Power and the Progressive Movement

by: Mike Lux

Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 14:25


Last week's fascinating and extremely well-done Huffington Post piece about the progressive movement and power in light of the last year plus of the Obama administration, along with a trip to California that I did to go to a board meeting and fundraising event for the Congressional Progressive Caucus Foundation and 501(c)4, has been making me think a lot about what progressives will need to do to build power in the coming years. Add to that this stunning news about Andy Stern deciding to retire as SEIU President, and it's a big day for thinking about the progressive movement.

Andy's tenure as SEIU President has been a dramatic reminder of both the promise and frustration of trying to make progressive change in 21st century America (disclaimer: OpenLeft partners on a financial basis with SEIU from time to time). Before he ever became SEIU President, he was an integral part of making SEIU the fastest-growing union in the country, and of the dramatic and surprising insurgent campaign inside the AFL-CIO to force Lane Kirkland's retirement and then beat his heir apparent Tom Donahue. Since becoming President, he has been a co-founder of a series of huge new progressive organizations (including America Coming Together in 2004, the Democracy Alliance, America Votes, and Change to Win) that have moved several hundred million dollars into progressive organizing, and he has helped both end Republican rule in Congress and elect a Democratic President against two of the most powerful entrenched establishment figures in DC (Hillary Clinton and John McCain). The 2009 stimulus package that invested hundreds of billions of dollars in long-time progressive priorities, the federal budget that was the most progressive budget since the 1960s, and a universal health reform bill all had Andy as prime movers. He is President Obama's closest progressive ally, and former SEIU staffers are distributed throughout the Administration.

But for all that, the limits to progressive power are clear. The labor movement has not seen a dramatic resurgence in new membership or political power. The stimulus package was too small to keep the unemployment rate from rising to the 10% range and being stuck there for months. The health care bill was deeply compromised by health insurance and pharmaceutical company power. Other top SEIU priorities like financial reform, the Employee Free Choice Act, and immigration reform are yet to pass and will be far weaker than they should be even if they do pass. Corporate power in DC is still ascendant, and progressives for the most part feel ignored by the White House.

None of this is Andy's fault, but his story is the quintessential story of the modern progressive movement. He, and we, have been able to shake things up, create innovative strategies and institutions, get some good things to happen. Our accomplishments should not be discounted or trashed, even when we have fallen short of our ultimate goals. But we have yet to truly change the essential power dynamics in this country. The simple fact is that change in this era is complicated as hell. Those who think that any one strategy- electing a President, getting a majority in Congress, complaining about that President and Congress, lobbying that President and Congress, innovative organizing or media or online tactics, or anything else- will get the job done is fundamentally wrong. It will take all of this and more: we have to be constantly opening up new fronts in the battle, changing our tactics, adding to our progressive infrastructure.

What is most important is that we don't give up the fight. All of the disappointments I have written about above do not make the progress I mentioned any less valuable or important. A Democratic Congress is better than a Republican one. Barack Obama is a better President than John McCain would have been. Establishing a right to universal health care and ending discrimination based on pre-existing conditions is a step forward. Hundreds of billions of dollars into low-income programs and jobs and education and green jobs is better than not funding those things at all.

Figuring out new strategies for increasing progressive power is our challenge, but we can stand on the platform of what's been built by Andy and progressive movement activists all over the country.

Mike Lux :: Power and the Progressive Movement

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Power and the Progressive Movement | 59 comments
Excellent essay, Mike. (4.00 / 4)
I agree.  We cannot give up.  

In adddition, I think we have to work through the Democratic Party for the most part.

Since the health insurance legislation that became (4.00 / 2)
law does not even provide universal health insurance coverage, I have a hard time buying into the meme that it is

Establishing a right to universal health care

In one sense it is (0.00 / 0)
Even if you're clinging by your fingernails to the summit at the time your picture is taken, you still have a right to claim that you climbed the mountain, as long as you aren't content to just hang there, smiling, until your grip gives out.
[ Parent ]
For that matter (4.00 / 3)
This is incorrect as well:

ending discrimination based on pre-existing conditions is a step forward

Banning it and ending it are two very different things, and, in any case, that provision won't kick in for years.

