Posted on 05/11/2005 10:18:39 AM PDT by Dan from Michigan
Progressives vs. Democrats
By Jesse Singal: Stem the Tide
May 09, 2005
Much has been made in the months since the 2004 election about the inability of the Democratic Party to understand the values of the average voter; in fact, many pinned John Kerry’s loss on a severe divide between the values of the general population and the ideals of the party.
What’s being lost in all this talk is the squelching of an important, young subset of Kerry voters: the so-called “progressive” camp. “Progressive,” like any other ideologically-charged term, is thrown around frequently and sloppily, and therefore it has only a vague meaning. For the sake of this discussion, take someone to be progressive if he is pro-gay marriage and/or feels that our nation’s drug laws are unjust. Obviously, these two issues in no way constitute the totality of what it means to be progressive, but each serves as a good barometer.
It is safe to say that many of those who participate in campus political groups like the College Democrats would self-identify as progressive. And it was these progressive folks who donated untold hours to Kerry’s campaign and solicited God knows how many dollars in donations. What do they have to show for it? Kerry lost, of course, but that’s only half the story — that is, the fact is that the Democratic Party seems to be fleeing from whatever vestiges of a progressive agenda it once had.
This is a bit of an oversimplification in that it makes the party out to be a monolithic, homogeneous entity, but the fact is that, for the most part, the Democratic Party has completely ignored — or failed to mount an effective defense with regard to — a number of social issues that appeal to a large portion of its political base. Those who feel passionately that no one should have to spend years of his life in jail for a nonviolent marijuana arrest, and those who think that anyone proposing a ban on gay marriage should be able to rationalize his position without recourse to the Bible, simply do not have a voice at the moment.
What complicates the situation is the singularity of purpose that seemed to exist late last year: All manner of “radical” groups aligned themselves with the Democrats, at least temporarily, in the name of defeating Bush. Support for Ralph Nader, so trendy in 2000, very quickly went from “hot” to “not.” But it would be a grave mistake for the national party to assume that only the members of said radical groups care about the social issues that are getting swept under the rug. There are plenty of participating members of the College Democrats who view themselves as quite mainstream and want, more than anything, to have an active role in the direction the party takes in the years to come. But this interest will be severely threatened if the party takes the advice of all those who claim that they need to better identify with the “average citizen.”
Simply put, there is no way the Democratic Party can have it both ways. Ask the “average citizen” in most parts of the country how he feels about gay marriage, and he will respond that he is firmly against it. Many claim the Democrats should be trying to appeal to such voters. At the same time, however, the party’s future is hugely reliant on younger participants who have a decidedly progressive social agenda. It might work, in the short run, for the party to reach out to “values voters” and their ilk while retaining the support of young progressives, but if it does, it will only do so because of President Bush and the huge amount of mistrust and resentment he has mustered among those of certain political stripes during his time in office.
In the long run, the Democratic Party is going to have to figure out — and make clear — exactly where it stands on a number of social issues. Given the limiting nature of a two-party system, there simply might not be room for the party to occupy its current, vague role. People, as a rule, like strong opinions; “We are in favor of civil unions but opposed to gay marriage” might work for the moment, but in the absence of a unifying force like Bush, such nebulous half-slogans will fall on deaf ears.
"People, as a rule, like strong opinions; “We are in favor of civil unions but opposed to gay marriage” might work for the moment, but in the absence of a unifying force like Bush, such nebulous half-slogans will fall on deaf ears.
The problem is that their real opinion is this: "We are in favor of gay marriage, but we don't think we will win if we say that."
But since all the voters know this anyway, their equivocation is of little use.
I hope the Democratic Party approves gay marriage. That will be their undoing.
Meanwhile, the word "liberal" has been utterly abandoned. Gee, I wonder why...
This writing is a lot more lucid and logical than we are used to seeing from Leftists.
You're right of course. Clearly they support gay marriage, they just don't want to admit it. And they don't have to because they know the Courts will eventually do for them what the people/legislatures would (or already have) reject. Then they hope that the people will convey to a SCOTUS decision a certain amount of respect and awe that they unfortunately have to Roe v Wade. Then they need only stall and have their media allies do story after story celebrating gay marriages, all in the hopes that it will sway public opinion enough to make any attempt to overturn or defy SCOTUS a long shot at best.
Still, even if we go along with their stated position, I have yet to see any prominent Democrat be asked whether or not they support the judicial imposition of civil unions.
And that is key, because many states, probably most states, would reject any legal recognition of same-sex unions no matter what euphemism for marriage is used.
Well, by calling "values voters" 'ilk' they won't be getting any of those votes at all. The Democratic Party is on the road to hell, and apparently they know it. However, what this writer suggests is taking the short cut to hell, as opposed to avoiding it altogether. A "progressive" agenda will not fly in this country.
The Democratic Party of Massachusetts is set upon doing just that. Kerry has asked them no too, but I think they will push him aside as just so much fluff.
Apparently there's liberals that are more liberal than Kerry (i.e. Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy)
probably due to over use by the press, conservative pundits, and others. The true meaning of a liberal is lost, and never truly applied to the left and progressives anyway.
Well said.
I used to pick up the Michigan Daily once in a while when I was at UM. This has to be the most clearly thought-out editorial I've read in it's pages.
If you can get ahold of the Michigan Review (if they are still around), have a look at it. MR was/is the "subversive" campus paper, espousing all sorts of unpopular ideas. You know, like killing babies is bad, affirmative action is a racist policy, capitalism is a good thing (tm), etc.
I don't know about that, Kerry was scary enough as it is.
Living in the SF Bay Area, I have yet to meet the self-described "progressive" that didn't buy into the socialist/marxist model. In that respect "progressive" is simply another code word these people use for the same old, discredited socialist policies that leftists have always espoused. The author seems to think that re-dressing the same old agenda with new code words will somehow rocket the Democrats back into power. True, being "progressive" will fool some people, but once the details of their agenda are revealed, they are back in the same swamp.
It's the message, not the packaging. Do the "progressives" get it? Obviously not.
One way to filter money to liberal senators is through book and lecture deals. Random house is giving Barak Obama a hefty $1.9 million for three books yet to be written. One of them for children to be written with his wife and children and based on his experiences as a kid.
And then there was the huge amount given to Hillary.
I guess the senators just have too much time on their hands and need a second job.
Or they just waste it trying to get filibusters or digging up garbage on nominees.
The left is not "progressive"
Progressive used to mean progress. Progress as in building roads, draining swamps, promoting business.
Progressive did not mean protecting the snail fish, or taking away property rights.
True.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.