It should be noted that the comment posted was not our first; Zach's dad commented on the "Read A Book" discussion.
As for the progressive left, Zach has really laid out why a progressive leftist party could not show up in our political system. It's fairly simple: who in the current political system would advocate for this? There certainly are not a bunch of far-left politicians that are currently in the political system. And those that are around don't really get taken seriously, not by their peers, and not by the media. No one currently in power (in power and with some real influence) would back this new party, it would be suicide.
I have serious problems with the two-party system. As it stands, I don't see how we can ever reform the system to accommodate a more diverse set of view-points. If you are ideologically outside the two parties (so far outside that you are questioning the merits of the two-party system) then you will never get your foot in the door or your ideas on the table in any legitimate way. The two parties like being in power, they are not going to give credence to an idea or a person who wants to change that power structure. I have never felt that American politics is about doing what is right, it always seems to me to be about winning (this is a very general way to speak, not all politicians are bad, some are great, I just think our system rewards those people willing to sacrifice their ideology to win. This seems wrong). Once people have won, they just want to keep winning. Allowing the progressive left to form a party, a real party with actual influence, would potentially challenge the power that the current players so desperately cling too.
I just don't see a party that is far left ever breaking into the system. (Zach's point about the thrust of the party is important, there are many way to be a progressive leftist, I have no idea which way this party would swing.)
However, assuming that a progressive left party could form, I don't think it is desirable. I don't think the this phantom leftist party would give us progressives anything that we would want. This new third party would still have to play the American political game. As I said, the American political game does not seem to favor those who are unwilling to silence their more "radical" views in order to win the seat. This leftist party would fall prey to the same process of lobotomizing, and not properly represent the true progressive left.
If in order to gain influence in the current system the new leftist party would have to be similar to the current parties, then I don't think it is desirable to try and form one. If it is to form at all, then it is going to form outside the system, or it will form after someone bombs America to pieces and a massive rebuilding process has to take place.
The progressive left will have to use means outside the government. I really don't know what those means could be. The internet is appealing, but I also think the internet helps the current powers-that-be stay in place by offering more distraction and quick-hitting info than has ever been available to human beings before. TV isn't an option. Radio is dead. Print is almost dead. I just don't know a possible outlet the new left could employ that would actually bring about real change. If we are to get our voice heard then it will certainly be outside the confines of government.
Yeah man, get that Canadian citizenship as soon as possible.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Friday, February 20, 2009
Our first comment and ways to stoke this conversation
This got lost in the aborted discussion of last week, but we had our first comment. I'm going to post it in its entirety here and I hope it contributes to the larger discussions. I want to propose that we meld last week and this weeks topics together and push through to end of next week continuing on the topic of progressive politcs, reform and what progressivism even means. We never really finished up last week and i'm very curious about what Zach has to say to rebut our responses. I also don't think these two topics are all that far apart. ANYWAY, here it is: The Culture Counter's first comment, a lengthy response from.. .well... my mom. BUT STILL here it is:
"Z"'s post brings back post traumatic memories of my second stint at an unnamed Learning Center in Rochester's Crescent neighborhood. As a first year middle aged, middle class white history teacher to five classes of upwards of 32 students ( but thats ok only half of them showed up on any given day) 95 % of whom were African American and about 75% of whom were repeating 8th grade Social Studies, the system is broken.
My first go around I was a contract substitute for 8 months actually came away hopeful and looking forward to returning knowing that I needed to build up some credibility by coming back- But alas, a 45 million dollar deficit discovered in August resulted in no new hires.
My second go around was as a 6 week per diem sub and that was nighmarish. I hated the growing feeling that I was receiving a paycheck from a truly oppressive and cruel system ( good people within it, but a demoralzing structure that didn't meet kids needs all the same) I had most of the same kids in the same classes ( they still hadn't passed)and this time Administrators who threatened to write me up for calling for help when fights erupted and kids began throwing desks. Definitely a blame the teachers culture.
( the year before we had exchanged our difficult students with fellow teachers but they split all the Social Studies teachers up so we couldn't collaborate-too much power)
I didn't report the death threat because my administrator would have just rolled her eyes and added it to my list of failings.
Still, I went back everyday still hopeful because more than half of every class who came in still believed that they were there to learn and still doing their best to eck an education out of the Chaos. And by gum many of them did by sheer grit and perserverance. But it shouldn't be that hard and thankless to learn.
So, Z is not exaggerating one little bit.
BUT I think a national school system won't solve anything. Mainly because the folks who are not unhappy with their school systems( in prosperous suburbs and private schools) still have the power and arent likely to just hand it over to a government that hasn't shown real ability in handling big very politicized systems ( what place will Teachers unions have in this brave new world as a for instance?)