Aside from this hooey, the post is pretty good, I think.  

[ Parent ]
It kicks in for children right now. As you know. (4.00 / 3)
It kicks in for adults right now too. Because the Federal government is allocating money right now to pay for services not covered, as you know.

Pushing is good. Pushing on the part that has already moved on, not so much.

Or we are more effective when we are more accurate.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
How can we "push" (0.00 / 0)
if we're not honest about what's already been done?

And I have no idea what this means:

It kicks in for adults right now too. Because the Federal government is allocating money right now to pay for services not covered, as you know.

My comment was entirely accurate. Your entitled to your own outlook, not your own facts.  

[ Parent ]
because you are supposed to know what you are talking about. (4.00 / 2)
From TPM
What's In The Health Reform Bill For You Right Away?

IMMEDIATE HELP FOR THE UNINSURED WITH PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS (INTERIM HIGH-RISK POOL)--Provides immediate access to insurance for Americans who are uninsured because of a pre-existing condition - through a temporary high-risk pool - until the Exchanges up and running in 2014. Effective 90 days after enactment. (Beginning in 2014, health plans are banned from discriminating against all people with pre-existing conditions, so high-risk pools would phase out).

NO DISCRIMINATION AGAINST CHILDREN WITH PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS--Prohibits health plans from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions. Effective 6 months after enactment. (Beginning in 2014, this prohibition would apply to adults as well.)

From TPM

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsme...

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
We have established the right. Thats what we did, then tried to make the law fity the principle. (0.00 / 0)
There was a flurry of jibber jabber as orange says, about Obama promised us a PO, some sites even screamed it was promised by Obama during the campaign. Some sites that will remain unnamed, cough mydd.com cough, even banned people for disagreeing that Obama promised a PO in the campaign.

What was promised was ways to enact rules that reflected America's right to health.

It is necessary to repeatedly emphasize that what we got were rules, flawed rules, to make sure that right was met. That is what the congress voted on. Subsidies to afford, competition to afford, opening for new members, opening for new services, forbidding cut offs, forbidding pre-existing, all were rules to meet the need of affordable healthcare for all.

We must say, at every opportunity, the right to healthcare has been established, the rules to deliver it are flawed.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
Disagree (4.00 / 2)
What was established was an obligation to purchase insurance. Nothing that was done will actually reduce the cost of actual health care. The U.S. will still be paying 2 to 3 times more for health care services and 35% to 50% more for drugs. The costs were shifted between different entities but not reduced.

How much actual health care people will actually receive and how stringently the regulations will be enforced and at what costs are yet to be determined.

[ Parent ]
Wrong and right wing. (4.00 / 1)
We have the right now to care. If we don't we demand the oversight be repaired. No longer in America can anyone say a person doesnt have the right to be insured and cared for.

We got this fight, passed these laws because it is now agreed that the right of health care.

Any other statement is bloody minded right wing framing.

The right to healthcare has been established, the rules to deliver it are flawed. We need to reform the laws to ensure the established right.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
The health insurance legislation was (4.00 / 1)
bloody minded right wing legislation.

Prior to the start of the health insurance initiative, 45 million people were uninsured. This legislation provides insurance for 31 -32 million people in 2014. Who knows how many will be uninsured at that time. I think that those who do not get insurance as a result of this legislation can truthfully say that they will no more rights than they did before the legislation was enacted.

Also, having insurance is no guarantee that you will have access to affordable health care.

[ Parent ]
Narrative matters. (4.00 / 3)
That's House's point. You can interpret this law as a big freaking disaster, as you are doing, or you can interpret it as a major, if flawed, progressive victory. But interpretations are valid, and both can be argued for effectively. Both interpretations have political implications.

In my view, your interpretation leads people on the left to be  more alienated and less likely to participate further. Its a narrative of betrayal, failure, marginalization, and powerlessness. House's interpretation, on the other hand, leads people to demand more and have a rhetorical basis for doing so. Its a narrative of empowerment and future possibility.

At least that's how I see it. Opinions vary.

[ Parent ]
Who has authority to do this? (0.00 / 0)
The right to healthcare has been established

Rights come along with existing as a human being, do they not?

The most any law can do is recognize the rights each human has by virtue of being alive.


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

[ Parent ]
People do (4.00 / 1)
People have the authority to establish and define rights.  Who do you think has the authority?  Unless I misunderstand you, this seems like a fairly metaphysical claim to be making as if it is a simple statement of fact.

Support a Pennsylvania Progressive for Governor - Joe Hoeffel
[ Parent ]
The intent of lawmakers is part of the law. Thge intent of the demand of the public .. etc (0.00 / 0)
Millions and thousands marched, the President spoke, the Speaker spoke, the lawmakers made speeches the intent is written in to the bill, the intent of covering "all these conditions under which care is denied" so that laws and regs could be written because never again will an American be denied care. And the intent of the lawmakers to overcome irrational opposition.

Etc.


Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
Right, so (0.00 / 0)
the HCR law supports the right to healthcare (or does not support it), it does not establish the right to healthcare.

Is healthcare a human right, or not?

Its about semantics, framing, and the meaning of words. Right up your alley.

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

[ Parent ]
No sir, you are wrong. We have established the right with this set of laws (0.00 / 0)
with the intent of the legislature, with the intent of the president and the people, the right in America to health care.

Period.

It is established.

Some of the laws and regulations are flawed, in just the same way as the civil rights laws, establishing the right of the federal government to enforce legislation on States, no matter what they pass, say or regulate, to ENSURE and enforce the right to vote.


Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
Ok I have been dully scolded (0.00 / 0)
do you feel better now?

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
I take no pleasure in making you feel bad. (4.00 / 1)
I think you are whip smart, I think you ask good questions I think you have many of the same goals as anyone here. We need to talk and discuss and move forward, take the progressive change actions we need to take, and we need to be clear.

I am an ass, I write with too little care, and I am even more fallible than most. I try and help us all be the fighters we need to be, because there is such damn important work to do.

And I still think you are whip smart.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
It is metaphysical, perhaps (0.00 / 0)
but it can have real consequences, too.

If one accepts the idea that the people in my society are the source of our human rights, then one has also granted those people the authority to take those rights from human beings.

I am unwilling to grant any collection of humans the authority to determine what rights are inherent with exisiting as a human being.

Maybe there are different kinds of "rights"? Some are inherent (I'd say, "given by creator" but I'm trying not to spiritual. If you take "creator" as "the non-anthropomorphized evolutionary mechanisms", it would work) by exisitence. Human rights. Maybe some are "political" or "cultural" rights and CAN be given/taken by governments.

I tend to read "rights" as "human rights" in most cases, so I wanted clarification.


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

[ Parent ]
Unless you are spiritual (0.00 / 0)
and believe that some being other than humans will announce what our rights are, than this isn't actually true:

I am unwilling to grant any collection of humans the authority to determine what rights are inherent with exisiting as a human being.

You will grant that authority (because there is nowhere else it can come from), you just don't want us admitting it.

I suppose there is a distinction to be made between the source of rights and whether the choices made are legitimate.  I prefer that conversion - what rights ought we have as human beings and citizens - to one that is framed in terms of discovery.

Support a Pennsylvania Progressive for Governor - Joe Hoeffel

[ Parent ]
You may be right (0.00 / 0)
The source of human rights is in the DNA. But only a human can make that statement.

Is that spiritual?  

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

[ Parent ]
Very (to my mind) (0.00 / 0)
But I see your point here:

I humbly request that we stop using the frame that implies that some government entity has the authority to give and take human rights.

