Independents are the anchor of the progressive movement -- dynamics, not data (part 1)

by: jeffroby

Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 17:24

(1)  I am a progressive.
(2)  While I may at any given moment quack like a Democrat, my vote for any Democratic candidate is never to be taken for granted.
(3)  My belief that we are oppressed by a corrupt two-party system (emphasize on the word system) is central.

I have all sorts of other opinions that may or may not agree with anyone else, but I do not consider them defining.

I think most (not all, of course) OpenLeft readers/writers would whole-heartedly agree with point 1, would think they agree with point 3, but don't get the central part, and would likely disagree with point 2.  But even those who disagree with point 2 might feel at least a little bit queasy with what Gary Norton writes in Kos, in a statement touted as the Kos party line:

To me the choice is clear. I will vote for every Democratic candidate for every office. I will try to influence my Democratic office holders if I disagree with their positions but will never oppose them in a way that would jeopardize them when they run against a Republican ... I will never vote for an independent candidate because that is, in essence, a vote for a Republican.

Note that my 3 points do not include support for a 3rd party in America.  On that point, I am ambivalent for all the obvious reasons (winner-take-all non-parliamentary system, etc.) and will discuss later.  Yet I am skeptical about the possibility of progressives taking over the Democratic Party, but don't rule it out.  Let's get into that.

Take New York's Ed Koch -- please!  He and his fellow Reform Democrats were progressive insurgents against the Dick-Daley-style Democratic Party machine, and they beat them soundly.  They took over the party and the City.  And they became the machine.  They administered the vicious service cutbacks of the late 70's and 80's.

That kind of "taking over," I want no part of.  My understanding of "progressives taking over" entails seizing positions within the Democratic Party sufficient in numbers and leverage to be able to meet the needs of the American people in a progressive manner.

Here I run into a serious disconnect in OpenLeft.  Yes, the right wing is a menace, yes, war with Iran could be catastrophic, yes, global warming could be catastrophic, yes, the economy could tank, yes, peak oil is a huge issue, yes, America is a dying empire and we are trapped in the ruins, yes yes yes.  But so what.  What's our endgame?  I don't need a perfect roadmap.  I don't care about programmatic details.  But I do not see any serious attempt at discussing how we get from here to there.  That would require at least a semi-coherent vision.  FDR's New Deal was no revolution, no socialism, no participatory democracy, but even it had a vision, and it inspired.  What's ours?

Without that vision, without some attempt of getting from here to there, why should anyone trust OpenLeft's candidates to not be "the new boss same as the old boss"?

I'm not saying our issues are trivial.  But they are defensive, and at the moment defense is required.  But the lack of something beyond defense in fact hinders our defense.  Chew on that one awhile.

Perhaps I'm being overly harsh.  I think OpenLeft will develop that vision.  Call me naive, whatever.  Certainly, as a force, we are very young.  But suppose we get it together.  Our principles are strong and our hearts are true.  Can we take over the Democratic Party in a meaningful way?

Whatever the prospects, I am not impressed by any argument that is straight-line incremental.  We gained 2 seats this year and we'll gain 2 seats next year and in x number of years we will rule the world.  As our strength grows, our opposition will grow increasingly hysterical and vicious.  Small reforms already get disproportionate responses.  There are not only billions of lives at stake, there's money involved.  Not only are our Democratic Party opponents functioning at a lower cognitive level, they are paid gazillions to do what they do.  It will be, at best, a vicious power struggle, with real interests at stake, where there may not be solutions that make all parties (like the HMO's, the credit card companies, the poor, Blacks, Latinos, on and on) happy.  While we recruit allies at the party's front door, old allies keep leaving in disgust out the back.  Let me pose (admittedly arbitrarily) 3 ways this intra-party fight may play out:

(1)  Things continue as they have, with the country going to hell at an increasing pace, and the dead being the lucky ones.
(2)  Our strength grows, the struggle heightens, and we win and implement major policy changes.
(3)  Our strength grows, the struggle heightens, but our opposition is too strong to be conquered on Democratic Party terrain alone, and we either chuck it all (see option 1), or form a major 3rd party.

On a bad day, I think scenario 1 is the most likely, and on better days, I'm not sure whether 2 or 3 is more likely.  But I'm quite certain of one thing, if we are not open to the possibility of scenario 3, then there is no way that scenario 2 is at all possible.

What we have to grasp is that, while the mood of the country may move to the left, it does not automatically follow that the Democratic Party will move to the left, despite our best efforts.  And at some point, something's gotta give.

(to be continued)