Here's my suggestion.
Let the good suburban schools and private schools alone- They don't think they are broken ( but that another blog- there is something wrong with a junior in High school thinking he has to ace 6 AP courses or he is a failure- Add sports and there is no time to build community and connect- )
Use the job stimulus package to train a corps of truly idealistic smart street saavy teachers who will commit to a three year term. Assign them 10 students ( only ten) for that three year term. These education teams will be accountable to each other.
With that group they need to build community while they teach literature writing, math, civics,- Building in physical activity and appropriate nutrition. They can order their own text books and structure their programs like college professors do. Field trips with ten kids are actually do able.
Provide this teacher corp with a living ( not excessive just a living) wage and plenty of support in the form of peer groups for idea sharing and master teachers who can provide suggestions ( not orders)and of course books, paper and pencils ( what a concept) Also, a clear understanding of what they can fix and what they can't ( Schools are expected to fill all of the gaps on Mazlow's heirarchy and it just can't be done)
While we're at it I agree with Benflash that there is too much emphasis on everybody doing college prep. The problem is that no one really knows in HS which kids will do well in college and which ones won't-If you track kids too early you are in danger of shutting down the next great thinker. ( there are lots of late bloomers who catch academic fire sometime after college acceptance letters go out) I think we should have a two year national service requirement NOT military service ( although that would be an option- Sorry Z I think we need a military I would prefer it involve non professionals) But
National service- all kinds, hospitals, teadcher aides, migrant farm support you name it- This would give people time to decide whether they wanted to go on to college and what they might like to do.
so thats my two cents.
By the way you do guys do go on at great length but at least on this topic with GREAT authority.
Re-engineering the process
Here is my question then, because I mostly agree with you. Is the central problem the party power structure, or the candidates we're nominating? In other words are we better off trying to do what we can within the existing structure, or fighting to minimize the importance of that structure/
The reason I bring this up is there is an interesting post by Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight. com today about how California wants to introduce a "jungle primary". The gist of it is that instead of having two closed primaries with the the winners taking each other on, a number of candidates from both parties enter this primary and the top-two vote getters, regardless of party go head to head in the general.
On its face this sounds like an appealing idea to me. It seems fairer in that candidates would obviously not be nearly as indebted to the traditional party structure. In practice it seems to lead to more appealing republican candidates and less appealing democratic ones because rather then being the centre of the democratic party and centre of the republican party going head to head, it ends up being two versions of the centre of everybody. So in that sense it wouldn't appear to meet our goals. Yet, it seems to me this inherently weakens the importance of party affiliation. If we were going to institute this system, for sure in the short term it would lead to less appealing, more conservative democrats but I wonder if in the long term it would lead to wider acceptance of outside views. If the primary is truly open it would seem to lessen the stigma of "fringe" third-party candidates.
The other option is to go in the exact inverse direction, which is to use the primary and two-party system against itself. In practice that means not being afraid to go after our own party hard in the primary and try to push the democrats to left through nominating and supporting progressives like crazy. I guess the question is do we want to drastically change the system, even though that will have to happen by degrees or work within it. I tend to think the latter is the better option, as much as it pains me.
The reason I bring this up is there is an interesting post by Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight. com today about how California wants to introduce a "jungle primary". The gist of it is that instead of having two closed primaries with the the winners taking each other on, a number of candidates from both parties enter this primary and the top-two vote getters, regardless of party go head to head in the general.
On its face this sounds like an appealing idea to me. It seems fairer in that candidates would obviously not be nearly as indebted to the traditional party structure. In practice it seems to lead to more appealing republican candidates and less appealing democratic ones because rather then being the centre of the democratic party and centre of the republican party going head to head, it ends up being two versions of the centre of everybody. So in that sense it wouldn't appear to meet our goals. Yet, it seems to me this inherently weakens the importance of party affiliation. If we were going to institute this system, for sure in the short term it would lead to less appealing, more conservative democrats but I wonder if in the long term it would lead to wider acceptance of outside views. If the primary is truly open it would seem to lessen the stigma of "fringe" third-party candidates.
The other option is to go in the exact inverse direction, which is to use the primary and two-party system against itself. In practice that means not being afraid to go after our own party hard in the primary and try to push the democrats to left through nominating and supporting progressives like crazy. I guess the question is do we want to drastically change the system, even though that will have to happen by degrees or work within it. I tend to think the latter is the better option, as much as it pains me.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Progressives? Not In America
Ben, that was an intriguing introduction to a subject that is of immense importance to all three of us. I will try and answer each of the questions, but the first is the most interesting to me, so I will spend the bulk of my time on that.