I agree with your concern - where we disagree is not whether we want to do this, but how we do it.

Support a Pennsylvania Progressive for Governor - Joe Hoeffel

[ Parent ]
OK (0.00 / 0)
Is such accomplished by claiming some law (HCR, or any) has established a right?

To my mind. No.

Better to say that the law recognized the right, or reiterated the right.

PS: On "spiritual". I disagree.

Recognizing our own humanity, not just in ourselves, but in all the other humans is self-reflection. It may lead some to a "spiritual" experience and others may refer to the workings of one's innermost psyche as the "spirit". I don't care for the religious connotations.

To me, it is just part of being a human animal living on a planet that is but one tiny part of a seemingly large universe.  

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

[ Parent ]
Wrong on both counts I am afraid. (0.00 / 0)
Is such accomplished by claiming some law (HCR, or any) has established a right?

To my mind. No.

If you are talking about the right, inherent in birth because we human, then all our teachings say that yes, we have a right to care. Oters have a responsibility to offer care.

All human religeous texts posit just this, all philosophies whose purpose is not justification for cruel greed, the Satanic Bible and Ayn Rand for example, all posit the same. Some economic texts do not, though many do.

So on the philosophical, I am born what rights do I have, it is already extant.

On the legal, I think I have made enoiugh arguments for an amateur to make, and would gladly let more skilled scholars take up the torch.

On the political side, it is the base truth. It is where we fight from to give the sick the healing they deserve, the society the sanity it needs and the children the care any mother would struggle to provide. We will have universal affordable healthcare in America, we have the right, it has been established.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
This is a democracy spitball. A nation of laws. It has a constitution, and system of judges to interpret. (0.00 / 0)
I am unwilling to grant any collection of humans the authority to determine what rights are inherent with exisiting as a human being.

Really ?? And you can whisper that as they carry to driver court, you can scream it as you tell the police officer that the ticket for not putting on your seatbelt wont be paid, you can tell the draft board you refuse to serve, you can type it in triplicate overtop the tax forms you have refused to fill out.

But it is still a useless and wrong headed way to live in a democracy.

Welcome to the United States.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
You are talking about where I live (0.00 / 0)
and I am talking about what I am.

Those are not the same thing.


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

[ Parent ]
You are a citizen. (0.00 / 0)
A privileged citizen in a constitutional democracy. Built for very good reasons, including your parents desire to see that a system of government and laws would be arraigned in support of you. You can think of your self, in a mind exercise, as if without a country, without a history, without a planet as a science fiction writer would, or a first year philosophy student might experiment, but it would be only an exercise.

A tree falling in wood.....

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
Even so (0.00 / 0)
Where I live does not define who I am

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
It does define who you are. (0.00 / 0)
You are an American that likes to say things about his definition. You can say you have no history. You can say you owe your parents or school nothing. You can deny you have the time and freedom to discuss things like this because other good men and women from Canada, the US, Brittan, France, Poland and more, stepped onto the beaches of Normandy only to have their lives snuffed out, but all of it is an exercise.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.
[ Parent ]
I appreciate that (0.00 / 0)
but would be no less human and have no fewer rights were I born and lived elsewhere.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
A woman drowning at sea has rights. A woman on the witness stand has rights. (0.00 / 0)
These are not the same thing, and the rhetoric matters when talking about politics. Perhaps you would like to talk about politics and law.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.
[ Parent ]
Civil rights, human rights, voting rights, the right to free speech.. (0.00 / 0)
These are from being people as a philosophy, by law and intent of lawmakers as legally binding.

Philosophically, the civil rights act is a group of laws to attest, enforce and stipulate actions, laws that should be passed later, rights that need enforcing, judgements that need application. The civil rights act was passed to do a bunch of things to re-establish (and just establish) the rights of citizens, who were having their rights denied by regulations and habit and criminal bias. When judges are asked, isnt this law in compliance with the civil rights act, judges may and do consider the intent of the laws to enfranchise voters.

The other thinga bout rights, is the conversation we have now, politically, legally, in regulations, in appeals in forming new laws, in writing regulation, is informed by the intent and capacity of the laws already enacted attempting to "cover every American"


Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
Yes (0.00 / 0)
Those laws supported and recognized the rights with which  each human being was endowed, just as much as we were endowed with a life as a human being.

True, it is only because some human beings recognized these fundamental rights as inalienable that I lay claim to them today, but that had a very different sense about it.

Mine is a rhetorical point. I humbly request that we stop using the frame that implies that some government entity has the authority to give and take human rights.


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

[ Parent ]
Your request is denied. (0.00 / 0)
I humbly request that we stop using the frame that implies that some government entity has the authority to give and take human rights.

And I suggest you study some law, some history of law, some philosophy of law, and don't put your name forward to sit on the SCOTUS.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
It ain't about law (0.00 / 0)
its about the nature of humanity.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
Yes, it is. It is exactly about the law. (0.00 / 0)
The right of a Saudi woman to not be beaten to death with sticks because she was raped is recognized in the United States, but not in other, even many, countries around the world.

You know, as I do, that we are angry that this is so, and recognize that we should fight for her rioght to be treated fairly, and establish the right of women in that non-democratic country, that autocracy, that paragon of no human rights.

Chimpanzees recognize fairness, ravens do, bats recognize fairness and alter complex behaviors to enforce and pressure fairness. Humans write laws.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
I'd laugh (0.00 / 0)
but some ignorance just makes me sad

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
OOps, did you just attack me as a person without rgard to arguing a point? (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
Too true (4.00 / 4)
Especially the part about opening new fronts. That, and maintaining a united front as we do it. I also think that we shouldn't lie to ourselves as we go along. There are very deep reasons why we'll always be underdogs, reasons which aren't overcome by single victories, even ones far more impressive than those you're reminding of us in this diary. I'm not saying that they don't matter; I am saying that they aren't the heart of the matter.
Fantastic stuff, Mike. (4.00 / 3)
It's all about power. If we want to win more we need to figure out how to build power.  

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power
I think it is more than (4.00 / 1)
just "power."  People get lost in taking power but the way in which it is done often is as important as taking power itself.  I think we see that clearly in 2010.  
[ Parent ]
100% - - - We need to build power by building powerful voter organizations, starting with ACORN (4.00 / 2)
Powerful voter organizations, built, just like ACORN, around peoples lives and issues. There is no other road to victory, but there are many other paths and tools.

Build democracy, or lose democracy. Build coalitions, and the respect that coalitions means, MUTUAL respect, or lose power. There is no other way.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
A couple nits to pick (4.00 / 8)
1.  Andy Stern is not an unqualified hero.  One can legitimately question whether his push to leave the AFL-CIO was a positive step for Progressive power.  Apart from issues of rhetoric and style, many in the labor movement could not fully explain why the split had to occur, or what benefits it has created for the labor movement.

One can also question his approach to internal union operations.  From the lack of hands-on support to members who need representation (call the 1-800 number for help?), to the heavy handed battle with United Healthcare Workers West and Sal Rosselli.

This isn't meant just to bash Stern - he's a complicated guy, as are many "great men" in history and especially in the labor movement.  But please don't fall into the trap of writing a hagiography for the guy.

2.  Your post glosses over one of the real problems for the progressive movement - having to play defense on so many issues that it doesn't leave time to play offense.  The insidious assault on the fundamental pillars of a democratic society is frankly depressing, whether it is Public Education (even from Arne Duncan and his "Race to the Top" initiative), the integrity of democratic elections and voting rights, habeus corpus, torture, etc.  Literally everything I was taught to value in elementary school as part of what made America great is now called into question, if not outright delegitimized by conservative attacks and even attacks from many "centrist" Democrats.  Having to fight on issues that were supposedly settled hundreds of years ago does not feel inspiring or "progressive"  (where's the progress?).

Again, this isn't meant to undermine your central point.  To the contrary, I agree - We can't give up the fight!  But truly understanding just what is at stake is part of developing strategies to build on what power that progressive movement has achieved to date.

Agreed on Andy. (4.00 / 2)
I never meant to imply that Andy is an unqualified hero, in fact I suggest there are limits to what he was able to do. I certainly don't agree with everything he did. I do think he accomplished a great deal, but he and all of us have a long way to go.
[ Parent ]
There are no unqualified heros. (0.00 / 0)
"1.  Andy Stern is not an unqualified hero."

No one is. Not a single one. In fact lets just dump hero entirely and talk about workers. People getting a job done, being responsible to others for the job, and accountable.


Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
I almost regret my points about Andy Stern (4.00 / 7)
Because it distracts from my larger point.  Which is about how disheartening it is to be progressive, when so much energy is necessary just to tread water, much less make progress today.  As impressive as it may have been to pass HCR, the reality is that it moves the US from the 19th century into the 20th century, when Progressives are fighting to bring the US in the 21st and 22nd centuries.  

As I mentioned before, I'm not aware (but maybe I missed it) of other nations having such fundamental battles over the legitimacy/effectiveness/quality of public education, or whether elections have been "stolen," or whether to trust what scientists tell us about their observations of the world.  It's just assumed that public schools are a bedrock of every society, that elections are conducted fairly and honestly, and that we must rely on Science to guide our policy decisions.  Except in our society, thanks to Lee Atwater, Karl Rove, and likeminded Republican operatives.

Again, I'm not saying this to be a "nattering nabob of negativity," but to point out that the conservative movement has been extremely effective over the last 40 years to whittle away at the fundamental pillars of a "liberal" democracy.  Progressives have grand visions of the Good Society (as we should!), but we need to recognize that the Good Society requires "going back" to re-affirm what it means to live in a modern democratic society.

Don't give up the fight!  This is my two cents on building Progressive Power.  Fight for the pillars of a Democratic Society, because there remains (or could reasonably be recovered) a broad consensus on these issues.  And then we can build from there.

[ Parent ]
James Livingston (0.00 / 0)
He's a historian at Rutgers. You should read his work on reinterpreting the history of the left -- especially Pragmatism, Feminism, Democracy. Its sort of difficult, but it will make you feel better.
[ Parent ]
It's Disturbing (4.00 / 1)
how far we are compared to a lot other advanced on many fronts.
[ Parent ]
How Far Behind (4.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
Mike, I Really Appreciate All That You Do, (4.00 / 1)
For you to keep to fighting for stronger Progressive Movement, ought to give everyone hope.
Thanks. (4.00 / 2)
Nice to get a comment like that every once in a while.

Now back to being told how full of shit I am...

[ Parent ]
There are no unqualified heros. (4.00 / 1)
People getting a job done, being responsible to others for the job, and accountable.

And just like Andy, and Sanders and the people in the office down the hall from me, responsible to people and accountable. I have no argument with a thing you have written here. Thanks for your work, a lot.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
Everyone One Is A Critic (4.00 / 1)
     It's a great luxury to point out all the problems and hypocrisies.  But fighting for different causes and campaigns, one realizes how people the forces Chris talked about the other night in his post.  

    As you stated, the Progressive Movement has to learn--stop with the inner "firing squad"--and adapt, hoping to build a broader and more sustained movement.  Yet, I can only imagine how damn hard some of the causes you have been fighting for progressives.  Just volunteering on national, regional, local electoral politics can, at times, feel futile.  
The crazy conservative movement w/ their Big Money backing them makes one at times feel like one is bringing a knife to a gun battle.

    That said, why can't you and other cooler heads in liberal and progressive circles and form another "Campaign For America's Future" asap.  I believe there can a line drawn in the sand on what positions everyone will agree on; on the other issues there is contention, let everyone try to  do what they feel is right.  But on a lot of issues, there is definitely a consensus in the progressive movement.  List the top 5 or so--and get everyone to come together to organize, improve strategy and tactics, and campaign like hell, so we don't have major losses to GOP in midterm.  

    Is there anyway you and others can bring together a lot of organizations.  Because right now, I feel there is a lack direction for progressives and for voters.  And, the progressive movement needs to heal.

[ Parent ]
We need to keep pushing on voter-owned elections (4.00 / 3)
Browse awhile at Public Campaign's Clean Money Clean Elections blog and see the increasing numbers of states who have instituted a publicly-funded campaign mechanism. Arizona, Connecticut (who are in danger of cutting back, horror of horrors), North Carolina, the defeat of the coalman's crony judge in West Virginia, and Prop. 15 in California are all covered in the blog. While it started with just a sputter in 2006, year-by-year, there is more being done. The effort to publicize is very important. I've sent Ed Schultz links from this list. I hope he will invite some of the winning candidates on The Ed Show.
[ Parent ]
disappointed in the SEIU (4.00 / 8)
I felt like they were running interference for the White House with the left who were dissatisfied with the health care bill, rather than using their influence to make the bill better.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
Mostly agree with Mike's post (4.00 / 1)
but I can't lionize Andy Stern. For those of us in Northern California, watching SEIU and progressive labor generally torn to pieces in response to Stern's actions is the opposite of inspiring.

Too often, US labor seems to succumb to the kind of dynamic that also prevails in leftist sects: when they finally, by dint of long, diligent struggle, get something going, they break into factions and fight among themselves rather than against The Man. Are we afraid to win?

Can it happen here?

It did happen here (4.00 / 4)
The anticommunist purges of the late forties/early fifties were worse -- far worse -- and they left the labor movement ill-prepared to deal with what's happened to them since. Since you're in SF, go dig up an old geezer from the ILWU (Harry Bridges old union) and they'll give you an earful.

When unions decided that they were simply the business and administrative units of a new blue-collar middle class -- or worse, wolves whose destiny was to fleece the sheep (see the Teamsters) -- they sealed their own fates. Reagan's attack on the air controllers may have come as a shock to them, but not to anyone who'd been paying attention. Wage slaves in this country have always had powerful and implacable enemies, and have rarely, except for the decade following the Depression, and perhaps early in LBJ's term, had any genuine social democratic allies. The Cold War was the excuse to return them to their slavery, but the intent, and the means, had always been there. All that had been lacking after the Depression and WWII was the opportunity, and the red hysteria, with a little help from Stalin, provided it in spades.

[ Parent ]
Andy Stern (0.00 / 0)
I was sad to see Stern sitting with the Obamas at the inaugural parade. One would hope that Obama would not so blatantly side with "change to win."

But my problems with Stern go a lot deeper than that. As I understand the history of the struggle in California, Andy's sweetheart contracts in LA got so disgusting that there was a staffer revolt that led to the Stern/Roselli battle. There was one particularly bad contract there, in a nursing home chain, that gave up the right to strike and essentially told caregivers they couldn't stand up for their patients and report substandard care.

Stern and his top staffers have expressed contempt for union democracy and workers ability to have a voice on the job. Their motto seems to be: agree to anything to get a contract (thereby gaining dues from new members.)

So far, health care givers in California are voting against Andy by a pretty good margin. This summer, the all-important Kaiser vote is coming up, which will probably result in 50,000 SEIU members switching to NUHW (Roselli's new union.)

I wasn't surprised to see Stern throw in the towel. SEIU had just all but lost their lawsuit against NUHW, and with the Kaiser vote approaching, Andy must have seen the handwriting on the wall.

Good riddance!

Brian King

Power and the Progressive Movement | 59 comments
USER MENU


blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you 		Donate to Open Left





QUICK HITS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox