From Daily Kos- Don't call me a prorgessive

[NJmaverick]

The whole article is well worth reading, but the best part is the end.

I never expected liberalism to suddenly break out. There's a lot of entrenched interests, with too many legislators who are either in their pocket or set in their ways. I knew that. I expected that it was going to be a long hard effort to shift things. I knew that we'd have to identify the worst of the bunch so they could be primaried. That we'd have to work hard to primary them this year. We'd have to advocate hard, and smart. The problem? A lot of people thought liberalism would suddenly break out, that the entrenched interests would disappear, that legislators would "see the light."

They haven't done much to recruit strong primary challengers for many races. Even worse, while they advocated strongly, they advocated dumb. You want to be taken seriously? You don't attack the very people who are working the hardest to implement your agenda. You don't waste your time trying to persuade the people who are already on your side. That was done. You persuade those who can be persuaded. Disagree with the President and various Congressional representatives? Fine. Expected, even. There's a way to do it. You're reasonable. You push saying "we can do better than this." You state disagreements in terms that appeal to the "better angels." That's smart.

Instead we got tantrums. Long screeds about how Congress was inept, a failure. Heavy opinion-making editorials and television appearances feeding into the right-wing memes that Democrats were inept, incompetent failures. Even joining up with right wing groups to help "advocate." Many blogs stating how "betrayed" they felt, and how they weren't going to vote anymore. Depress the base? Sure thing. You did a hell of a job of it. "We'll show them!" It was exactly the sort of thing that conservatives prayed for. Boneheaded. Outright fucking stupid. It's amazing that in less than a year, "progressives" have managed to do such a great job of fragging.

That's why I'm not a progressive anymore. Too many people claiming that label have torched its reputation as a label. I'm a pragmatic liberal. I hate losing. I hate being in the minority. I don't like being the "victim." I'm planning on the long term, a long hard slog through the trenches to get what I want. I recognize that it's not going to happen in a year, or even a generation. That I may have to take an inch now to gain a yard down the line. It's work, and I plan on keeping at it. "Progressives"? I don't trust you. You're going to jump ship the first time things don't go your way. You'll be trying to stick a knife in my back, or fuck up something that took a lot of work. With "friends" like you, one doesn't need enemies. You want to blame everyone else - but you have just as much to share in it as anyone else. Me? I actually thought you people were dedicated and serious. That was my mistake. I won't make it again.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/1/20/827654/-Dont-Call-Me-A-Progressive

[katandmoon]

1. Tell it to Rahm Fucking Emmanuel.

[Captain Hilts]

3. Tell it to Emanuel's boss, too. nt

[Lost4words]

9. And tell it to Rahm Emmanuals brother zeke

the guy the WH brought in to consult on HRC.

[Adelante]

2. That's how I feel about it

:thumbsup:

[Zywiec]

4. Don't call me a prorgessive either n/t

[dkf]

5. This is a lame post.

The reason we believed it could be done is because Obama promised he would do it. No mandates and a public option is what he campaigned on not us.

The poster thinks we were stupid to believe Obama. That is really what he or she is saying.

[NJmaverick]

6. You should read the whole article, your points are addressed in the rest of it

[dkf]

14. I did read it.

The poster never thought Obama could deliver because our reps are the problem. But that isn't what Obama said. He told us that yes we can. He won because we believed it.

[Orsino]

10. We knew it *could* be done, no matter who did and didn't promise it.

We also knew it* was a long shot, but that only a candidate who committed was even going to try. Most of us also realized that it couldn't be done in less than a decade.

*It meaning universal health care, or almost any other progressive goal.

[dkf]

19. Private insurance never made sense as a delivery system for health care.

Name me any other insurance that controls costs. Insurance is supposed to spread risk but going to the doctor isn't the exception but the norm.

And why would you expect insurance to hold down costs when in reality it allows ridiculous pricing to exist. The ability to pay huge costs is the cause for price inflation not a way to control it. If procedures were paid for out of pocket they would have to lower costs because no one can afford it and being unaffordable never pays the bills.

[Roland99]

12. Agreed 100%.

I've only just read the quoted part but I have to a big Fuck Off to its author.

Liberals/Progressives have been insulted, ignored, and mocked for FAR too long. And it stings a lot more when it's done by the "leaders" of the party we helped get into power in both Houses of Congress and in the White House only to see the policies of the previous administration kept in place and even strengthened and a "woe is me, we can't get anything passed" mentality despite a huge majority. Repukes want to filibuster? Fine, make them. Let the country see them at their worst obstructionist ways.

It's time for the Democrats to grow a spine and stop acting like the cowardly lion and GET SHIT DONE!!

[dkf]

26. The problem is that when we try to communicate with our reps or senators

They discount us by saying we are the fringe and assuming their real vote targets are the ones who dont call.

[Roland99]

36. And we get the President saying things like "Single Payer is too radical"

Radical?


Medicare is radical???



:wtf:

[MadHound]

7. In other words, be nice, quiet liberals who don't rock the boat

Yeah, right, whatever. We've tried that for years and what did it get us? Oh, yeah, a party that has moved so far to the right that the proverbial dime's worth of difference has shrunk to about two cents.

Sorry, I don't play that game, and as any pragmatic politician tells you, it's those who draw the most attention to their issues are the ones who get most of their issues addressed. Being quiet and polite is simply another way of sacrificing your issues on the altar of political expediency.

Let me ask you this, do you think that African Americans, women, LGBT and other minority groups would have gotten where they were by being quiet? No, so why should liberals be quiet?

[donco6]

37. +1

[donco6]

8. OK. You're definitely not a progressive.

And if you don't believe in holding people accountable to liberal positions, then you probably belong in the wilderness.

[vi5]

11. Here's my problem with this...

..and to be clear while I'm dissapointed as hell in a lot of our elected officials, I'm still probably going to continue to vote for democrats. I may at moments say "Oh no I won't" but in the end I know I will.

But the problem with this article is that it would have been appropriate and accurate in 2001. But the thing is everyone took that long view. Everyone did as much as they could between 2001 and 2008 to make things happen. They donated their time, they donated their money and they didn't get dishearted as much as the opportunity was there so many times during that almost 10 year period. Progressives volunteered and donated to and voted for people like Tester and Webb, knowing full well that they weren't strictly traditional liberals but would hopefully be solid enough democrats that we would be able to acheive most of our long range goals.

But after all that time and what's happened over the past year I don't think it's outlandish for people (especially the more progressive among us) to be more disheartened than we've ever been. We've looked at what happened this past year and said "Wait...this is really as good as it's going to get. When will we EVER have this situation again? We probably won't, and THIS is the best we can get from it?"

So yeah, it's easy to say "Field primary opponents!" but when we look and see that even though the entrenched Dem leadership points to the blue dogs and the obstructionist dems as their excuse for not getting things done, when one of their own is threatened with a primary opponent they circle the wagons. Maybe they don't actively get involved, but they also take a wink-wink, nudge-nudge approach that makes it clear that they are protecting that person.

So I guess it feels like it's one thing to be losing the battle when we're fighting republicans. But to be losing the battle and be forced to also fight democrats and in particular the democratic leadership? That's what makes some of us say "What's the point?!?!"

So what are we fighting for? What is this supposed long range goal that the article talks about? Are we supposed to be excited to fight and to donate and to volunteer for just keeping a 60 vote majority that we've now seen accomplishes very little?

Yes, I know it's all more complicated than any one article can encompass. But the thing is we were having these same arguments in 2004 when everyone was fighting about Dean (progressive) versus Kerry (comparatively safe and moderate). And we were told at the time that the progressives didn't have a long term picture and that they were pouty and were "giving up". But what happened after that? Dean dug in his heels, encouraged everyone to continue the fight, mobilized a lot of people, and led to the changes we got in 2006 and 2008. And then what he (and we) got was a "Thanks for your help. Now step to the back and let us do our thing."

[NJmaverick]

13. The problem is that things don't change over night

the same people are pretty much running Congress now that ran it from 2006-2008, politics doesn't have a finish line, it's a never ending race.

[donco6]

21. A never-ending race with never visible rewards?

Really? Never? It seems the Republicans can manage to stick in some nice rewards for their fat-cat supporters. Quite often, in fact.

[NJmaverick]

25. They banned abortion? Did they privatize SS? How about ANWAR?

They don't get near the rewards you think they did.

[donco6]

30. Money changes everything.

And when you eliminate taxes on your wealth, who gives a shit about abortion, really?

I specifically said "fat cat" supporters. Just like with the Dems, the "little people" can pretty much go fuck themselves as far as they're concerned.

[vi5]

22. But that's my point.....

You don't see how it's frustrating to people to be told "O.K. work to defeat those republicans so we can get a fillibuster proof majority to get all this stuff we want done to be enacted!!!" and then work to that end, and acheive that end and then be told "Oh yeah, did we mention that we can't do that stuff because there are all these DEMOCRATS who won't let us?" That's basically admitting to us that Democrats are as much of the problem as republicans. Which I don't think would be as big a problem if the Democratic leadership would....you know....LEAD and keep the caucus more in line. And if they can't then use whatever power they have to negotiate and yes, I hate to say it....to punish the kind of behavior that stifles and stymies the democratic agenda.

Nobody expected overnight. But I don't think coming to the end of a 10 year slog only to be told the goal line is moved yet again, that it's that unreasonable for a lot of people (especially young people) to become very disheartened and not have any motivation to engage any more.

[NJmaverick]

28. Oh it's as frustrating as hell. The thing is it's less frustrating of you have

the right mindset and realistic expectations. Like I said before there are no goal lines or finish lines. On top of that from 2000-2006 our race was just to stop the back sliding toward the right. We have a lot of ground to make up just to get back to even.

[donco6]

31. i.e., it's all a shell game and there is no little ball under the cup.

Great.

[vi5]

33. That's the thing...

I'm a total realist. In fact I think on the true political spectrum I'm pretty much a moderate or a centrist. I'm from NJ also. I dont' always like what Lautenberg and Menendez do or how they vote but I think both are good, solid dems who I will vote for and donate to and support even though they are not "ideologically pure liberals"

But right now the situation we're looking at is that the only way to move forward from where we are now is to get rid of bad democrats. That is the next step. But yet we're not given that as a goal by democratic leadership. We're told the solution is not to get rid of the obstructionist dems, or to hold them accountable or to show them there are ramifications for their actions and words. We're told the solution is to give up what we as the majority in the party want, to please the whims and electoral needs of a small minority.

Again, I understand the reality of it and I understand the pragmatism of it. But I also sure as heck understand that we are definitely at an end point for a lot of people and you just can't keep asking more of them and just can't keep pushing them more and expect them to not only keep taking it but to like it and not complain about it.

[NJmaverick]

35. I think where we differ is on approach

I think we need to increase the Democratic majority to the point where you can cut some loose and not be hurt. My feeling is right now, is that we can't cut out the bad with out causing serious problems with the party and the agenda.

[vi5]

38. More than 60 Dems?

I just don't see how that's possible? I mean there are just not enough areas of the country to be able to pick up that many more seats. I mean hopefully we can replace Leiberman, but beyond that I just don't think it's possible.

I think it would have been if the Democratic leadership had been more effective and got better results, but they didn't so now where we might have had a chance to pick up some disaffected red state seats who were hesitant but still seeing that Dems were getting stuff done and acting in the interest of the people we now have no chance of doing that.

[NJmaverick]

39. I would like to see 70+ dems

and from there cut out those that oppose the agenda. I see no reason we can't shoot for it. There have been majorities like that in the past.

[chimpymustgo]

15. Excellent rebuttal.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

16. Read this thread to find out what the DCCC does to liberal primary candidates.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3243783

[madrchsod]

32. you forgot about the illinois 6th....

duckworth-rahm`s pick and cegalis-the progressive candidate who recieved 43% of the vote in the earlier election against henry hyde. rahm got his way and duckworth lost. neither ran again and the seat is firmly back into republican control.

[PVnRT]

24. +1, very well said

[G_j]

17. OK, I won't

it doesn't like you were ever really a progressive anyway

[NJmaverick]

18. You're comments remind me of this part of the article

<<After watching the past year, I realized something. Many of the people who call themselves "progressives" are not people I want to "go to war" with.

I'm a pragmatic liberal. I'm going to use that term for myself from now on, because "progressives" have made it clear that they're not interested in progress>>

[donco6]

23. True. So true. n/t

[KharmaTrain]

20. And The Blame Game Goes On...

What's in a name? I've long called myself a Progressive...long before it became "vogue" or one that was co-opted by those who felt the word "liberal" had become a perjorative. But it also shows a degree of naivetee on some parts and abuse in others.

Those who thought the political world would turn from right to left overnight with one election deserve to feel disenchanted. In many cases Democrats won despite, not due to any ideals...voters were just fed up with the corruption and lies of the rushpublicans and Democrats benefitted. They didn't earn the majority as much as the GOOP totally blew it. Even worse, many people read into the promises of the '08 campaign and wrote in their own causes and beliefs rather than looking closer at what was actually being said.

So is the answer to walk away and let the bastards win? I guess so. It's so much easier to blame Emmanuel (as if he's some omnipotent wizard) or the DLC and cursing the darkness rather than going out and taking this to the next level. For the most part, we supported and/or tolerated candidates who talked the talk but once elected never walked the walk. Blame may make you sleep at night, but it sure doesn't fix the problem...only makes it worse.

I see a lot of lackluster candidates...establishment aparachniks who see politics as a career rather than public service. We have a non-stop campaign cycle where no sooner is someone elected than they're off and running again. The priority is on who has the most money, not the best ideas. The "wisdom" is that without the money one can't compete or make it to the general election, thus the voters and the ideologues will always get the short shrift.

There are two options...one is to sit and point fingers and rant about how you won't vote or donate money...walk away and let the bastards win. Or, while there's still time...organize and get behind the many underfunded and hard working Progressives who are trying to break through. The next couple months will tell. The '08 election should have been a beginning, not an end. If Progressives and Liberals want to make changes, it only comes with winning elections and getting a bigger seat at the table. One person can promise change, but he or she can't do it alone...

[Tailormyst]

27. No worries, I would never have called you a progressive.

[NJmaverick]

29. From the article

<<After watching the past year, I realized something. Many of the people who call themselves "progressives" are not people I want to "go to war" with.

I'm a pragmatic liberal. I'm going to use that term for myself from now on, because "progressives" have made it clear that they're not interested in progress>>

[HughMoran]

34. I agree with this sentiment

I have a large web of people whom I associate with and I often reflect what I have read recently here and elsewhere. Lately there has been little good to repeat and my mood has been down because of it. I still fight the good fight, but I no longer feel like anybody has my back. If DU is no longer a place for liberals to gather and formulate strategy (and instead is a dumping ground for every brand of hate-speech you never thought you'd see here), then we are lost. And the Democrats are lost because we're the leading edge of thought for the party. What have we offered the Democrats besides "you suck" and "I give up" and "fuck you"? Not much. We reap what we sow.

[NJmaverick]

40. "I have your back" is a phrase we don't hear often enough

[HughMoran]

41. Well, we do, except it's a knife contained within

I'm not smiling or being snarky when I post this either.

[bigtree]

42. good riddance

doesn't sound like a progressive.

pragmatic liberal=capitulating centrist :boring:

[whatchamacallit]

43. Another Epic-Mavericky-Fail. (n/t)

[Winterblues]

44. He sure makes it plain he does not believe in the "Squeeky Wheel" approach

It sounds like his attitude is just sit down and shut up. While I understand the angst expressed I do not believe it is healthy to Never Question Authority. Hold their feet to the fire and make them explain their positions. The ONLY way the small guy can do this is through letters to editors or forums like this. We don't have enough money to create any influence. The ONLY thing we have is our voice and it seems I am hearing, for the sake of the Party shut up....I am a Liberal, I am unable to Shut Up....It comes with the territory..

[NJmaverick]

45. You know the squeaky wheel approach works fine when a train is running on it's own

however if it's racing against another train stopping to oil that wheel will cost the train the race.