Have progressives and progressivism made more of an impact on the 2008 Democratic primary than in 2004? This is a very large question that I think we need to spend a lot of time analyzing, but given that Iowa is tomorrow the question probably isn’t answerable yet. I want to believe that progressive Democrats have advanced on our performance in 2004, and I think preliminary reviews show that to indeed be the case. In the extended entry, I provide the outline of this case.
Policy Shifting Left. Compared to four years ago, proposed policy among Democratic frontrunners has shifted to the left in virtually every area.
Iraq. Invading Iraq is now accepted a bad idea, whereas four years ago Howard Dean was the only top-tier candidate who opposed the invasion. The main policy debate is over when to withdraw and whether or not to leave a residual force.
<.li>Health Care. Unlike four years ago, the rhetoric goal of health care proposals is universal coverage. Candidates now attack each other for not offering universal coverage, whereas four years ago not a single top-tier candidate was proposing universal health care.
Energy and Global Warming. Four years ago, energy and global warming did not play a prominent role in the campaign. This time around, probably due to the efforts of Al Gore and others, not only is it a main issue, but all of the top candidates have very good proposals on it. This, clearly, is an advance for progressivism.
Upholding the Constitution. Four years ago, there was little dissent in the field on Republican efforts to increase executive power and strip away civil liberties through measures like the Patriot Act. Now, restoring both civil liberties and constitutional checks and balances has become an issue, even if not a central one. Most candidates have also moved to the left in this area, even if only Chris Dodd has been a leader.
Grassroots Activism Ramping Up. With Clinton, Edwards and Obama all sporting equal or greater numbers of activists than the Dean campaign in 2004, the number of small donors and campaign volunteers has significantly increased from 2004. Attendance at political events is well up from four years ago, as is the audience for progressive media. Most campaigns have advanced netroots outreach departments. In terms of sheer numbers, grassroots activism is well up from 2004.
On the negative side, despite the overall increase, the influence of the progressive grassroots on the campaign has not increased. Small donors are the same percentage of overall donors that they were in 2004. The Draft Gore movement of 2007 failed, unlike the Draft Clark movement of 2003. No clear “netroots favorite” emerged, and the establishment just isn’t as scared of any of the top three Democrats as they were of Dean four years ago. While we made a dent on residual forces, many of the issues we focus on, such as the use of Republican talking points, the need for partisanship, and civil liberties / checks and balances, did not become major issues for the voting public. So, while our overall activist numbers have increased, barring a surprising John Edwards victory tomorrow, grassroots progressive influence on the outcome, relative to the establishment, appears to be static. Then again, no matter what happens, Edwards will outperform Dean and have done so against much tougher competition, so perhaps that is progress.
Electability. Electability took a major tumble as a campaign issue this time around, which surely is progress for progressives. Further, while electability has typically meant “moving to the center,” when it was discussed in this campaign, mostly it meant poll numbers, handling Republican media attacks, and raising money. Combined, these two developments severely undercut the prominence longstanding argument that Democrats must move to the center in order to win. That argument is still floating around, and we are still some distance from “Democrats must be progressive populists in order to win” becoming conventional wisdom, but we are gaining ground. Again, more progress will be made if Edwards wins Iowa, since if Obama wins Iowa the “Democrats must be bi-partisan in order to win” narrative will gain ground.
The ideal progressive candidate probably would have been someone who managed to cram the leadership of Dodd, the residual force position of Richardson, the rhetoric of Edwards, and the combined activist support of Obama and Edwards into a single package. A candidate like that would have unified the netroots, scared the crap out of the establishment, and basically dominated the entire course of the campaign. Woulda, coulda, shoulda, but it just didn’t happen. Even so, I think progressives gained ground in terms of influence within the party from 2004 to 2008. If we continue to fight hard, I am hopeful that no matter who wins, we will continue to gain ground in the future.
