. but i think it is more likely that obama wants to control the narrative, and a debate over the efficacy of birth control is not part of that picture.

i think over the years the dems have been too stubborn, sticking to principle just to make a point and end up losing total control of the issue. (many won't agree but I think the partial birth was an example of that) obama is playing by new rules...compromise in order to control the outcome, and maintain control of the ongoing narrative. for him its  a win-win.

new rules. i may be in the minority but so far i like them.


Compromise in order to control the outcome? (4.00 / 1)
Ridiculous. Compromising affords your opponents an opportunity to control the outcome.

Besides, if compromise would allow Dems to control outcomes, why did Bush get pretty much everything he wanted from the US Congress?  All the compromising by the Congressional Dems should have given THEM control over the outcome, no?

Nor are these "new rules". A brief review of recent history will clearly demonstrate that Democrats "compromising" with the GOP is as old as dirt.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
this is what can I call it (0.00 / 0)
It's called redefining losing as winning....Giving up as success.

Call it new rules...that doesn't make them good rules.


"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller


[ Parent ]
losing? (0.00 / 0)
he has this bill in the bag...this is a game he is choosing to play on purpose. why is that so hard to understand?

[ Parent ]





Donate to Open Left




blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
USER MENU

QUICK HITS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search