"Great Need of the Hour", and the alternative Progressive Bet

by: JC

Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 19:20

If you haven't, please go give it a read. 

For myself -

the speech, even in written form, is simply - a powerful gust of fresh air, amazing, inspiring, heart-stopping - use the adjectives you wish to use.

I'm now getting a bit depressed about this election.  This guy, Obama (who, if I'm not mistaken, actually LEADS in delegates picked by primaries/caucuses, so far, right?), is simply not being seen for what he is.
 

Obama is simply that special.

And so why - WHY - is that promise, that potential, being nitpicked so badly, by the "supposed" Netroots?  This IS the leader you want,  the leader you have been looking for.  And because of what, some provincial territorialism (he isn't giving speeches the way I want, he isn't saying "a,b,c", on my chosen issue "x"), the absurd nitpicking, the sniping, the simply small-mindedness of the commentary, is so deeply dissapointing.

Chris Bowers has been doing a good job here, of documenting the identity politics that have occcured, so far, in this election. 

But he or Matt, and other progressives, haven't really head-on addressed the smaller identity politics, represented in the small, exclusive group of netroot leaders.

1. When does being the "thought leaders/guardians" of the progressive movement, a role that many people fill, but which Chris and Matt contribute to, end up being an "angel on the head of a pin" style purity straightjacket?
2. More ominously, when does all this "not progressive enough according to me" sniping (described as analysis, but really sniping), come from simple resentment that this wasn't the "chosen" netroots candidate, that actually IS the netroots candidate, so no allegiance is owed? 
3. Lastly, there still seems to be this open question about whether you are going to have to do a full scale repudiation of the last 30 years (Reaganism/DLC), to have a "true" progressive movement.  and Obama isn't doing this.

but recognize, that the above proposition, is just that - a proposition - a BET. 

It is be the case that Obama's proposition - to be progressive, but interpret the past, in a way that includes people's understanding of history, up to this point, get people to buy in - and THEN go in a new direction - is also a BET.

And I've gotta say, I'm very sympathetic to the netroots progressive proposition.  But you have to look at actual evidence. 

John Edwards is the manifestation, of the current Progressive bet.  He understands the depradations of the last 30 years, the corrupt media environment, he understands you need a movement, and growing up as a white lower middle class southerner, is an ideal candidate to represent the netroots combative progressive mindset to the american people.

But he has probably lost, correct?

So at some point, the Netroots is going to have to re-analyze the truth of the current netroots mindframe and proposition, in light of the composition of the country, and what moves people.

And at some point, even if the progressive goals don't shift (which are shared by most), that you look at the bet of how the politics have to play out, to get the change you want.

(Unless it is all 100% identity politics, of course...)

But I don't see the utility, or value, of this constant SNIPPETT ANALYSIS of Obama's words, out of context, out of place, narrow-minded, to someone who is CLEARLY the amazing candidate that Obama is.

I wish it would stop.