The Rise of the Progressive Caucus

by: Chris Bowers

Thu Aug 27, 2009 at 00:00


While the Progressive Caucus still has a long way to go to match the media and policy influence of the Blue Dogs, because of the Progressive Block campaign, for the first time in at least a decade they are relevant to the overall Congressional power structure.

At the Huffington Post, Ryan Grimm has a must-read feature story on how Progressives fought their way into relevance.  Most of it won't be new to regular readers of Open Left, but it is a great read anyway and should help introduce the new progressive organizing on The Hill to a wider audience.

From the article, there were three keys to the rise of the caucus: be organized instead of just righteous; finding a legitimate way to threaten those in power; and developing better connections with natural allies in the progressive ecosystem. In my experience, those tend to be the three most common reasons progressives have failed to gain relevance in the past.

Much more in the extended entry.

Chris Bowers :: The Rise of the Progressive Caucus
Here are the three keys:

  • Just being righteous wasn't enough: One of the great frustrations I have had with some progressives is they seem to think that just being right is enough. Given the nature of our opposition, it's not:

    "We're the group that speaks to the righteousness of an issue, [but] inevitably the decisions about how that issue's going to be addressed are conducted somewhere else," said Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), describing the traditional fecklessness of progressives in Congress.(...)

    In March, Grijalva did something unusual for the progressive caucus: he began organizing. Caucus leadership sent a questionnaire asking members if they would be willing to oppose any health care bill that didn't include a public option. A majority said they would.

    Attendance at caucus meetings - which had dipped to just a handful of members - began rising as the group hashed out what message to deliver to House leadership.

    "I really felt that we needed to be righteous about the things that we believe in, but we also needed to practice the craft a little better," said Grijalva. "As a bloc we were getting beaten to the punch all the time."

  • Organizing isn't enough either: Further, just being right and just getting organized isn't enough, either. You have to be willing to make a power play, such as blocking Democratic legislation. This was not feasible when Bush was still President, but Progressives have been willing to seize the moment once it became available:

    For Woolsey, it's the issue that allows the caucus to stand unified. "It's the issue. We agree on this," she said. "We have never had the luxury of saying, 'Either go with us, or we'll go with the Republicans. We don't believe what the Republicans stand for at all. So it's been more difficult when Bush ran the White House. Nor have we had the majority of the progressives drawing a line in the sand as they are now."(...)

    Grijalva said he and others been eying the health care fight as a chance to establish the authority of caucus since the beginning of the year. "People have understood that this was not only a value statement that we had to stick to, but it was also, to put it in a really blunt sense, an opportunity to show that the caucus was going to be a real player in how policies get shaped and that's what we're trying to do," he said.

    Without the threat to sink important Democratic legislation, the Progressive Caucus has no real power. This is, after all, how the Blue Dogs managed to amass so much power. Rather than just complaining about them, we needed to learn from them.

  • Working with outside groups: Realizing that there are many new progressive groups and leaders who would stand with the Progressive Caucus if they choose to pick a major fight was another key:

    Ellison cited Rep. Alan Grayson's (D-Fla.) hiring of prominent blogger Matt Stoller. "He brings all of his perspective and his technical expertise with him," said Ellison.

    The caucus also brought on Darcy Burner to help with outreach to progressive groups. Burner had twice run for Congress and is a hero of the Netroots community of bloggers and activists. She arranged for Jacob Hacker, the intellectual architect of the public option, and Diane Archer co-president of the Health Care for All Project, which is run by the Institute for America's Future, to brief the caucus.(...)

    The caucus also reached out to MoveOn.org, which notified its members of the letter and encouraged folks to go to the press conference announcing it. "We let [our members] know there were people standing up for them," said MoveOn's Ilyse Hogue. "Looking from the outside in, I'm definitely seeing an increased understanding of the power progressives can wield on the inside working in coordination with outside progressive forces."

    "There are certainly some of us who have come from those outside groups and have made a point in increasing communication with the outside groups," said Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md.), a caucus vice-chair who previously worked for Public Citizen and The Arca Foundation, among others.

    Much of the Progressive Caucus, including the leadership, really was oblivious to the potential support they could receive from new online groups. At the same time, much of the progressive netroots never trusted the Progressive Caucus to make a real play for power. Now that the netroots and the Progressive Caucus are blending, the strength of both is increasing.

There is a lot more where that came from. Go read the whole thing.

The main reason Progressives are not taken seriously in the media, The White House or The Hill is because they have usually been more righteous than organized, either unwilling or unable to make a power play, and not working with their natural allies outside of D.C.  As such, they were rightly perceived as irrelevant.  The campaign for the public option, if successful, will change that.  What I have termed The Progressive Block is the biggest play for real progressive power in D.C. in at least two decades, and possibly since Ted Kennedy's primary challenge to President Carter.

Over the weekend, Nate Silver has used a poker analogy described the strategy: "going on tilt." I don't think that is the right poker analogy.  In addition to the huge importance of a public option, this is nothing short of a campaign for permanent Progressive relevance in D.C. for as long as Democrats control the White House and both chambers of Congress.  As such, this is like going all in order to earn a seat at the final table.


Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Very nice read ---- I truly think (4.00 / 4)
we in the Progressive Community must begin to use our energy, intellect, and passion for truly effective change going forward ... it is the least we can do to honor the most effective and tireless legislature of our time.  If we continue to strengthen the collaborative ties between the inside the beltway crowd and those on the outside we will be in a much better position going forward.

Another group that is becoming more aligned with the Progressive Community is Union Labor.  I was pleased to see Jane of FDL host Trumka the Fire Breather the other day and he truly was excited about the possibility of the collaborative benefits of taking organized labor and working in conjunction with the Netroots and Progressive Community at large going forward.  


This is so right: (4.00 / 1)
"Just being righteous isn't enough"
This is such a mistake you see progressives making all the time. You simply cannot build your case on "morality" alone. It makes you sound as bad as the pious bible-thumpers.

Save Our Schools! March & National Call to Action, July 28-31, 2011 in Washington, DC: http://www.saveourschoolsmarch...

The last step… (4.00 / 2)
...is to get the mainstream media to properly cover the progressive bloc. The media seems so fond of the idea of centrism that it never misses an opportunity to portray progressive righteousness, fortitude and organization as outside the mainstream. Healthcare polling shows that progressives are in step with the majority of the country, but you'd never know it.  

"This ain't for the underground. This here is for the sun." -Saul Williams

Corporatism (4.00 / 2)
Centrism is corporatism in another label.  The media never fails to love the corporates.  People, that's a different matter.

[ Parent ]
Great post. (0.00 / 0)
The very first time the progressives stick to their guns on something -- anything -- they will be taken seriously. Precedent shows however, that when push comes to shove they cave on EVERYTHING. Heck, Democrats, cave on everything.  It explains why Pelosi laughed at them, and to this day, no one in politics genuinely believes they will hold out no matter how much noise they are making now. They are weak. Some of them even admitted they are bluffing. They have no strategic sense.

And frankly, I still don't think they get it, because I have not heard one of them turn around and blame the Blue Dogs or Baucas for the prospective defeat of health care when blame is placed at their feet by the corporate media.  No one says blame the blue dogs, not us. Blame Conrad and his stupid co-ops. They are the ones who won't compromise; 78% of Americans want what we want -- the Public Option.  They don't know how to fight.

In any case, I pray for the day when we don't have to continuously "prop up"  our progressives, that they will have enough conviction so that they will instinctively know what they stand for and the integrity to know what to do. But maybe that's asking too much of any politician.



Spot-on analysis of the previously existing problems, Chris n/t (4.00 / 1)
Good post, Chris. (0.00 / 0)
I'll go read the HuffPo piece.

There is a lesson here not just for elected officials (0.00 / 0)
but for citizens.  I could be wrong, but it seems to me that discussions about things we have no control over tend to get more attention than discussions of things we do. (See the few comments on this thread and the many speculating about who will succeed to the Senate in MA - I think that pattern is pretty typical.)

On a related note, here Chis (as usual) is talking about  politics in political terms - strategy, pressure, power, coalitions, etc.  There is a temptation to boil down the actions of people in government to non (or less) political terms - psychology, character, individual preferences.  The problem with that is that these sorts of ways of thinking about politics leave little room for people to act.  If we understand that what politicians do is a product of the political context, and we have some influence over that context, we have some power.  Working with the Progressive Caucus is a great example.

On the other hand, if what politicians do is a product of their internal states, what room is there for influence?

It's easy to see politicians doing the same thing they always did, and to conclude that it could not be otherwise. History shows this is false - politicians and the political system are not infinitely malleable, but they can and do change. But that also requires more attention to the things we have influence over and less to things we don't. I hope this is the start of a sea change not only for the Caucus, but for the netroots as well.


Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.


USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox