A fifth major lesson of 2009: center-left disagreement is essential to center-left governance

by: Chris Bowers

Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 16:24


The co-directors of the Campaign for America's Future have four great lessons for progressives to learn from the frustrations of 2009.  Here are the lessons summarized in the form of bullet points:

  1. Change is brutal, and will always be resisted by powerful entrenched forces.
  2. No matter how popular a reform idea is, like the public option, it still faces the buzzsaw of the United States Senate.
  3. Progressives cannot wash their hands of the political process. We have to organize more, independent of the political parties.
  4. This is still the best opportunity in 30 years for progressive reform.

I agree with all these lessons.  Watch the following video for more on each of them:


I would add a fifth major lesson: stop expecting, or even hoping, for the center-left coalition to agree with itself. The longstanding internal argument within the center-left coalition over whether the change on the table goes far enough or not is an essential part of the process to any progressive change happening at all.  Without that disagreement, progressive governance of any sort would be impossible:

  • Without people on the left arguing that the coalition isn't going far enough in terms of candidate selection or legislative policy, then there would be no way to push candidates or legislative policy to the left.  In order to continually make progressive ideas mainstream, you have to push the Overton window.  In order to make legislative policy under a Democratic administration more left-wing, you need people demanding that it become more left-wing.  If there is no left-wing criticism, of the actions of the center-left coalition, which in this country means the Democratic Party, then the conveyer belt of promoting left-wing ideas into the mainstream-much less into actual legislation, stops dead.

  • At the same time, if there is no one in the center-left coalition willing to accept more incremental progressive change, then progressive change is never going to happen at all.  The federal government is simply never going to be as, much less more, left-wing than the country as a whole (much less the actual left-wing). Even in a representative democracy, the power and resources of status-quo and regressive institutions will always provide them with government disproportionate control of government at all levels.  This power and resource imbalance will always render governance relatively regressive compared to the country as a whole.

    What this means for progressive governance is that we need people willing to accept, or even favor, partial, slow, incremental change.  Even extremely partial, extremely slow, and extremely incremental change.  Without that, no change will ever happen at all.

All of this makes ongoing, prominent, the center-left disagreement absolutely necessary to making progressive change happen within government.

Center-left unity would actually end any prospect for change, both in the short-term and the long-term, rather than increase it.  This is a basic principle for progressive governance that more people should learn, no matter which side of the center-left divide they fall on at any given time.  It is interesting that former President Bill Clinton has long been one of the biggest proponents of understanding the need for center-left disagreement, and perhaps explains quite a bit about his political career.

Chris Bowers :: A fifth major lesson of 2009: center-left disagreement is essential to center-left governance

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
A fifth major lesson of 2009: center-left disagreement is essential to center-left governance | 32 comments
Absolutely correct (4.00 / 7)
Neither one is "right" in any absolute sense. We need both and all the shades in between for the reasons Chris expressed.  People should take on the role and philosophy that suits their situation and terperament.

The bad thing is to get so caught by the "rightness" of ones position that one attributes other people's positions or tactics to bad faith or bad character.  (Bad tactics or strategy is another matter.)  Don't focus on the "near enemy" but keep your eye on the real enemy and just keep working.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

Great Post (4.00 / 5)
I agree completely.  

Even though I've understood this dynamic for a while, I still find it easy to get sucked in emotionally, as do plenty of others who frequent here.  But it is important for everyone to step back from time to time and to realize that in the big picture, both components are required.  

Ideally, the President himself would know how to straddle that divide, keeping us united despite the disagreements.  Seems like Obama is tailor made for that role, but so far isn't quite living up to the hope.  (Though I think he may be closer to this ideal than most realize.)

It seems that you are still dealing in Hope (4.00 / 2)
The accommodators are hoping that somehow they can instill hope back into the activists to do one more battle for the status quo.  In some cases we must make change to get change.  To keep voting for the Schumers, the Dodds, the Durbins, et. al., will just keep bringing the same results.  These are the corporate fellators who, to insure their own survival which they value higher than systemic change, will keep voting for the interests of their corporate benefactors.

Until the activists grow tired of this and vote out the corporate establishment Democrats there will be no change.  Does that mean there could be some Republican gains?  Of course, but it will be short lived.  The public has had almost all the GOP they can handle.  But the willingness of Dems to accept the Obama imitation of George W Bush tells me that perhaps we need one more bitter dose of conservatism.  For progressives to not vote for Dems is not giving up.  It would just be a change of tactics.  My response is not to say that we don't have areas where we can work with these Democrats, just like Jane and others have found there are ways we can work with conservatives when it is in our mutual interests.  No pain, no gain.  

"Oh. My. God. .... We're doomed." -- Paul Krugman
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...

finding candidates (0.00 / 0)
Until the activists grow tired of this and vote out the corporate establishment Democrats there will be no change.  Does that mean there could be some Republican gains?  Of course, but it will be short lived.  The public has had almost all the GOP they can handle.

the key to making this proposition possible is that when the public tires of the GOP replacement, that there is someone else to elect who is not a corporate establishment Democrat. otherwise you've just been playing musical chairs.

so who will they be? how do we find, recruit and elect better people?

the example that comes to my mind - though it's a different situation than Congressional elections - is the upcoming election for Governor here in California. we are, apparently, going to nominate Jerry Brown as the Democratic Party candidate, because nobody else wants the job. admittedly i have some sympathy for that, it's going to be a bad time for whoever wins. but still. this is the best we can do? to not even try to do better?

so i don't think the problem of finding people to run is a small consideration. especially people who will walk the walk and not just say the pretty words, who can resist the legislative capture that Ian described.

not everything worth doing is profitable. not everything profitable is worth doing.

[ Parent ]
Other than dont vote democrat there is Nothing In This Post. (4.00 / 2)


--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
[ Parent ]
I don't find this kind of thing particularly satisfying (4.00 / 2)
mainly because the organizing they advocate seems to me to fall entirely within the system -- more pressure on legislators, maybe more preparation for 2010, etc, etc.

Obviously, that kind of thing can make a difference at the margins.  But the problem is that from an objective perspective (and not just the perspective that "voters view this moment in history as a test of progressive ideas and ability to govern") we seem to need a whole lot more than just marginal improvements.  

I know I can't expect a complete critique of the American political system and economy on a youtube video like this, but I can't help but feeling that Borosage and Hickey have a basically goo-goo vision of political change.  

They pay some lip service to "organizing independent of the political parties" but they seem to think that the only two options are a) accept the system as it is, and try to pull it a little in our direction; or b) give up.

If those are the only two options, I really think we're screwed.  And I suspect they think so, too, from their attitude during this video, which sure doesn't sound like two people who are excited about "the best opportunity in 30 years for progressive reform".

And the end of the written piece is pretty much the opposite of inspirational:

Disengaging, dismissing all incremental progress, and waiting for an even bigger progressive revolution to suddenly materialize is an extremely dicey proposition. No matter how you view the agenda of the White House and the congressional leadership, most voters view this moment in history as a test of progressive ideas and ability to govern. Gridlock will be cause for anxious voters to say the experiment failed, not to double down.

Progressives need to be a fierce and independent force, to beat back entrenched interests and craft reforms with the best chance of succeeded.

But we must also be a constructive force that eschews scorched-earth tactics, else we risk losing this mandate for bold change until another generation.

Which to me means, "No matter how little influence we have now, don't expect us ever to have any more.  Still, everyone is judging us, so if we are seen to fail we'll lose the little we have.  So, we can talk big, but we need to focus on whatever scraps we can grab in the next year or two or else we'll be completely shut out for a couple of decades.

"Yes we can!"

H/T to Chris (4.00 / 11)
There's genuine wisdom in this post. The main thing is not to stop -- don't go away mad, but don't go away all starry-eyed either. This stuff is work, like carpentry, running a blast furnace or doing philosophy. It doesn't ever end, so it has to be satisfying in itself, like all other forms of work which are worth doing. (Which it won't be if we insist on wearing our hearts on our sleeves.)
I have obviously not said this better, but I wish I'd said it as well as this. (0.00 / 0)
The main thing is not to stop -- don't go away mad, but don't go away all starry-eyed either.

The comment is great, the line is perfect.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

[ Parent ]
Why would you go away (0.00 / 0)
if you were "all starry-eyed"?

[ Parent ]
It's a good question (4.00 / 1)
Let me see if I can make what I meant clearer: The dark days of Bush are over, Happy Obama Days are here again. I don't need to pay attention any more. I can go back to my life.

There aren't many folks like that commenting here, but in the country at large, I suspect that there are quite a few. (And no, I'm not a pollster, just an observer of human nature.)

[ Parent ]
If the center-left coalition agreed with itself (4.00 / 2)
It would be a center-center or a left-left coalition (or one side would be subservient to the other).

A center-left coalition means that the centrists moves toward the left sometimes and the left moves toward the center sometimes.  For progressives, the goal is to minimize their need to move towards the center by offering the minimum amount of compromise that gets centrists to prefer a center-left coalition to a center-right coalition.  (On the other hand, the center's best strategy is to encourage a bidding war between left and right.)  That means that the left must be able to offer centrists something that conservatives won't as a price for extracting things the center isn't too keen on but is willing to tolerate.  Which issues fall into which category is an exercise left to the reader.

Tossing around terms like DINO obscures the real differences between actual conservatives and politicians (and voters) who are neither conservative nor liberal.  It leads to arguments not based on the reality of the political landscape.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

If the left ever agreed with itself (0.00 / 0)
It'd stop being the left. The left thrives on arguments. It's because we believe in a better world, but not necessarily the same better world as others on the left.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog
[ Parent ]
Which left are you referring to? (0.00 / 0)
Just because Republicans call a Democratic official left, does that make it so?

Take the Health Care Reform debate.  True progressives, leftists of their own, wanted a real transformation.  They wanted Single Payer or some other mechanism to force the private insurance companies to get affordable or lose your place at the trough.  Rahm Emmanuel didn't want that at all.  He likes the apple cart just the way it is so he can continue to extort money from the Drug & Insurance corporations.  Rahm isn't left.  Rahm may be center but I'm being charitable.

It's the framing that matters as to what a question or statement means & 'teh left' has allowed the right/MSM to frame things along the right.

We need more Rachael Maddows.

I think he means us (4.00 / 4)
Of course Democrats didn't embrace the public option or single payer. That's because they were ideas of the left, and the Democratic Party doesn't want to be associated with the left. When they stop being ideas of the left, and magically become ideas of the sensible majority, then the Democratic Party is interested.

The challenge is to cross the divide from ideas of the left, to ideas of the sensible majority. And we basically do that by shouting and arguing loudly.

So yes, more Rachel Maddow would help, but so would more you.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
Wow, this paragraph is all sorts of backwards and upside down. (4.00 / 1)
Disengaging, dismissing all incremental progress, and waiting for an even bigger progressive revolution to suddenly materialize is an extremely dicey proposition. No matter how you view the agenda of the White House and the congressional leadership, most voters view this moment in history as a test of progressive ideas and ability to govern. Gridlock will be cause for anxious voters to say the experiment failed, not to double down.

So, progressives disengaging from a political process they perceive as broken have the wrong idea, and their leaving may result in gridlock(!) causing voters to disengage from the political process because they will perceive the system as broken. Also, the failure of the corporate wing of the democratic party to govern will be seen as a failure of progressive ideas, even if those ideas are never actually allowed anywhere near policy.

There's nothing remotely "progressive" about this administration's governance. This is one of the reasons why many are calling for the senate HCR bill to be killed. They don't want the corporate bailout bills coming out of congress to be associated with the progressive brand. Who can blame them?

Borosage and Hickey basically write the same column we've seen again and again. Progressives can't quit now, they need to do more of the same! Only more!

(I'll note as well the generic calls for progressives to "get organized" without any suggestions as to how or for what purpose. That shit is getting seriously old.)

There's nothing remotely "progressive" (0.00 / 0)
really? nothing? nothing at all?

It isnt my vision, but its moving, if it isnt moving fast enough its because we havent been moving voters well enough, organizing well enough.

Organize your voters on issues, bring them to the table on issues. Making something happen with a thresher isnt going to happen with just a larger hammer, its knowing the machine.

The remote doesn't work so one solution is to kick the tv off the table, it just isnt a good solution.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

[ Parent ]
Where did I say "kick the tv off the table"? (0.00 / 0)
That's just a complete misreading of my criticism. I pointed out that the recommendations are not new, or particularly insightful.

Also, this administration isn't "organizing their voters on issues" they are telling them to go away on the issues, or "sit down and shut up" on the issues.

OK, maybe there are a few things, like workplace safety, equal pay for women, etc. where the worst of GOP policies have been rolled back. But ending the worst of the GOP abuses should be the centrist position, and progressives should expect more.

Borosage and Hickey decry what they call "scorched-earth" tactics. I submit that they haven't seen any. Not from progressives, anyway. The only ones using scorched earth tactics right now are Nelson and Lieberman, and Obama is enabling them.

[ Parent ]
It is us who need to organize the voters on issues. (0.00 / 0)
Its us, the aware and responsible who want problems solved, progressives. This isn't a spectator sport. And its hard. And the response to setbacks, although frustrating, can't cause merely frustration. It has to cause more organization.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
[ Parent ]
Good (4.00 / 3)
What I find ironic is that you now have an open seat in North Dakota, and instead of treating it like the potential for a new young progressive Democrat, progressives are writing it off to the Republicans.

But...don't people want progressive change? Even in North Dakota?

If progressive really believed their ideas would fly with the vast majority of the American people, they'd have a primary challenger to Blanche Lincoln (isn't her problem she's not progressive enough?), they wouldn't be ceding her seat, Dorgan's and the entire federal government to the lunatic right.

It seems to me progressive know, or should I say think, that they can't win with true progressive candidates...so they take to the blogs to bitch instead of organizing ways to win.

This is really not a comment on you Chris, just a comment because finding ways to win is exactly what you're doing with this post.  

If there was anyone so naive that they believed (4.00 / 1)
that the only thing that determined who wins elections is the present day similarity between a candidate's views and the population at large, then you might have a point (assuming progressives had in fact responded in a uniform manner to a political development from earlier today.)

Progressives can't make primary challenges magically appear.  

I do believe that, given the right groundwork, a progressive could win in AR or ND.

What's actually ironic is bitching about people for bitching.

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.

[ Parent ]
"Progressives can't make primary challenges magically appear. " (0.00 / 0)
Technically, you can.  Run.

Odds are, that isn't even necessary because someone else already is.  Support that person.

[ Parent ]
Technically, I can't run for Senate (4.00 / 1)
as I am disenfranchised.  (I live in DC.)

Also, I don't think all Senate races have a progressive with their hat already in the ring.

And even if there were, a successful one takes groundwork.  

Lesson is - we need to lay the groundwork. Also, we need to end the disenfranchisement of DC voters - (but I still won't run.)

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.

[ Parent ]
Why isn't anyone laying the groundwork then? (4.00 / 1)
I mean, it's not like we just started this, I find it real interesting that people keep talking about "laying the groundwork" yet no one actually does.

[ Parent ]
No one? (4.00 / 1)
What nonsense. First, Accountability Now is doing just that. Second, the 50 State Strategy already got this started.  

Just because a process hasn't come to complete fruition doesn't mean it hasn't been started.

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.

[ Parent ]
Good point, actually. (4.00 / 3)
Well, I don't expect a challenger for Dorgan's seat to emerge overnight, but is there someone on the "farm team" ready to step forward?  I've never been to North Dakota, so I don't know but it's not totally right-wing.  It has a populist tradition akin to Minnesota's Farmer-Labor movement (which Dorgan, to some extent represents) and there ought to be someone who can make some noise.