"Is it possible to conceive of an American liberal third-party that would make sense and could legitimately win elections?"
In a word: no. It very much pains me to say this. However, the ideological underpinnings of our current two-party system make it almost impossible for me to imagine a cohesive, functioning leftist third party that would be able to sustain itself, much less sustain itself long enough to win elections.
Why? The stranglehold is too strong. Democrats and Republicans, referred to collectively as "The Business Party" by me, have no interest in questioning the fundamental tenets of a system that has allowed them to remain in power, unchallenged by any major third party, for so long. Their ideological hegemony in our current system is thoroughly entrenched in the minds of most Americans, and the media does its best propaganda work every day to reinforce this. The notion that we are constantly fed is that we live in the freest, most democratically-principled society in the world. While our day to day experiences of living under and working within and being governed by much more authoritarian social structures ought to be enough empirical evidence for us to know the truth, propaganda works. People believe that we live in a free, enlightened, democratic society.
People, that is, with the possible exception of progressives. However, the rest of the country chooses to continue believing in and living with the status quo. Most people are, unfortunately, incapable of thinking for themselves, and rely on corporate owned media for their social and political analysis. They do not see the structures of power at work around them on a daily basis, and the media isn't going to reveal these forces in some sort of culture critique, because much as with the two major parties, there is no interest on the part of the media in exposing some of the structural flaws with our current political and social systems. It is simply not in the media's interest to challenge the orthodoxy of business and political power in this country (since the two are inextricably intertwined) which allows the media to wield the influence it does in reinforcing the current system. Plus, they make gobs of money doing it, so why change?
And isn't money really the problem? A leftist third party would never be able to come up with the kind of financial backing it would need to remain a viable political force in this country. Elections are for sale, and the kind of people who would participate in and be candidates for such a progressive party tend not to be the kind of people who have taken full advantage of capitalism and made a bunch of money by exploiting other people. Who would fund this party, buy their air time, pay for travel and campaign literature and rallies? Who would pay for the lobbying influence? I doubt if such a party would even make it through one election cycle.
I am not saying that individuals from more progressive parties can't get elected in their localities or even at a state level. Maine certainly seems to have some success with that, even beyond libertarians (not that I am suggesting that libertarians are leftist progressives or people I'd want in office). And I will even acknowledge that, while slim, there is just the slightest chance of a candidate from outside the two-party system winning the presidency--though there is NO chance that such a candidate would come from a progressive leftist party. Much more likely is that such a candidate would come from a thoroughly centrist party at best. Anyway, while acknowledging these possibilities, they are possibilities for individuals in very particular situations. It is very different, however, to suggest that an entire third party, much less a leftist one, could form and survive.
Another big reason, besides money, is that a sort of idealistic free-for-all would almost inevitably overshadow any attempts by organizers to form the groundwork for this new party. What would the platform of this supposed party be? Would it advocate a more genuinely grass-roots democratic society? Would it be about social justice, or ecological sustainability, or socialism? Would it be a dedicated pacifist party, a workers' party, a constitutional rights party? I've been to a number of "leftist" or "progressive" political events, like anti-war marches in Washington. While I hate to admit it, I have a hard time seeing that group of people getting its shit together in a way that would be politically unified, much less functional in terms of organizational structure. Even at a march about the Iraq war, everyone brings their other causes to the table. This isn't a bad thing--it's one of the few places progressives might find other people interested in their causes--but the various causes latching on to the anti-war efforts give the left a sense of disarray and discombobulation. (Yes, this is coming from the guy who called a very old woman stupid and engaged her in a fierce battle of words for poo-pooing my carrying a giant Palestinian flag at a march about Iraq).
Furthermore, even if we could overcome this ideological free-for-all, how could such a party ever reflect its own values in its structure? Even leftists have a difficult time with bottom-up decision making, because its something we're never asked to do: make actual political decisions, take real action, vote or make our voice heard in a way that has a tangible result. Because of our inexperience with making actual democratic decisions, and because of the ideological diversity described above, I think that, inevitably citing a need for "efficiency" and "unity," such a party would come to betray its own values in an attempt to become more politically viable, and inevitably revert to a top-down power structure in which the individuals at the top are more ideologically conservative and financially powerful than the majority at the bottom. Needless to say, these individuals, however pure their motives, would exert an undue amount of influence on the party's platform. Such a party, if it managed to last for even a short time, would almost certainly be subsumed--both politically and financially--eventually by the Democrats. (This possibility begs the question: Is this a desirable outcome for us as progressives? Would even a failed attempt at a leftist third party move the Democratic party to the left and reinvigorate the liberal base? Perhaps--though I would have my doubts about even this--and such an influence is perhaps the best-case-scenario I could realistically foresee for the formation of a progressive third party).
