The Intersection Between Insiders and Progressive Outsiders

by: Mike Lux

Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 13:00


The dust-up on Friday between me and Matt re: insiders vs. outsiders (here and here) reminded me of a post I was thinking about writing a while back.

As those who read my writing now know, I am a bit of a history nut, and I have been thinking a lot about how change has happened throughout American history. If you really look at the dramatic progressive movements in our country, the way change happened was through the intersection of an outside progressive movement and insiders who opened themselves to the ideas coming from that movement.

The greatest periods of progressive change in American history were the following:

-The ending of slavery and other reforms pushed by Lincoln and the "radical Republicans" in the 1860s
-The progressive era reforms in the 1900s and 1910s
-The New Deal programs of the 1930s and 1940s
-The surge of progressive legislation in the 1960s

Every single time an outside movement combined with decent-hearted politicians on the inside who made the change happen. The abolitionists built up a head of steam over a 30-year period, created the political atmosphere where a new anti-slavery party (the Republicans) could emerge and gain power, and then pushed Lincoln to finish the job. (And by the way, along the way, they passed some other great reform legislation as well.)

Starting in the 1880s with the populist movement, and evolving into the progressive reform movement, a popular will was created to pass many major reforms. When an open-minded reformer named Teddy Roosevelt became president in 1901 following the McKinley assassination, he listened to the outsiders and created the national parks system, began busting the corporate trusts, and got the first food and consumer safety laws passed. In the decade afterward, the progressive movement worked with political leaders to pass an income tax, get direct election of U.S. Senators, and enact women's suffrage.

In the 1930s, strong progressive leaders led by John L. Lewis, Walter Reuther, A. Phillip Randolph, and Norman Thomas created the political power to allow FDR to get Social Security, labor law reform, banking regulation, rural electrification, the GI Bill, and all the other remarkable reforms of the New Deal passed into law.

In the 1960s, the civil rights movement changed the nature of political debate, both on that issue and many others, and helped sympathetic politicians like the Kennedys and LBJ push through historic civil rights legislation. But it also opened the door to a broader progressive movement, as Medicare, Medicaid, the Peace Corps environmental legislation, the 18-year-old vote and many other important reforms made their way into law.

I think the lesson history is that change doesn't happen only by electing better politicians, and it doesn't happen only by building an outside movement. It happens when both things are going on simultaneously, and when the progressive insiders and outsiders are talking to each other and pivoting off each other.

One of the things I worry about with the current yawning chasm between insiders and outsiders is that we sometimes get to a place where each side is so angry with the other that the creative dialogue that drives real change is in danger of being shut down. It isn't that John L. Lewis and FDR always liked each other, or that Martin Luther King, Jr. and LBJ didn't fight at times. But they usually found ways to bridge the gap, to keep talking to each other, to keep figuring out ways to solved problems together. In this moment we can do that too, in part by figuring out innovative ways to have the dialogue, like Stoller and Durbin did with the Legislation 2.0 discussion on broadband, and in part by doing the hard work of understanding the perspectives of each other.

We have a great opportunity for a new progressive movement in American history. The ecountry has rejected Bush-style conservatism and has moved left on a range of key issues. A movement for change is building and growing. All of us just need to be smart and strategic about how we keep building that movement for change, and we need to keep talking to each other about how to work together to make things happen. Progressives don't yet have a governing majority, but I believe that is soon to come, and we better take advantage of it when we have the chance.

Mike Lux :: The Intersection Between Insiders and Progressive Outsiders

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
i think you're right but..... (4.00 / 1)
Even when progressives outside and progressives inside work together, there have to be people outside who don't compromise and push for even further reform. I think, in the historical context you've written in, Mother Jones is the best example. She met with FDR in the White House and she walked away from that meeting knowing she would have to continue being as radical and loud and, some have said obnoxious in order to push those compromising towards a more just conclusion.

The friction is necessary and even healthy.

And, of course there are those few issues where it just really isn't at all acceptable to accept anything less than the line that has been drawn in the sand. ( :


I agree. (0.00 / 0)
The folks who continue to pound away on the outside always play an incredibly valuable role.

[ Parent ]
So Mike, how well do you listen to independents? (4.00 / 1)
They're 40% of the electorate, and outnumber you.  And yes, a lot of them are conservative (Roy Moore), a lot of them are lazy, many are middle-of-the-spectrum Broderites, but millions of them are progressive.

And it's not just a numbers game.  They have admittedly ill-formed tactics and no coherent voice, but they also have a gut sense of the corruption of a two-party system that OpenLeft itself illuminates day after day while trying to effect change from within the DP.

But you say nothing to them.  You don't even try.

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...


[ Parent ]
? (0.00 / 0)
I'm not sure what you mean when you say, "But you say nothing to them. You don't even try."
Be more specific, and I will try to give a better response, but I feel like my politics and my strategy very much listens to independents. For one thing, many indies are very progressive, as you allude to. For another I have always argued, on Openleft and throughout my career in politics, that there are swing voters and that progressives should do everything we can to listen to them and respond to them. I think I'm more focused on swing voters than a great many progressive folks.
So I'm just not sure what you mean, tell me more.

[ Parent ]
you make a fair request ... (0.00 / 0)
... and I don't have a pat answer.  Wish I did.  That's part of why I'm appealing to you.  Sorry if I sounded crabby.  But for a quick response, I'd note that you consider it sufficient that progressive politics appeals to progressive independents and you want their votes.  That's good.  But you and OpenLeft don't address independents in their specificity.

On the other hand, that's hard to do, and I do consider OpenLeft itself to be an independent force, whatever that means.  So let me take a few stabs and see if it gives us something to work with.

I consider myself an independent Democrat (and radical progressive).  That means, for me, that I vastly prefer the Democrats over the Republicans; I plan to vote for a Democrat for president this year, but there is a possibility that I might stay home if the Democrats do some really stupid stuff.  I think progressives can certainly influence the Democratic Party, but it's not at all clear that they can ever take it over, or influence it enough to head off catastrophe.  In traditional terms, I support something like a united front against fascism -- independent progressives and Democrats uniting against what I consider a truly (rather than rhetorically) fascist right wing.

The obvious problem with that, of course, is that independents are in no shape to carry their side of the alliance -- other than as voting fodder.  They are not an organized force.  The Committee for an Independent Political Party (CUIP), whose people I worked with many moons ago (they're progressives), has an interesting approach.  They keep things non-ideological, push for ballot-access and electoral reform, and are staking out the position that they represent ALL independents, left and right.  In the absence of a more organized force, they can make some headway.  Problem is that they are control freaks, and very small, and as (if) the independent movement grows and takes shape, things will split left and right, and they will get caught in the middle like they did in the Reform Party.

Then there's Frank MacKay, head of the Independence Party of New York, who's just founded the Independence Party of America.  He's a topdown operator touting Bloomberg for president.  His operation may pick up remnants of Perot's (RIP) Reform Party.  But his politic is a Broderite "between left and right" concoction that is of little relevance to progressives.

MoveOn could be an independent force.  But they aren't.  Why not?  What was the process that locked them in?  A good topic.

A Nader-type candidacy is a waste of time.  I don't buy the spoiler rap, I'm not embarrassed by not having voted for Joe Lieberman in 2000.  But such a run simply wouldn't make it worth my while to trek over 2 blocks of sidewalk to cast such a vote.

And yet and yet and yet and yet!  A progressive independent is NOT the same as a progressive Democrat.  There is something to the radical critique of the two-party system.  Progressives might say, "I know that but ..." but to some it's like a 1950 liberal telling Blacks, "I know you're discriminated against but ..."  No!  It's central.  Examine the phrase "two-party system."  The key word here is SYSTEM.  Independence implies changing the system.  You may recognize that there is one, but ...

There is power in that critique.  Independents aren't independents because they couldn't find the little box when they registered.  They're saying something.  Something that gives power to progressive Democrats if they could harness it.  But to harness it, Democrats have to give something back.

I know the classic dilemma -- be radical and irrelevant or work within and have a little influence -- weighs heavily.  It weighs heavily on me.  I certainly don't have slick answers.  But hell, you, Bowers, Stoller and Rosenberg are about the smartest guys out there.  It's time to start working on it more explicitly.

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...


[ Parent ]
Lots to digest. (0.00 / 0)
You raise a lot of very intersting points, and I will think more about this topic. Although I've been a Democrat all my life, I fully understand why many folks don't trust the party and are looking for other ways to play politically. I haven't seen a lot of good data on the people like yourself who are radical indies, but I think it's a topic worth exploring some more.

[ Parent ]
thank you (0.00 / 0)
Wish I had easy answers, but I don't.

However, I would suggest that you explore dynamics and not just data.  The problem with the Democratic Party gradualist approach is that, while you bring in new people on one end (and can always point at progress), you get people dropping off on the other, and I'm not sure that there will ever be a surge adequate to transform the situation.

I don't believe in independent gradualism either -- that you can start with a Nader and keep adding numbers year after year until independents win out.  Independents have people dropping off too.

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...


[ Parent ]
Right on! (0.00 / 0)
Your analysis is correct - especially with regard to the two party system.  To my mind - that issue will subvert any of the changes that might result from the "progressive surge" pushed on these pages.

A more open system would, in the long-run, favor the progressives because it would provide a more feasible mechanism for those of us on the outside to stay more fully engaged in the electoral process - not to mention the political process.  As you have alluded, my choice now - for President, let's say - is limited to TWO.  If I don't like either one, I can choose to "throw away" my vote, or lodge a protest vote - which are basically seen as the same thing.

While I don't agree with your premise that Open Left has done nothing for the outsiders - they are sponsoring this particular discussion, after all - this is clearly a partisan group that has staked its future on making the two party system work for them.  I don't say that perjoritively - to me, this was clear from the first invitation to join up.

If you want to boil it down to one single issue - for me its Instant Run-off Voting.  Any candidate, progressive, Democrat, Independent, Republican, or whatever, that will stringly support such initiative would gain support from the outsiders.  Yes, its complicated - but SO WHAT?  Running a f***ing nation is complicated, too  - so why should voting for who you want to represent you in that arena be easy??

Certainly, no one single initiative is gonna produce a utopia - but IRV is a start down the path of legitizing alternative parties in the USA - and the progressive Democrats have nothing to fear from a more open political system.  Or, do they?



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


[ Parent ]
I didn't say OpenLeft has done nothing for independents (0.00 / 0)
Rather that independent progressives are lumped in with progressives in general, rather than being addressed explicitly.

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...

[ Parent ]
I misunderstood (0.00 / 0)
this line:

"But you say nothing to them.  You don't even try."

I guess. 

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


[ Parent ]
Well Said (0.00 / 0)
As a movement we could benefit from remembering not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.  In the blogosphere we spend too much of our emotional efforts being angry with those whom we should we working with and supporting.

We all fought very hard for a very slim victory in 2006, and are rightly frustrated that the leadership has not ben able to do more than they have.  As you rightly point out I think that means learning to work with our elected representatives as well as pressuring  them to do the right thing and rewarding them when they do.

My job is not to represent Washington to you, but to represent you to Washington- Obama
Philly for Obama


History a tricky guide (4.00 / 1)
For instance, the major impetuses behind the eventual abolition of slavery were virulent Northern negrophobia and blind Southern hubris. The length of time it took after the South had started killing Northern boys until the doors were shut on a negotiated settlement testifies to the lack of early Northern commitment to abolition.

Not to mention the short reign of the radicals in the Congress until most folks, North and South, were happy to get back to business more or less as usual on the racial front. (Cabot Lodge's Force Bill of 1890 was the last expression of radical sentiment, I think.)

I've not looked at the subject: but I suspect that, in the 1860 prez campaign, abolitionists were not exactly given prominence by Lincoln's campaign managers. 

The New Deal needed a depression, the Great Society an assassination. In both eras, the Congress was very far from inclined to radical action, but was constrained by the situation (and the fear of electoral retribution if they didn't go along).

In the first, the divisions among the unions, and between the unions and the administration, on things like the minimum wage in the FLSA and the Wagner Act were striking.

Congress is designed as at stand-pat organization: thus, once the New Deal fizzled out after the FLSA, the dominance of the Conservative Coalition over the next generation was unable to reverse any great part of it.

But that immobilism works both ways.

What'll be the next legislative laxative? Answers on a postcard...


History is complicated. (0.00 / 0)
No doubt about it, you raise good points.
A couple of thoughts, though:

-the abolitionist movement built steady political strength in the north from the 1830s on, creating the anger in the south and the crisis in the country. The Republicans were founded in 1854 as an overtly anti-slavery party, and ran an abolitionist for President in 1856. While Lincoln didn't run as an immediate abolitionist either in the Senate race with Douglas in 1858 or in the presidential race in '60, he was not shy about his anti-slavery views, which was why the southern states immediately started seceeding after his election.

-civil rights in the 1960s was going to move forward no matter what, Kennedy's death may have speeded things up but with King's "We have a dream" speech and Selma, it was going to happen. And while the depression combined with the labor movement created the dynamics that allowed the New Deal to happen, I would argue that we are headed for some pretty ugly dynamics in our own time between the war, the climate crisis (which will get worse and worse for years to come), and the cumulative debt burden the country has taken on.


[ Parent ]
I agree (4.00 / 1)
At the level you're talking about, both the end of slavery and the end of Jim Crow were waves that were going to break one way or another (and outside groups were greatly instrumental in bringing those circumstances about).

And, coming up to date, there are, as you say, the makings right now of several of the sorts of crisis that seems to be needed to unblock Federal reform programs.

My point - which I seem to have mislaid in writing the comment! - was to point up the huge institutional resistance to change, which, I'd say, is widely underestimated in the lefty sphere.


[ Parent ]
Yep. (0.00 / 0)
I am certainly with you on that. It's easy to get frustrated with how tough change is to make, but we really are up against incredibly powerful and well-entrenched opposition.

[ Parent ]
change from what perspective? (4.00 / 1)
The problem I have with a post like this is not so much the diagnosis of the problem as the prescription for a cure. It sounds just like calls to end bi-partisan bickering by asking progressives to let conservatives do whatever they want.

I agree that insiders do indeed need to do a better job of paying attention to reality. The problem in Washington today is a lack of responsiveness by politicians to enact policies that the majority of American supports. Asking the majority of American to somehow "feel the pain" of Washington insiders who hold out-of-touch minority viewpoints is absurd.

They call me Clem, Clem Guttata. Come visit wild, wonderful West Virginia Blue


No easy cure, (4.00 / 1)
but my prescription is that progressives, both inside and out, keep talking to each other and strategizing together. How exactly is that letting conservatives do whatever they want?

[ Parent ]
Insiders and Progressive Outsiders (4.00 / 1)
Mike, have you read Piven's wonderful book on Poor People Movements? It tackles this precise point and argues, with historical evidence, that elites only concede anything under organized and persistent pressure.

We certainly need both insiders and movements. Our insiders, in my view, understand this insufficiently. I try to support challengers in elections only because the forces of inertia and corruption are so strong in DC that by the end of someone's first term in Congress, they are already cozying up to the PACs and special interests. It is astonishing how rapidly it happens.

Progressives will not have the governing majority of which you speak unless we convince the insiders that it is in their interest to substitute a progressive for a corrupt hack of the same party, that progressive members of the House should challenge for Senate positions, and that compromise is a last, not a first, choice.


Agreed. (4.00 / 1)
I think I have read Piven's book, though it was a very long time ago (assuming it's the book I'm thinking of and not a more recent one.)
I agree with the basic point, and always keep in mind Frederick Doglass' amazing "power concedes nothing without a demand" quote, which might just be my alltime favorite quote.
We need a variety of things for an inside-outside strategy to work:

-keep supporting challengers, as you and I both do.

-have both carrots (money, troops, etc) and sticks (like primaries) to wield with insiders.

-support the insiders who have remained true, because there are a few of them and they need all the help they can get.

-have a big enough, powerful enough movement that insiders have to deal with us whether they want to or not.

-continue to frame our demands in a way that the public responds positively.


[ Parent ]
Fear is what motivates Congress (4.00 / 1)
Only when there is a strong public movement that actually threatens their power will they bend.  As long as most of the population is more content to sit in front of their TV than do something, Congress will do nothing.

I'm not sure I agree / the importance of progressives in electoral politics (0.00 / 0)
you said...

I think the lesson history is that change doesn't happen only by electing better politicians, and it doesn't happen only by building an outside movement. It happens when both things are going on simultaneously, and when the progressive insiders and outsiders are talking to each other and pivoting off each other.

But I'm not sure I agree. 

For one, your previous statements didn't actually form a logical proof for this assumption.  I.E., you argued that since A (strong progressive movement) and B (sympathetic somewhat progressive leaders in office) have both been going on when C (good period of historical progressive change) happens... therefore A & B are required for C. 

But it could, logically, be just as likely that B (elected officials) causes C (good policy) which also happens to cause A (progressive movement rallies around good policy, or in the case of unions, can be created or destroyed based on good or bad public policy). 

The second reason I point this out, is because I hear this "synergy of progressive movement with elected officials" line a lot, but usually as an excuse from progressive non-electoral activists, for not "getting their hands dirty" in electoral politics.  They say well, you need [ lobbying group] in order to pass [progressive pet issue] legislation.  

The problem is, the universe of people who care, and care passionately, about progressive issues, is 100x larger than the universe of progressives who are willing to get their hands dirty in electoral politics. 

If we could make every progressive activist actually donate and volunteer for state legislative, natural resource district, water reclamation district, and US Congressional races locally, we could defeat every Bush dog, secure a larger house majority, and enact powerful local progressive reforms.  But, the same people who will gladly volunteer at the local [family planning center / habitat for humanity / oil-spill clean up] are not willing to go out and work a candidate who supports [a women's right to choose / fair housing practices / better environmental standards]. 

Do I believe a synergy between progressive movementeers & elected officials is incredibly important?  Of course. 

But its key to remember that those of us in the progressive movement who are already clued in to how important the electoral side of things is (like the readers of Open Left), need to focus on getting those people who don't want to get their hands dirty to come join us. 


Side note: (4.00 / 1)
Us bleeding heart progressives are in politics because of idealistic reasons.  We think we can change the world.  The legislative process is constantly eating at our souls, and we are constantly being invited to go volunteer at the humane society (because as bleeding heart progressives we couldn't say no to signing up for their email list). 

And, we are perfectly aware that we could go volunteer at the humane society, and it would make us feel 1000x better about ourselves than most electoral work would.  And, we wouldn't feel guilty for skipping out on the electoral process because
a) we'd still be "doing something"
b) we know that there's an important synergy between the progressive movement and elected officials. 

That would be fine, or at least not a giant problem, if the only people in Democratic politics were us bleeding heart idealistic progressive.  But we're not.

The dominant group in elected Democratic politics, locally and in Washington, are the career-savvy, power worshiping, power hungry, staffers.  They are, more often than not, DLC types, and immanently corruptible.  I'm not saying us idealists aren't corruptible, but the price for our souls in DC seems to be a lot higher. 

When idealists like us drop out of the electoral arena because we're so disenchanted with it, we leave the arena to the people who are making us so disenchanted. 

That's why I feel so passionately about this small point, which most people might find to be a minor footnote of an issue. 


[ Parent ]
The importance of electoral politics. (0.00 / 0)
When I was a young organizer being trained in Alinsky style community organizing, the people I was working with seemed to take pride that they would not do electoral politics, that they could win just by organizing the people. But I learned pretty quickly that you accomplished nothing policy-wise without at least reasonably sympathetic people in office. Electoral organizing should always be a central part of any political strategy. 

[ Parent ]
Late comment (0.00 / 0)
I think the part that rankles me here, Mike, is the assumption that all we need from the power elite are some "decent-hearted insiders." Frankly, I think that's fatuous.

I'm sure there are plenty of "decent-hearted" people in DC now, but none of them have the ambition or courage to, say, step in front of the massive weight of public opinion and do anything to actively end the war.

We won't get anywhere until we have some people on the inside who are willing to buck their colleagues and drive real change. That takes more than a decent heart.

Me | My Work | Future Majority


USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox