Why I'm Not a Progressive

[alcibiades_mystery]

(I was looking over the old Olive Garden threads of yore, and I came across this post that I wrote. It sums up my feelings today perfectly.)

I was challenged as to my "Progressive" credentials on another thread (I was also called an ASSHOLE and a TOOL, but who's counting), and it did make me think about it. But really, I don't identify myself as a Progressive. I'm a Leftist. So, what's the difference? Leftism was cool because it didn't require you to suffer stupidity in the name of general tolerance. The namby-pamby world of Progressives seems to be devoid of critique, because the moment you critique something, you are suddenly being "intolerant." This is nonsense, as every Leftist knows. Now, I'm not accusing progressives of being secretly complicit with conservatism (although this is the general Left critique of such positions), but it is clear that conservatives were easily able to co-opt the discourse of tolerance and turn it against real reform, such that the legitimate struggle for gay rights is now portrayed as "intolerant" of Christian fundamentalism, and other nonsenses of this type. This is the political and rhetorical cost of the utterly vapid discourse of tolerance touted by our "progressives."

Leftism was built on critique, identified itself with critique, and had the stamina to say yes, some shit is stupid, some shit should be criticized - maybe even everything must be critiqued, ruthlessly and without "tolerance" in advance. Read Adorno and Horkeimer, read Marcuse, hell, read Debbs. You'll never see the empty notion that "opinions" should be "respected" simply because they are opinions. Rather, you see ruthless, cutting, even vicious attacks on opinions, with the following question always at stake: where do such opinions come from? Where do tastes come from?

This is progressivism's greatest failure: the segregation of the "personal opinion" from the realm of political and economic power.

In progressivism, the "opinion" is attached to the essence of the person (it comes from some mystical Self), and then raised to the level of a sacred entity. Hence all the wailing and moaning about "attacking my opinion," which is immediately equated to attacking the person. Leftism had none of this. The opinion, for Leftism, was a social phenomenon that was instantiated in individuals. It didn't come from the Self. Rather, it came from the social realm of political and economic power and was picked up by (really, constituted) "selves" as a result of their placement in a dynamic social realm. For this reason, the critique of "personal opinions" is actually the critique of social power, always. The faux respect for "personal opinions," for Leftism, is complicity with social power, the failure to ask, rigorously, where opinions come from, and work on the power relations that form them.

This doesn't mean that the taste for Olive Garden is the only "opinion" to be critiqued. Leftism demands that the opposing "opinion" (which, interest of disclosure, I hold), must also be critiqued.

What are the social investments in "local economies" and "authentic cultures" that drive the dislike of chain restaurants? Are these actually reactionary and nostalgic tendencies?

And if you say that that's "reading into things too much," or that choice of restaurants is "off limits for critique," then you've already performed the problematic segregation: the illusion of the person segregated from the realm of political and economic power. One could, of course, go on. But the point here is simple: you will never catch me saying that opinions are beyond critique simply because they are opinions. That is the political and intellectual dead-end that progressivism leads us to, and it is all too common. Maybe I'm the one being nostalgic here, but I want some of that Leftism back. I want some of that Adorno nastiness and contempt to re-enter the political discourse. Because some things are deserving of contempt. Yes. I'm definitely NOT a progressive, and I'm damn glad for that.

[nashville_brook]

1. it's a quantifiable truth that Olive Garden sucks -- no "progressive" opinion needed

[Mountainman]

2. I have a couple of questions for you. Is there room in this country for views other than yours?

Do you have some insight on the truth that others don't have?

[alcibiades_mystery]

4. You didn't read the whole post

This doesn't mean that the taste for Olive Garden is the only "opinion" to be critiqued. Leftism demands that the opposing "opinion" (which, interest of disclosure, I hold), must also be critiqued.

What are the social investments in "local economies" and "authentic cultures" that drive the dislike of chain restaurants? Are these actually reactionary and nostalgic tendencies?

[GeorgeGist]

3. Damn straight ...

You kept turning left since the threads of "Olive Garden" lore. You've come full-circle and now you're right back where you started. Hopefully, the next time I hear you, you'll have progressed somewhere.

[alcibiades_mystery]

5. Huh?

:shrug:

[Breeze54]

6. I'm on the liberal left (not a 'leftist') and a progressive.

I think your definitions are sort of wacky.

Progressives, imho, want PROGRESS!!

Main Entry: 1 - pro·gres·sive

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=Progressive

1 a : of, relating to, or characterized by progress b : making use of or interested in new ideas,
findings, or opportunities c : of, relating to, or constituting an educational theory marked by
emphasis on the individual child, informality of classroom procedure, and encouragement of
self-expression

2 : of, relating to, or characterized by progression

3 : moving forward or onward : ADVANCING

--------------------

Main Entry: - left·ism

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/leftist

Pronunciation: 'lef-"ti-z&m
Function: noun

1 : the principles and views of the left; also : the movement embodying these principles

2 : advocacy of or adherence to the doctrines of the left

Are you in the New Left??

Function: noun

: a political movement originating especially among students in the 1960s, favoring confrontational
tactics, often breaking with older leftist ideologies, and concerned especially with antiwar,
antinuclear, feminist, and ecological issues

liberal

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/liberal


Main Entry: 1 - lib·er·al
Pronunciation: 'li-b(&-)r&l
Function: adjective

5 : BROAD-MINDED; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms

6 a : of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism b capitalized : of or constituting
a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially:
of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual
especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional,
political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives

:shrug:

[rudeboy666]

9. Careful with dictionary definitions

....they might lead you astray!

[Breeze54]

11. I was just trying to clarify, mostly

for me, I guess. The term 'left' and 'leftist' seem to get thrown around a lot here and it seems to me that 'leftist' refers to philosophies like that of Karl Marxx but I'm just trying to understand.

I found this: 'The 2007 Left Forum'
http://www.beatitudessociety.org/node/231

The 2007 Left Forum came to a close Sunday in New York City. Each spring the Forum convenes the largest gathering in North America of the international Left. With close to one hundred panels and three major cultural events, the Left Forum brings together organizers and intellectuals from across the globe to share ideas. One of those who spoke was professor, culture critic, and social justice advocate Cornel West.

He has been described as one of America's most vital and eloquent public intellectuals. A professor of religion and African-American studies at Princeton University, West has written and co-authored numerous books on philosophy, race and sociology.
His most recent book is "Democracy Matters: Winning the Fight Against Imperialism."

Video exerpt from the 3/13/2007 episode of Democracy Now! with Amy Goodman.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0lE2xsc5o4

--------

[alcibiades_mystery]

14. I'm not on the "liberal left"

I'm a leftist. :-)

[Breeze54]

17. OK!

lol! :P

[hfojvt]

16. that becomes tautological

Everybody wants 'progress' but not all are agreed on a definition of progress. Often, in our public discourse of hype, things are simplified, and progress = new, more, bigger, faster.

However, taken to a reductio ad absurdum, these things were new and big and fast and produced more output

1. concentration camps
2. clear-cutting
3. strip mining

"One the one side, I see the people who think they can cope with our threefold crisis by the methods current, only more so; I call them the people of the forward stampede. On the other side, there are people in search of a new lifestyle, who seek to return to certain basic truths about man and his world. I call them home-comers."

Then there are various definitions of social progress.

[MissMarple]

7. Fact, opinion, belief, prejudice. So I went looking for a bit of clarification.

What an opportunity for good discussion you've started.

http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/teaching/co300man/pop12d.cfm

paraphrased from the piece:

A fact is verifiable. But they are useless unless put into context...

An opinion is based on verifiable facts. An honest attempt to draw a reasonable conclusion based on factual evidence.

A belief is a conviction based on cultural or personal faith, morality, or values. Statements such as "Capital punishment is legalized murder" are often called "opinions" because they express viewpoints, but they are not based on facts....

Another kind of assertion that has no place in serious argumentation is prejudice, a half-baked opinion based on insufficient or unexamined evidence. (Ex.: "Women are bad drivers.")(or Conservatives are the evil undead). Unlike a belief, a prejudice is testable: it can be contested and disproved on the basis of facts.

[alcibiades_mystery]

8. OK

A fact is verifiable. But they are useless unless put into context...

Indeed, and the act of putting into context is everything, and context is never itself a fact, but is an effect of power.

An opinion is based on verifiable facts. An honest attempt to draw a reasonable conclusion based on factual evidence.

If the above is true, then any "honest attempt" is tinged with politics, since what counts as honesty and what counts as context are effects of power. This does not mean that there is no truth. It means, rather, that what reaches the status of truth or knowledge is contingent on forces outside of truth or knowledge. This is why all opinions are contestable: they draw together a world, but they don't condition that drawing together. That conditioning happens elsewhere. This is why the notion of respecting opinions as opinions is vapid. The only way you get to what conditions the "honest attempt" is through ruthless critique of the opinions parts and formation.

These are the only philosophical points. The rest is Freshman Comp stuff so that students don't write the same tripe in every paper.

[MissMarple]

12. I'm not disagreeing with you. Many opinions are greatly overrated.

And many "opinions" are really beliefs and prejudices. That may be Freshman Comp stuff, but most people really don't understand that.

Opinions, like ideologies are ways to order facts, to try to bring sense to surrounding realities as I am understanding it, that is. And, yes, they need to be critiqued freely and frequently. Other wise, the world is flat and the sun revolves around it. Or is it a disc resting on the backs of four elephants traveling through the universe on the back of a tortoise, a la Terry Pratchett? Or "trickle down" and "supply side" make up a viable economic theory.

My feeling, and I get into trouble with this all the time, is if you have an opinion, be able to back it up, be able to defend it. No drama or histrionics are required And if you can't, keep your lip zipped. And don't be a baby. We are not in kindergarten anymore. We should be mature and be respectful of the other person. But that can be quite difficult if the other person gets snippy and snarky, first.

Yup, I got into big trouble at my in-laws last month. They just love their beliefs and prejudices, they really think they are opinions.

[RiverStone]

10. So as a leftist, do you have a candidate...

Your leaning toward in the Dem Primary? :shrug:

[alcibiades_mystery]

13. I don't vote in the Dem primary

I'm not a registered Democrat. And never will be.

I vote Democratic in the general election (usually ticket) because I'm a realist, but I don't fucking like it. :-)

[KittyWampus]

15. The stupidity of calling oneself a "Leftist" is in the inadequacy. Political reality is more than

a left/right spectrum. Reducing oneself to a polarity leads to black/white dichotomy where no actual PROGRESS can be made. Just two sides screaming at each other across the divide.
Note- see term political compass for explanation of how political reality has four quadrants, not two poles.

The stupidity of the term "Liberal" is the inadequacy of that term, too. Liberal means unregulated. In the rest of the world, it refers to economics and the Free Market and unbridled Capitalism. Only in the USA does it refer to Social Issues. If you say you are a "Liberal" the question remains 'liberal about WHAT?'

Now, on to the term "Progressive". Human kind has indeed evolved. We develop more acceptance and greater understanding as time goes on. Those who cling to tribalism and zero-sum gain views are REGRESSIVE. You can't stop progress or change.

[alcibiades_mystery]

18. political reality has four quadrants, not two poles

:rofl:

Um, OK.

Listen, I don't believe in two poles either. Leftist is a term that indicates a style of engagement, not a position on a spectrum, and that's what I was defining here (I was making a definition argument). But neither do I believe the "four quadrants," which strikes me as just as dumb and reductive as the two poles. That you should announce the nature of "political reality" so authoritatively makes me laugh, truly.

[Californian Dreamer]

19. Before I came to DU, I was unsure of my political classification

Now, it's even worse :)

Honestly, I don't give a damn about the labels anymore, everyone has a different idea of what they mean, which means they mean nothing. I'm just going to advocate what I believe in, judge issues on a case by case basis, and not care what it's supposed to be called.

In this case AM, I'm all for critical thinking and asking questions in all situations, and I am not a fan of treating every opinion equally just because it's different or shying away from being critical of them. Whether that represents being "leftist" or if your comments are a fair criticism of the progressive viewpoint I know not, and I care not.

[alcibiades_mystery]

20. Fair enough

I likewise don't care about what you have to say. :-)