I've been saying for some time that the Left's exclusive focus on only punishing Democrats for their betrayals of Health Care Reform and other issues was misplaced emphasis.  For one thing, it lets the Republicans completely off the hook, forgetting that the Republican Stone Wall is what gives the dem-traitors their outsized power.  While primarying the worst of these makes a lot of sense, it ALSO would make sense to take on projects for left-populist challengers in other "purple" areas.  The left has been saying for some time and with some evidence that left-populists often do better than Blue Dogs in these areas.  And it's true.  We should view this as a chance to advance that viewpoint, another way to move the Overton Window a few mm left.

We ought to be pushing some of those opportunities rather than just ceding the purple areas to the Republicans.

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

[ Parent ]
Ed Schultz (0.00 / 0)
has a grand opportunity right now to stand up Al Franken-style and show America how his ideas fly with people in rural America. (Note that even Chris admits Schultz great progressive populist message probably can't beat Hoeven, which is telling)

But he won't, because he likes his cushy job that pays big money, and he will go on complaining that magic ponies aren't flying out of the US Senate mindful that he had an opportunity to run to be one of those 100 Senators he complains about...does he really believe what he says, does he really believe what he fights for is what Americans want? Or is he doing it for the fat paycheck from GE?

All I know is that if he passes this chance up, I will gladly write to him and tell him he has no credibility to bitch about the US Senate as he had the opportunity, with the blessing of the Democratic Party, to do something about it and decided, for whatever reason, he won't.

[ Parent ]
They can't (0.00 / 0)
Progressives can't make primary challenges magically appear.

I'm sorry, last I checked, anyone who meets the minimum requirements to run for office, can run.

[ Parent ]
A credible primary challenge cannot appear (4.00 / 2)
just because someone decided to run.

Taking that into account doesn't mean progressive don't think their ideas will fly.  

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.

[ Parent ]
Define credible (0.00 / 0)
the way people talk around here, you'd think just talking progressive would be credible enough. No?

[ Parent ]
I haven't seen anyone talk that way around here (0.00 / 0)
If they exist, they don't represent all progressives. Certainly saying that being more progressive would improve one's chances doesn't mean that anyone thinks that it's the only thing that matters.  

It's easier to attack people with unfounded accusations and overly broad generalizations than to discuss what they actually say. Easier, but unconvincing.

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.

[ Parent ]
What did Overton have to say about Over-reaching? (4.00 / 1)
I'm not very familiar with his work. I would say that it's important for anyone who wants to change the world to keep in mind that anything that crosses the threshold of Legislation in Overton's window model -- assuming it avoids over-reaching to the point of inspiring strong backlash -- tends to re-center the window, automatically moving some formerly unthinkable things into the realm of the thinkable and the merely radical into the realm of the possible.  
this perscription is what has been happening (0.00 / 0)
For at least 35 years the group "WE" have been doing exactly what Chris calls for, with the existing results.

Single payer and public option were not just progressive favored, the public at large prefered them too. A lot of good that did.

Our system of democratic controlled republic government is broken, defeted by greed.

Now that all can see the pathetic "change" brought on by successive democratic wins that gained substantial controll of all branches, why would anyone give the dems another chance? Although not to the extent of repubs, dems are also partially sold out to capital, enough to make the public wishes irrelavant to legislation.

Not advocating giveing up, but a change in tactis or arena is in order. Several ideas to change the formula have been presented here, maby "WE" should put our energy into one or more of these.

IVCS shows promise, and Full Court Press could improve the system. My favored way is outside formal political action...the selective consumer boycott, directly attacking our economic foes to indirectly influence the political arena. There may be other measures not yet considered, but current efforts have proven futile.

Einstein's definition of insanity; doeing the same thing over and over expecting different results!

Government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob..... FDR

A fifth major lesson of 2009: center-left disagreement is essential to center-left governance | 32 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox