In the past I have argued that Democratic losses in 2010 will move the Congressional Democratic caucuses to the left. This is because, according to my argument, most of the Democrats who will lose in 2010 will be in the right-wing of the party. Thus, the remaining group of Democrats will be, on average, more left-wing than the current group of Democrats.
However, at least as far as the Senate is concerned, it turns out that isn't the case. Despite prominent center-right Senators such as Blanche Lincoln, Arlen Specter, and Evan Bayh set to leave the Senate by either retirement or the ballot, the Democratic Senate caucus will not see any significant ideological shift in 2011.
For this analysis, I measured the current 59 members of the Senate Democratic caucus according to three oft-cited ideological voting scorecards: Progressive Punch (crucial votes), and DW-Nominate and National Journal. I recalibrated all of those scored along a 0.0 to 100.0 scale, with 0.0 being the most conservative and 100.0 being voting the most progressive. Only scores for 2009-2010 were used.
According to this analysis, the current 59 members of the Senate Democratic caucus have a mean progressive score of 74.7. Debbie Stabenow stands at the median of the caucus, with a score of 78.1.
Removing the Senators who are retiring (Bayh, Burris, Dodd, Dorgan, Kaufman) and the Senators who are currently trailing in their bid for re-election (Bennet, Lincoln, Reid, Specter), the caucus mean would become 75.5. Patty Murray would become the median, at 78.3.
Here is the chart I used, with departing members in red:
The slaughter of the moderates would thus move the Democratic Senate caucus less than 1% to the left. The size of the shift would be the equivalent of the difference between Debbie Stabenow and Patty Murray, whatever that is.
Further, if Barbara Boxer were to lose re-election, which is entirely possible, the Democratic Senate caucus would actually shift slightly to the right on the mean, and remain with Debbie Stabenow on the median.
So, if you are hoping that a Democratic wipeout in 2010 will move the party to the left, think again, at least when it comes to the Senate. Setting fire to the forest will just result in having the exact same forest, only with fewer trees. The Democrats who remain in the Senate will be, on average, virtual ideological twins to the ones who left.
I will try to whip up an equivalent analysis of the Democratic House caucus, post-2010, tomorrow.
Moreover, by the 1870s, British liberals had become quite aware that their previous understanding of economic freedom was a hollow joke, producing vast legions of downtrodden urban poor, and so they began seeking another way to think about freedom, closer to that which slaves have always understood-freedom as a gaining of power for those at the bottom, not to be dominated from above, but to be lifted up by collective support for one another: in short, the New Liberalism of Britain, which 60 years later arrived in America in the form of the New Deal.
I've been meaning to write about this for some time, and now I promised Paul I would, so here's a first installment on the topic. Understanding the transition liberals made from unfettered free market economics in the mid 1800s to the interventionist government model post New Deal is key to making sense of the ideological morass which humanity transitioned through in the past 400 years. I know opinions differ on this subject, and many on the left see a meaningful distinction between progressivism and liberalism, or between classic liberalism and modern social liberalism. I do not. They're all liberals, even though there can be notable policy distinctions between various groups of liberals, there is still only one liberalism, and it is the same liberalism as began (or at least took form) with John Locke in the late 1600s.
This is a daunting topic. When I first became politically aware in my late teens, and pondered what "liberal" and "conservative" meant beyond the trite caricature presented by the contemporary political parties or newspaper discourse, I discovered that no one of any academic merit had particularly good (or widely accepted) answers to this. For example, I have written of how Conservatives cannot define "conservativism." If better read and smarter people cannot reach concurrence, forgive my temerity in making a run at it too. Ideology is at the core of what drives politics and any improvement of our understanding of the topic is worthwhile. The confusion about the topic allows a lot of people who aren't liberals (like libertarians who call themselves "classic liberals") to be confused for them, and others who should be allies to create unnecessary distinctions and look at one another with distrust over what are differences not in core ethics, but technical mechanics. It is strange that we all generally able to spot liberal and conservative ideas intuitively yet seemingly no one can can agree on what these things are. We are left with too many definitions that rest on the specific policy preferences of the ideological groups at different points in history. Just as modern conservatives who love free trade are not really different from past conservatives who loved tariffs and mercantilism, today's liberals who want limitations on trade are not a different species from their Corn Law repealing bretherin of 1846.
Two of the favorite media narratives about the ideological leanings of Senators are:
Democrats won their large Senate majority by recruiting candidates with center-right leanings.
Both parties are equally polarized against a postulated American moderate mainstream.
An analysis of the three most comprehensive Senate voting scorecards runs counter to both of those beliefs. The 22 freshman Democratic Senators are actually more left-leaning than the 37 non-freshman Democrats. Further, Senate Republicans are much more conservative as a group than Senate Democrats.
A Sunday Washington Post editorial asks why liberals are so damn condescending. Seriously:
Why are liberals so condescending?
By Gerard Alexander
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Every political community includes some members who insist that their side has all the answers and that their adversaries are idiots. But American liberals, to a degree far surpassing conservatives, appear committed to the proposition that their views are correct, self-evident, and based on fact and reason, while conservative positions are not just wrong but illegitimate, ideological and unworthy of serious consideration.
But really, why shouldn't liberals should be condescending, and committed to the proposition that their views are based in fact and reason? The people most committed to basing their views on facts and reason, and whose efforts have achieved a standard of living that finally broke humanity out of millennia with an average life expectancy of 30 and the constant threat of starvation, are liberals. In this case, I am referring to scientists:
Less than 10% of scientists consider themselves Republicans or conservatives. Why shouldn't liberals consider their positions to be based on fact and reason, and see conservative views as largely illegitimate?
And the public largely praises the efforts of scientists, too. Only 6% of Americans think science has had a negative effect on society.
Science is both the most popular, and the least conservative, institution in America. What the public doesn't know is that a very small percentage of scientists consider themselves to be conservatives. But, it is something that should be pointed out whenever conservatives whine about how condescending and "fact-based" liberal positions are. Without liberals, and their emphasis on science, reason and facts, conservatives couldn't even use things like the internet, or even television, to continue their whining. They would still be stuck in the frakking middle ages, which is maybe what they wanted all along.
"Self-identified white conservatives versus self-identified non-whites and white liberals" is perhaps the best, one-sentence description of the demographic difference between two major political coalitions in the United States.
Or, the difference between New Democrats and Blue Dogs revealed
The difference between a New Democrat and a Blue Dog Democrat is often hard to see for many people. This is because neither group has either a coherent list of policies and principles, and because their House caucuses share fifteen members.*
Today, President Obama and Senator Blanche Lincoln put that difference on display for the whole country to see.** Lincoln, who trails badly in her quixotic quest for re-election, had an illuminating back and forth with President Obama. In this discussion, Lincoln argued that Democrats just need to attack the left, look independent and bi-partisan, and maintain status quo policies (or, really whatever policies Republicans want). President Obama argued that Democrats need to scrap Republican policies, leverage the private sector to perform public services, and then attack the left.
Here is how Lincoln started her question:
LINCOLN: Mr. President, I come from a seventh-generation Arkansas family. My dad was a good Democrat, and he was a great Arkansan, and he was very typical of Arkansans in that he was very independent-minded, as am I, and as most of my constituents. And he used to tell me early on when I ran for Congress, he said it's really results that count. And as I look at what's going on in my state and among my constituents -- I visited with a constituent yesterday, good Democrat, small business owner, who was extremely frustrated -- extremely frustrated because there was a lack of certainty and predictability from his government for him to be able to run his businesses. He's -- he and his father have worked hard, they've built three or four different small businesses, and he fears that there's no one in your administration that understands what it means to go to work on Monday and have to make a payroll on Friday. He wants results. He wants predictability.
And I think that you're exactly right. People out there watching us, they see us nothing more than Democrats and Republicans up here fighting, fighting only to win a few political points, not to get the problem solved.
Lincoln's question is entirely about identity. Instead of policy, she mentions her family lineage. She notes how she is "independent minded." She talks about how people in the administration are unable to identify with specific experiences. She mentions how it is important to appear as though you are solving a problem, rather than appear as though you are fighting. The entire question is based on identity and image, excepting her insistence on "results" without ever defining what "results" actually mean. Even the one thing close to a specific that she offers, "predictability," essentially means no change to policy at all. The most predictable policies are the ones that never change.
For Lincoln, the problem Democrats have with voters is entirely born of identity and public persona. As such, her solution is also entirely based on image and identity. Just attack the left, and make it look like you are working with Republicans:
LINCOLN: [A]re we willing as Democrats not only to reach out to Republicans but to push back in our own party for people who want extremes, and look for the common ground that's going to get us the success that we need not only for our constituents but for our country in this global community, in this global economy? Are we willing as Democrats to also push back on our own party and look for that common ground that we need to work with Republicans and to get the answers?
Lincoln offers no policy solutions at all. In fact, she explicitly argues against any new policies, instead favoring "predictability." Keep all policies the same, attack the left in public, and get lots of photo-ops and co-sponsored bills with Republicans (bills that don't change any policy, of course). This is an identity-based ideology, just as Blue Dog-ism itself is an identity based ideology entirely about publically differentiating oneself from the left:
"Blue Dog Democrat" is derived from the term "Yellow Dog Democrat." Former Texas Democrat Rep. Pete Geren is credited for coining the term, explaining that the members had been "choked blue" by "extreme" Democrats from the left.
There are no policies here. There are no principles. Being a Blue Dog is just about appearing anti-left. That is the founding, essential tenet of Blue Dog philosophy.
With surprising forcefulness, President Obama responded to Senator Lincoln that reaching out to Republicans, and adopting their policies, isn't going to do any good for Democrats. This is because Republican policies have have failed, and caused real economic problems that are making voters angry:
OBAMA: Well, if the agenda -- if the price of certainty is essentially for us to adopt the exact same proposals that were in place for eight years leading up to the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression -- we don't tinker with health care, let the insurance companies do what they want, we don't put in place any insurance reforms, we don't mess with the banks, let them keep on doing what they're doing now because we don't want to stir up Wall Street -- the result is going to be the same.
I don't know why we would expect a different outcome pursuing the exact same policies that got us into this fix in the first place.
Inevitably, the result of tomorrow's Massachusetts epical election will result in calls from numerous pundits that Democrats have governed too far to the left, and now need to move to the right. This will be the case whether Brown or Coakley wins, since even in the (increasingly unlikely) event of a Coakley win she will have had a difficult time in a famously blue state.
At the same time, many within the progressive blogosphere will claim that a more populist, progressive campaign from Coakley or leadership from national Democrats would have resulted in more favorable political conditions.
I am here to say that both claims are just crap, at least when they are about ideological positioning in and of themselves.
Change is brutal, and will always be resisted by powerful entrenched forces.
No matter how popular a reform idea is, like the public option, it still faces the buzzsaw of the United States Senate.
Progressives cannot wash their hands of the political process. We have to organize more, independent of the political parties.
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.
In the post below this one, I asked if teabaggers (and some lefties) would work to support Scott Brown in the Massachusetts Senate campaign. This is because Brown's unlikely, though not impossible, victory in the January 19th special election is pretty much the only chance left to defeat the health care reform bill.
So, what action are the teabaggers planning for that week? Why, a completely unrelated, entirely symbolic, national strike to protest President Obama's one-year anniversary in office. From The Hill:
Tea Party activists are planning to go on a "national strike" later this month to protest both President Barack Obama and the businesses and other groups that support him.
Their effort, which focuses primarilly on corporations that "employ individuals backing the leftist agenda," will occur in major cities on January 20 -- the date President Barack Obama was inaugurated last year, according to Allen Hardage, who is leading the campaign.
On January 20, 2010 we will demonstrate our power and reach to those companies who employ individuals backing the leftist agenda in every major city, every congressional district and every small rural town in America to spread one unified message. That message is simple: Stop funding socialism. When they refuse to stop backing the major opponents of Liberty, liberal media outlets and socialist leaning elected officials, then we proceed to financially cripple them.
Yeah--demonstrate your power to stop socialism by completing ignoring the one chance you actually have to stop what you consider the biggest instance of socialism in the "Democratic-Socialist" agenda. Opt instead for a type of action that will have no impact except to identify yourself as someone who hates Obama:
Fred Taub, president of Cleveland-based Boycott Watch, said the national strike sounds like a one-day boycott - something he said never works.
"If I choose not to buy gas on Tuesday, I'm going to have to buy gas on Monday or Wednesday instead," he said. "I still have to eat. These one-day boycotts are completely and totally ineffective."
Who cares about effectiveness? This isn't about effectiveness-this is about identifying yourself as someone who hates Obama!
This helps explain why the teabaggers are taking a pass on action that could actually stop "socialism," and opting instead for ineffective, symbolic, identity-based actions: they don't care about actual issues or legislation. Whereas only 6% of Democrats and Independents,a nd 10% of "others" consider health care reform "not at all" important in determining their vote, 51% of Republicans hold that position.
That is a remarkable, stunning, and very important poll finding. It also helps explain the mentality of the current conservative, Republican and teaparty opposition. It isn't about issues, or policies, or legislation. For many, even a majority, it is just about demonstrating that they hate you (and yes, I mean you). Everything else is simply a sideshow.
We at Open Left are taking the New Year's weekend off. Golden Oldies will run in their place. Regularly Scheduled programming will resume on January 4th--Chris Bowers
A Daniel De Groot Golden Oldie
From Mon Nov 24, 2008. Original HERE.
There has been here, and elsewhere, a low-level (ahem) ideological debate about the relative importance of ideology versus pragmatism. To some, the election of Obama is seen as a victory for getting things done as opposed to what I suppose in this formulation is the old Washington game of tilting at ideological windmills. It's a theme I have seen frequently here in the comments, through the discussion on the merits of Obama's cabinet and other nominations so far. I want to address the underlying fiction which claims there is some practical ideal route of policy that can eschew ideology itself. Greenwald addressed this today, more specifically on pragmatism as foreign policy:
If one discards the need for ideology in favor of "pragmatism" and "competence" -- as so many people seem so eager to do -- then it's difficult to see how one could form any opinions about questions of this sort beyond a crude risk-benefit analysis (i.e., "pragmatism"). Are there military and economic benefits to be derived for the U.S. from invading Pakistan? Bombing Iran? Lending unquestioning support to Israel? Escalating our occupation of Afghanistan? Remaining indefinitely in Iraq and exploiting their resources? Propping up dictators of all types? Deposing Hugo Chavez? Torturing suspected terrorists for information, or detaining them without process? If so, then those who are heralding "pragmatism" as the supreme value -- or at least something that should trump "ideology" -- would have no real basis to oppose those actions. It is only ideological beliefs that permit opposition to those polices even if they are "beneficial" to our "national self-interest."
If Al Gore had been President on September 11, 2001, there would have been no bi-partisan, United We Stand language coming from conservatives. The aggressive, partisan response we have seen to even this failed attack would have almost certainly meant impeachment proceedings against President Gore sometime in late 2001 or early 2002.
A substantial minority of elected officials in the Democratic Party is willing to go along, or at least keep silent on with #3 and #4, either because they believe it or because they don't have core values and think those positions are electoral winners. For the same reasons, a smaller minority of elected officials the Democratic Party would even be willing to go along with #2 and #5.
Although, since these are not the first examples of these outcomes, beliefs or counterfactuals, I guess all of these are actually reminders, not lessons.
Digby, Amanda Marcotte and Krugman traded thoughts recently on what exactly it is about climate science that so sets off the right in opposition.
It's an important question. The right, while opposed to environmentalism in most regards, could in past at least see what side of the bread is buttered. The Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer, after all, was negotiated and ratified in the era of Reagan, Thatcher and even in Canada, Mulroney. Thatcher herself was an early believer in the need for concerted action to address Climate Change. Why (aside from her education in chemistry) is she basically alone on this? I like Krugman's answer the best of the three, but even so I think he comes up short, particularly on the anti-intellectualism angle.
What's really happening is that anthropogenic climate change is a fundamental assault on right wing ideology and the solution requires a worldwide implementation of liberal policies that will undercut right wing ideas at every level well into the future. Right wingers maybe do not grasp this fear consciously, but intuitively everything about this issue stinks for them. Denial is the only way to save their worldview.
A Chris Bowers Golden Oldie
From Mon May 05, 2008. Original HERE.
Is there a progressive movement? This question has seemed particularly relevant over the last two weeks, as support for Barack Obama has washed away apparent long-standing principles of the movement: do not legitimize Fox News and Democrats should become more partisan. Now, apparently, we need to go on Fox News as much as possible and we much ditch partisanship altogether. If the Obama campaign can change the principles of the movement so quickly, perhaps there isn't a movement at all.
Perhaps a different question is necessary: what is a political movement, anyway? Thinking back over the 20th century, the defining characteristic seems to be a large-scale political undertaking that not only had goals of changing governmental institutions, but that changed the way people lived by shifting the balance of power in other major institutions as well. A political movement seeks to reorganize society on a far broader level than simply changing governmental policy. Examples include:
The labor movement fundamentally changed the economic structure of this and other countries by granting wage-laborers more power over the American workplace.
In addition to expanding access to government, the civil right's movement sought to reorganize educational, housing and employment patterns throughout the country. Other examples from this time period include the Black Panthers and the "counter-culture," which were primarily organized around institutions other than governmental policy (law enforcement and cultural consumption).
Radical Islamicist movements have worked to reorganize virtually every major institution in a given society, from education to religion to familial structures to cultural consumption.
A political movement always targets more than governmental policy change, since only changing policy would not alter the general framework of how people live in a given society. With that in mind, in what ways is the contemporary progressive movement going beyond seeking governmental policy change, and directly altering the way people interact with other major institutions in our society?
Looking over the major ideological institutions in America--the family, education, mass media, religion, and the workplace--the largest and most rapid changes are currently taking place in the latter three. By lowering the cost of information, the Internet has dramatically changed both the media landscape specifically and cultural production / consumption patterns more generally. Also, in terms of religion, nationally there is a broad movement away from self-identification as Christian, and even a dramatic re-organization within Christianity itself. Within the workplace and our larger economic structures, the rise of the Creative Class has had a major impact on the types of jobs available in America, and also on income inequality. This isn't to say that there are not major changes in other major ideological institutions like education and the family, just that the changes in the above three are far more pronounced in recent years.
Now, which of these three major changes can be identified a part of a "progressive movement?" The religious shifts don't really work, since the movement away from traditional religious identification and institutions is not organized by any group of people, and is simply happening on its own. Since it is at least partially a side-effect of a rising corporate power, income inequality, and de-industrialization, the rise of the Creative Class doesn't really work, whether or not most members of the Creative Class tend to be progressive. This leaves us with the lower cost of information, and resulting explosion in cultural production, brought on by the Internet. Perhaps the de-centralization of mass media consumption, the public sphere interaction, and cultural production brought on by the Internet is the progressive movement. It is the clearest example of how daily life has changed in a progressive way over the last decade. The medium is the movement.
Identifying the medium, and the changing cultural and media consumption / production patterns it has created, as the progressive movement itself helps provide perspective both on Barack Obama and on policy priorities for maintaining a healthy movement. First, changing viewpoints that Obama's campaign has created about Fox News and partisanship will not be isolated incidents. Since the consumption and production patterns themselves are the major change, the movement is ultimately lacking in fixed precepts. We should expect other changes in the future, including an inevitable rejection of Obama's ideas on partisanship and Fox News. Second, in order to maintain a healthy movement and the positive feedback loops the movement creates for progressivism, telecom policy and net neutrality should be understood as top, non-negotiable policy priorities. If net neutrality is ended, then the contemporary progressive movement, along with all progressive policy and lifestyle changes it promises, will come to an end. The movement is not just dependant upon the medium, but is in fact embedded in it. If net neutrality is ended, it will shift control of the medium away from individuals with broadband access, and toward large corporations. If the movement is the medium, then control over the medium for the average Internet user must be maintained, and expanded, at all costs.
Finally, from a "medium is the movement" perspective, the choice between Clinton and Obama isn't really even a choice at all. It's Obama by a mile.
A Chris Bowers Golden Oldie
From Tue Oct 09, 2007. Original HERE.
Amidst the series of Bush Dog fueled Democratic capitulations in Congress that have become so regular it has become possible to organize around them several weeks ahead of time, it is important for progressive movement types to keep their eyes on the most important legislation and potential legislation facing our movement. No, I am not referring to Iraq or FISA, and to a somewhat lesser extent I am not referring to health care or clean energy either. Instead, I am referring to those key areas of legislation and Democratic Party behavior that have the potential to build progressivism itself. As Matt as discussed in recent length pieces such as Emergence Politics and Rush Limbaugh, and The Broken Market for Democratic Primaries, what progressives need are the creation and institutionalization of "positive feedback loops" that will make America a more progressive place, and thus make all other progressive policy more likely to be enacted.
What are these policies? Here is an incomplete list that I compiled this afternoon:
The Employee Free Choice Act, that would, ideally, increase union density and collective bargaining power in America. Union members are much more likely to support progressive economic policies, and to vote Democratic, than other non-union workers. This would effectively create an ideological shift within the American workplace that would favor progressives, as long as it came with union leadership willing to ramp up new organizing efforts.
Clean Election Laws. While I am well aware that Democrats have demonstrated an ability to surpass Republican fundraising in Presidential elections, the fact is that progressives will never be able to match corporate PAC money in all federal elections. Until some form of public financing removes this corporate advantage, progressives will always be at an influence disadvantage over Congress.
Reversing Corporate Media Consolidation. Using improved ownership regulation of American media to help destabilize the impact of the Republican Noise Machine, and create a more diverse, responsive national media, is another key progressive feedback loop.
Progressive Immigration Reform. Securing the ideological and partisan loyalties of expanding demographic groups in America is a pretty obvious key to long-term political success. This remains as true among Latinos and Asians in our current era as it was among Irish, Italian, and Slavic immigrants a century ago. Whoever captures emerging political markets is well-positioned for electoral and legislative success over the next few decades. One of the keys to pulling this off always starts with immigration policy and rhetoric that improve the lives of newcomers to America, and make them feel welcomed. Truly, a no-brainer for long-term progressive success.
Colonial Reform. Perhaps I am using overly provocative language to describe this one, but granting full congressional representation to those areas of America not current represented by full voting members in Congress would be a big step forward for progressives. This obviously includes anti-Republican strongholds in D.C. and Puerto Rico, but should also include territories like Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and American Samoa. These are not places that are particularly friendly to the values of the conservative movement, and granting them equal representation within their own country would expand progressive and Democratic power long-term.
Re-locating government spending. It isn't a secret that the conservative economy is fueled significantly by government hand-outs in the form of military industrial complex spending, reliance on oil companies, "faith based initiatives," and tax breaks / loopholes for corporations and the wealthy alike. De-funding the conservative economy, and re-locating spending in programs Americans won't want to give up, such as universal health care or cheaper, clean energy investment, would to at least some extent shift the economic balance of power away from conservatives and toward progressives.
Voting Reform. Same day voter registration, the end of felony disenfranchisement, and secure voting mechanisms will all help increase voter turnout in ways that favor progressives. When more minorities vote, more young people vote, more people have confidence in the vote, and it is easier to vote overall, the longstanding conservative tactic of voter suppression as a means of winning elections will be significantly reduced in effectiveness.
I am sure that there are more potential positive feedback loops for progressives than these, and if you have more I'd love to see them in the comments. The seven I list here are a mix of good government reforms, spending relocations, and shifts in control over ideological apparatuses that I think would undoubtedly make the country more progressives. This are the low-hanging positive feedback loops, so to speak. I am sure there are others, but I wanted to get these out there as a way of reminding progressives that no matter what the major issues of the day might be in the short term, there are fundamental goals we must always seek in order to build a more progressive America long term.
A Daniel De Groot Golden Oldie
From Thu Jan 01, 2009. Original HERE.
As a starting point for defining conservatism, and nailing down what the real atomic core of conservatism is, I started by asking: What do conservatives think it is? How do they answer this question?
It turns out, they don't really know. Their efforts to define it are worth studying though, partly because the answers they provide are revealing, but also because their own failure to find an answer satisfactory even just to themselves points to the need for outsiders to step in and provide the answers conservatives can't or won't face.
A Chris Bowers Golden Oldie
From Wed Apr 16, 2008. Original HERE. Since 1968, the discursive center of conservative electoral dominance has been a backlash narrative against people of color and "liberal elites." Over the past month, as seen in both the Jeremiah Wright and "bittergate" episodes, that narrative has also been the discursive center of attacks on Barack Obama. The double implication is that Obama is too black and too elitist to become President. This, of course, was always going to be the thematic center of attacks against Obama, given that he is an African-American university professor from Hyde Park. Given that Obama is the best demographic fit for conservative attacks against Democrats that has come along, possibly ever, it is pretty hard to fathom that they would abandon their tried and tested narratives now.
In The New Republic, John Judis is openly worrying that Obama is extremely vulnerable in a general election because these narratives will severely damage him among white working class voters. Meanwhile, the always helpful to Democrats Doug Schoen is urging Hillary Clinton, and really anyone running against Obama, to adopt these narratives against Obama 24-7. The basic premise in both arguments is that Obama is extremely vulnerable to these longstanding conservative narratives, and in fact using them might be the only way to defeat Obama. However, if there is one point I have tried to make in my blogging over the past three years, it is that the changing demographics of the electorate are rendering these conservative attacks increasingly ineffective, and that Democrats need no longer fear them as a result. We have reached a point where conservative backlash narratives against people of color and "liberal elites" appeal to such a small segment of the electorate, that Democrats no longer need them in order to win.
In 2004, John Kerry took 41% of the vote among whites, and lost the popular vote by 2.46%. In 1988, Michael Dukakis took 40% of the white vote, but lost the popular vote by 7.72%. With only a 1% improvement among whites, John Kerry improved 5.26% overall (source).
In 1992, whites were 87% of the electorate. In 2004, whites were 77% of the electorate, a 10% drop in just 12 years. Further, the three groups of whites among whom Democrats hold more than a 2-1 edge on Republicans, white union members, white non-Christians, and white LGBTs, are all increasing their share of the electorate and the white vote. Although not by a 2-1 margin, Democrats also do very well among white single women, who are also increasing their share of the electorate.
Who don't Democrats do well among anymore? Straight, Christian, non-union whites who are not single women, do not self-identify as liberal, and are over the age of 30. Basically, that is just about the only group where the backlash narratives will still have wide appeal. While about 90% of the punditry falls into that category, and while Republicans win this group with more than 70% of the vote, it only represents about one-third of the electorate, and decreases in size every year.
There once was a time, not long ago, when credible charges of liberal elitism would be devastating to a Democratic candidate in a Presidential election. However, the effectiveness of these charges has also decreased throughout time. In 1972, McGovern won 37.52% of the popular vote. In 1984, Mondale won 40.56% of the popular vote. In 1988, Dukakis won 45.65% of the popular vote. In 2004, John Kerry won 48.27% of the popular vote. The basic reason for this is not consistent improvement of the quality of the Democratic candidates, but the changing demographics of the electorate that these candidates more acceptable to the nation of the whole.
In 2008, we have probably reached a point where the demographic tilt of the electorate favors those candidates by 50% + 1. If this is the case, then it would represent the end of the "liberal elite" and civil right backlash narratives as an effective anti-Democratic tactic on the national level. Obama is just about the perfect demographic test-case for this theory, and he is not losing ground against either Clinton or McCain nationally during a month long wave of attacks based on these narratives. As such, I think there is compelling evidence that we have indeed reached the end of "liberal elites" and civil rights backlash as a majority position in America. Hopefully, this will result not only in Barack Obama becoming President, but also in Democrats in general starting to realize that they are beholden to a very different sort of electorate then the one that handed them numerous resounding defeats from 1968-2004.
If you change which voters Democrats believe they must attract in order to win elections, you change the Democratic Party irrevocably.
If I may be so bold, I believe I can sum up, in three main points why progressives are so frustrated right now:
They are on the short-end of a left-progressive vs. Third Way ideological divide with the leadership of the American center-left coalition;
In attempts to not be on the short-end of #1, and persuade the coalition rank and file to join them, they face a massive organizational deficit against the coalition leadership;
Finally, if progressives look to split with the coalition in response to #1 and #2, more often than not they just end up getting squashed for it.
Everyone has an ideology. This is because, in its broadest definition, ideology simply refers to the set of beliefs that determines the values that guide the actions of an individual or group. Just like everyone has an accent, everyone has an ideology.
Additionally, while it is true that there is a usage of the term "ideology" that refers to impracticality, it is also true that every ideology is in constant contact with reality. Everyone has beliefs, and everyone is also forced to operate in the real world. Since there is no alternative world in which to operate, or different levels of interaction with reality available, everyone deals with the conflict between experiential reality and ideological abstraction equally. People might have different appraisals of the effect of certain actions, or even differences in preferred outcomes of their actions, but no one can escape taking action based on their beliefs.
Furthermore, most of the prominent people who operate in the "digital left," at least in its independent form, are small business owners who must purchase their health insurance on the individual market. As such, they will be directly impacted by this bill a lot more than, say, people who work at the Los Angles Times, the New York Times, or Time Magazine. This difficulty is actually one of the reasons why it is difficult for independent online media to compete with the well-funded "blogs" emerging from larger, more established news outlets.
Yet further, while you are able to improperly use graduate school sounding words like "ideology" to impress a bunch of people who never actually went to graduate school, please keep in mind that "the digital left" has a higher average level of education than any prominent group involved in multi-issue American political activism. The sheer amount they write every day for years on end (for many people, this means more than a million words every year), all without the assistance of an editor, should have functioned as an indicator for you of the deep literacy of this group. As such, many in this group will only see questionable usage of words like "ideology" as further examples of bullshit being spun by an arrogant status quo primarily looking to maintain its own power rather than solve major problems. This includes bullshit like the notion that the left is actually the main, or even really any, threat to this bill.
Finally, as someone on the digital left who is not even advocating for the digital left to defeat this bill, I think you could learn a thing or two from Ed Kilgore. Ed is a Third Way Democrat who actually understands what the word ideology means, and also understands the ideological differences at play. Rather than just regurgitating bullshit about some people having ideology and some not having it, he frames the actual debate. It is, in the end, the only prominent, policy-based debate that has actually taken place on this bill, and it is long overdue.
Love,
Chris Bowers
Successful candidate for state-level political office, consultant to numerous people in public service, small business owner, partner of a legislative campaign in which over 40,000 people participated (and which only failed because the "grown-ups" lied), but still, despite all this, a total DFH giggling from the backseat.
PPP released numbers today arguing that little of the pushback against President Obama is coming from the left. To demonstrate this, they focused on the subset of people who self-identify as both liberal and Democrats in their poll:
Our new poll suggests that liberal unhappiness with Barack Obama is still largely anecdotal and not very widespread. His approval rating with liberal Democrats is 95%, with only 3% disapproving of him.
On health care 88% of voters in that group say they're with Obama and only 7% are opposed. We simply are not seeing any broad evidence of push back toward him from the left for not advocating for single payer.
One caveat to these numbers should be that not all people who self-identify as liberals in polls also self-identify as Democrats. Most self-identified liberals also self-identify as Democrats, but not all.
According to Gallup, during the first nine months of 2009, 20% of national adults self-identified as liberal. Also according to Gallup, during the first nine months of 2009, liberals were 37% of self-identified Democrats, 18% of self-identified Independents, and 4% of self-identified Republicans:
Using Gallup's national party IDs, and cross-multiplying to get the percentages to involved reach exactly 100% (some people refused to self-identify), that would mean 63% of self-identified liberals also self-identify as Democrats, 32% self-identify as Independents, and 5% self-identify as Republicans.
Currently, Gallup's weekly tracking poll shows President Obama with an 78% approval rating among all self-identified liberals. This includes an 89% job approval rating among liberal Democrats, and a 33% approval rating among moderate / liberal Republicans. Even though Gallup did not provide data for this subset, when combined with their yearly averages to date, these cross-tabs suggest President Obama has a 62-65% approval rating among self-identified Liberal Independents.
A 62-65% approval rating is still pretty high. The interesting point is that people who self-identify as both liberal and Independent diverge so sharply from people who self-identify as both liberal and Democratic. Partisanship within ideological groups seems to have a big impact on overall political outlook.
There is a substantial minority of self-identified liberals who disapprove of President Obama's job performance--most of them just happen not to self-identify as Democrats. In most cases, this is probably not because they think the Obama administration has not gone far enough to the left for its own sake, but rather because they don't see the country getting any better, and conclude that is because President Obama has not gone far enough to the left. Afghanistan probably isn't helping much, either.
Overall, Gallup estimates that about 4-5% of the country are liberals who do not approve of President Obama's job performance. This actually means President Obama is performing better among liberals than the Democratic Party as a whole. Once again, according to Gallup, about 8% of the country thinks that the Democratic Party is too conservative, although the poll used in that measurement had a far higher margin of error than all of the other polls listed here.
Previously, I estimated President Obama's job performance among the Democratic Presidential primary electorate to be 75%. Further, only about one-third of those who did not approve of President Obama self-identified as liberal. Currently, due to a slight drop in his overall approval among liberals, I would estimate President Obama's approval rating among the Democratic primary electorate to be 74%, with slightly more than one-third of those who do not approve self-identifying as liberals.
A new survey from PPP (PDF) shows that 26% of Americans, most of whom are Republicans, think that ACORN stole the election for President Obama.
For the sake of comparison, a Gallup poll immediately following Gore's concession in the 2000 election showed that 18% of the county, a significant percentage of whom were African-American, believed that Bush stole the election.
In 2004, the numbers for Bush were even lower. Back then, in the wake of Kerry's concession, a Gallup poll showed only 13% of the country believed that Bush stole the election. (FWIW, I was among the 5% or so that shifted from 2000 to 2004.)
This is simultaneously a demonstration that hard-core conservatives live in an entirely different reality than the rest of the country, and that the hardcore conservative base is as much as twice as large as the hardcore progressive base. As both a media figure and a political organizer that operates primarily in the hardcore progressive world, I'd be lying if I didn't admit the size of the hardcore conservative base made be pretty jealous.
With the exception of 1995, polling has consistently shown that there are more Americans who believe Republicans are too liberal than there are Americans who believe Democrats are too conservative. Further, a larger percentage of Americans are Republicans who would prefer less-electable candidates with whom they largely agree on issues, than are Democrats who hold the same belief (source, PDF). And there are even more conservatives who think the 2008 election was stolen than there are progressives who think the 2000 election was stolen, which is pretty remarkable given the difference in margin between the two elections.
Many dismiss the importance of an active, engaged, ideological base, but such a base seems to have far more benefits than negatives. The base provides the resources to win elections. They provide turnout in low attention and enthusiasm elections. They fuel the primary challenges that keep party members in line, and thus allow you to pass legislation. They make your entire party appear to believe in something, rather than being wishy-washy and attempting to win for its own sake. The continuing base gap between conservatives and progressives is a major factor in why progressive governance remains so much more difficult than conservative governance.
