|
Edited on Mon May-26-08 11:27 AM by Steely_Dan
As the person who started this thread, I'm pleased that it didn't turn into another cat fight...it got close, but everyone is sticking to the subject at hand.
I thought that it was an important question because of the infighting that is going on here. I wanted to see if there was a separation between the two terms, perceived or otherwise and how it "might" relate to the divisiveness.
With all due respect to those that hate labels (I being one), I believe that they are a necessary evil. I somewhat agree with those that see "progressive" as members who are running from the term "liberal" after it has been trashed for so many years.
And again, with respect to the post with the link on the subject, there is some valuable information there as well. However, in keeping with "perception is reality" in most cases, clearly defined terms seldom reflect the real world.
As for my self... Rightly or wrongly, I have always seen "progressive" as referring to those who are somewhat to the left of liberals. One post used the word "radical." I would agree with this. Further, I see liberals as those who would like to achieve progressive goals, but they understand that it does not happen overnight. For me, liberals want to ultimately embrace progressive ideas and goals...however, they are well aware that the system does not allow for "radical" change and choose to work well within the system.
An example for me would be Kucinich. IMHO, Kucinich supporters were more radical in what they wanted to achieve "now." We would all like to see much of what Kucinich stands for come to reality. However, it exists on the political pendulum that is light-years from where we find ourselves now. Jerry Brown was pretty much cut from the same cloth. Both have been labeled as radical and in some cases, "nuts." There can be no other explanation (other than RW smearing) than the fact that they are so far from the accepted norm, that they are not considered viable by both the mainstream media and by most people.
Here's how I see it... Ever since RR, we have been moving to the right. In some cases we have moved at such speed that many of us on the left have been caught off guard. Even Bill Clinton was "moderate" in terms of being a liberal. I don't know about you, but the re-election of George W. Bush was such a shock that I had only to conclude that this country is far more conservative than I had ever imagined. In many ways, we on the left, were asleep at the wheel over the past thirty years. Many of us were so complacent about the changing political atmosphere in our country that we woke up one day to a world we no longer recognized.
I tend to look at it as a pendulum. This pendulum has been swinging to the right for many years now. All of us, whether we are progressive or liberal would like to have that pendulum start swinging the other way. We all agree on this. Where we disagree is how to go about it...what methods are best employed to make this happen? For many progressives, the dream would be that the pendulum disappears from the right and magically reappear on the left. For me, this is impossible.
Progressives (IMHO) would like to see that change happen now....happen yesterday. They will put forward candidates that represent immediate change. The flaw in this approach is that it is not palatable to most of the electorate. I wish it weren't so, but Americans (and people in general) are not into "actual" change. It is also the reason why third party candidates have not been successful. Rightly or wrongly, the electorate sees them as too much change, too fast.
So what are we left with? If it is accepted that change cannot happen overnight, we are left with working within the system. Even if the system is broken, the electorate would never allow for a wholesale overhaul of the government during one term in office. This is what concerns many of us with regard to Mr. Obama. He is using well-honed methods that appeal to people's desire for change...especially coming off of the heels of one of the worst presidents in our history. Whether scripted or natural, Mr. Obama's approach has struck a chord. My fear is that he will be unable to accomplish his goal of "changing the way we do politics" or the "way we do government."
All politicians voice how much they will "change" the way things are. However, how many times have we had our hopes dashed on the shore of despair once our "dream candidate" got into office. This is not a slam on Mr. Obama. I hope and pray that he can deliver the change that he promises. I just simply haven't seen it delivered in the past.
But back to the main point... It is my view that we can only have change when we can get the pendulum to start swinging the other way...back to the left. This election cycle was a time to get our bearings back, not make presidential history. It was a time to get the pendulum to start swinging the other way...little by little, back to the left.
I personally feel that both Clinton and Obama represents risks that we could not afford to take at this time in our history. Hillary Clinton is so disliked by the right that no other candidate has come into the picture with higher negative numbers. Many people have the same visceral reaction to her that we have when we think of Bush. It is a hurdle that I doubt she could overcome in the GE. Mr. Obama has his own issues with the electorate (some, not of his own doing). Unfortunately, I believe that he will be seen as too radical by the electorate on the right (and even some on the left)...he is this change that people talk about but are unwilling to make happen. Does this mean that I dislike Mr. Obama? Of course not. It is simply my belief that this country "is farther to the right" than we ever imagined. Our passion, or hopes and dreams want this to happen, but the ugly head of racism and bigotry are never more prevalent than when narrow minded people pull the lever at their polling stations.
Ask anyone on the right if Mr. Obama's race effects their vote. Nearly all will say..."of course not." But it is a different story once they pull the curtain. I wish it weren't so. It is about time we have a person of color holding the highest office in the land.
And so... Progressive goals are honorable and even achievable. However, the progressive method for getting there (IMHO) is flawed. I consider myself a liberal because I know that the only way to get things done is to embrace the "reality based world." This means that as much as I hate the system, (in most cases) it can only be changed from within.
We had a huge number of qualified candidates with little or no baggage...with the most experience and skill. Unfortunately, they all occupied the bottom tier and were quickly dismissed. Now we have taken what should have been a shoe-in in November and made it a horse-race. Only the Dems could have taken the only two candidates remaining and pitted them against each other on some of the most passionate issues of our time...race and gender. Only the Dems could have torn back the thin veneer of our own issues with race and gender and exposed them to the rest of the world. Only the Dems.
So, to all of the progressives...good luck making that pendulum magically appear back on the left. And to the liberals...nice job getting us a viable candidate. November should be very interesting.
-P
|