The final point I'd like to look at, in regards to this question, is history. I seem to remember something about the emergence and rise of a progressive third party in the first decades of the twentieth century. It was a rather popular party, I believe, with a lot of celebrities, artists, intellectuals and other important public figures among its members. Perhaps we could ask some of them how they were able to form and grow an alternative third party? Perhaps they could help us hammer out the details, and avoid the mistakes they made. Oh, wait, we can't ask them. They all disappeared, or else had their lives and livelihoods dangled in front of their eyes until they betrayed their real ideals and swore allegiance to a country that apparently didn't have room for subversive ideas, for critiques of our particular brand of democratic capitalism, or for anyone advocating any other form of political system. Do we really think that, just because Joseph McCarthy is dead, that McCarthyism is dead too? I don't doubt that history would repeat itself, because much as it was fifty years ago, the powers that be, the forces involved, are the same, but further entrenched and emboldened by their half-century of unchallenged ideological hegemony and power orthodoxy.
I hope the analysis I've laid out will prove to readers that I am a little bit more than just a cynic or a conspiracy theorist. But suffice it to say: a progressive third party will never emerge, because the political and social conditions of our country make it almost impossible, and because the current system is so adept at reinforcing these conditions that they will almost certainly never change in any kind of ideologically or politically substantial way. Those in power are thoroughly entrenched, and anyone with the kind of ideals necessary to form such a progressive party would never be privy to the kind of money and insider power necessary to give such a party a chance at success. You can't convince the people who continue to benefit from a broken system that the system is broken, and the ones who should be offering the public an honest and scathing critique of the way things are, a.k.a. the media, are in bed with power, rather than challenging it. And since schools aren't teaching people to see the "larger picture" and encouraging students to critique and analyze the fundamental forces of our system of government--much less the media's love-fest for it--it's effectively as though, consciously or subconsciously, for most people the inherent goodness of the current system is beyond reproach.
All in all, the current system of political socialization is self-reinforcing and nearly flawless, and I don't foresee it changing. The mere suggestion of a parliamentary system (and having lived in the Czech Republic for six months and being a student of politics and history, I am familiar with its various advantages) would have people crying out, as they already are, about European socialism, and gosh-darn-it-isn't-this-the-good-old-U-S-of-A? And we would all find ourselves quickly with our heads in the proverbial (or perhaps literal) guillotine for even appearing to threaten the American ideal of rugged and absolute individualism with what would invariably be marginalized as said European socialism. Forget that we've already taken steps to move in the direction of a more socialized, European style of economic governance, under a conservative president, no less. "European" and "Socialism" are still both dirty words in this country, and would immediately get pinned to a new progressive party by both Republicans and the media.
What I've outlined here, I think, also has its logical extensions in the answers to your fourth and fifth questions. "Is the Republican Party really as dead and pathetic as they look?" No, because as explained above, their power base is deeply rooted. The Republicans may be down, but they are not out, because Democrats and the media are both unwilling and unable to deliver the knockout punch. They both need Republicans to uphold the current system. Furthermore, Republicans still have tons of money, and the marketing strategists, psychologists, and spin masters on the payroll to re-brand themselves just slightly enough to be an appealing alternative again in two years, and perhaps in more than just the deep South--though I agree with you that their mainstream base appears to have waned at the moment. They will, however, inevitably be back.
And so, with those questions answered, this also becomes just a formality, but your last and perhaps most important question was "Should I just become a Canadian citizen and get it over with?" The answer here is yes. And so should I. (Funny that I actually started looking into the immigration process last week before this post even came up. Oh, wait, now I'm un-American. Oh well).
"Is it possible to conceive of an American liberal third-party that would make sense and could legitimately win elections?"
In a word: no. It very much pains me to say this. However, the ideological underpinnings of our current two-party system make it almost impossible for me to imagine a cohesive, functioning leftist third party that would be able to sustain itself, much less sustain itself long enough to win elections.
Why? The stranglehold is too strong. Democrats and Republicans, referred to collectively as "The Business Party" by me, have no interest in questioning the fundamental tenets of a system that has allowed them to remain in power, unchallenged by any major third party, for so long. Their ideological hegemony in our current system is thoroughly entrenched in the minds of most Americans, and the media does its best propaganda work every day to reinforce this. The notion that we are constantly fed is that we live in the freest, most democratically-principled society in the world. While our day to day experiences of living under and working within and being governed by much more authoritarian social structures ought to be enough empirical evidence for us to know the truth, propaganda works. People believe that we live in a free, enlightened, democratic society.
People, that is, with the possible exception of progressives. However, the rest of the country chooses to continue believing in and living with the status quo. Most people are, unfortunately, incapable of thinking for themselves, and rely on corporate owned media for their social and political analysis. They do not see the structures of power at work around them on a daily basis, and the media isn't going to reveal these forces in some sort of culture critique, because much as with the two major parties, there is no interest on the part of the media in exposing some of the structural flaws with our current political and social systems. It is simply not in the media's interest to challenge the orthodoxy of business and political power in this country (since the two are inextricably intertwined) which allows the media to wield the influence it does in reinforcing the current system. Plus, they make gobs of money doing it, so why change?
And isn't money really the problem? A leftist third party would never be able to come up with the kind of financial backing it would need to remain a viable political force in this country. Elections are for sale, and the kind of people who would participate in and be candidates for such a progressive party tend not to be the kind of people who have taken full advantage of capitalism and made a bunch of money by exploiting other people. Who would fund this party, buy their air time, pay for travel and campaign literature and rallies? Who would pay for the lobbying influence? I doubt if such a party would even make it through one election cycle.
I am not saying that individuals from more progressive parties can't get elected in their localities or even at a state level. Maine certainly seems to have some success with that, even beyond libertarians (not that I am suggesting that libertarians are leftist progressives or people I'd want in office). And I will even acknowledge that, while slim, there is just the slightest chance of a candidate from outside the two-party system winning the presidency--though there is NO chance that such a candidate would come from a progressive leftist party. Much more likely is that such a candidate would come from a thoroughly centrist party at best. Anyway, while acknowledging these possibilities, they are possibilities for individuals in very particular situations. It is very different, however, to suggest that an entire third party, much less a leftist one, could form and survive.
Another big reason, besides money, is that a sort of idealistic free-for-all would almost inevitably overshadow any attempts by organizers to form the groundwork for this new party. What would the platform of this supposed party be? Would it advocate a more genuinely grass-roots democratic society? Would it be about social justice, or ecological sustainability, or socialism? Would it be a dedicated pacifist party, a workers' party, a constitutional rights party? I've been to a number of "leftist" or "progressive" political events, like anti-war marches in Washington. While I hate to admit it, I have a hard time seeing that group of people getting its shit together in a way that would be politically unified, much less functional in terms of organizational structure. Even at a march about the Iraq war, everyone brings their other causes to the table. This isn't a bad thing--it's one of the few places progressives might find other people interested in their causes--but the various causes latching on to the anti-war efforts give the left a sense of disarray and discombobulation. (Yes, this is coming from the guy who called a very old woman stupid and engaged her in a fierce battle of words for poo-pooing my carrying a giant Palestinian flag at a march about Iraq).
Furthermore, even if we could overcome this ideological free-for-all, how could such a party ever reflect its own values in its structure? Even leftists have a difficult time with bottom-up decision making, because its something we're never asked to do: make actual political decisions, take real action, vote or make our voice heard in a way that has a tangible result. Because of our inexperience with making actual democratic decisions, and because of the ideological diversity described above, I think that, inevitably citing a need for "efficiency" and "unity," such a party would come to betray its own values in an attempt to become more politically viable, and inevitably revert to a top-down power structure in which the individuals at the top are more ideologically conservative and financially powerful than the majority at the bottom. Needless to say, these individuals, however pure their motives, would exert an undue amount of influence on the party's platform. Such a party, if it managed to last for even a short time, would almost certainly be subsumed--both politically and financially--eventually by the Democrats. (This possibility begs the question: Is this a desirable outcome for us as progressives? Would even a failed attempt at a leftist third party move the Democratic party to the left and reinvigorate the liberal base? Perhaps--though I would have my doubts about even this--and such an influence is perhaps the best-case-scenario I could realistically foresee for the formation of a progressive third party).
The final point I'd like to look at, in regards to this question, is history. I seem to remember something about the emergence and rise of a progressive third party in the first decades of the twentieth century. It was a rather popular party, I believe, with a lot of celebrities, artists, intellectuals and other important public figures among its members. Perhaps we could ask some of them how they were able to form and grow an alternative third party? Perhaps they could help us hammer out the details, and avoid the mistakes they made. Oh, wait, we can't ask them. They all disappeared, or else had their lives and livelihoods dangled in front of their eyes until they betrayed their real ideals and swore allegiance to a country that apparently didn't have room for subversive ideas, for critiques of our particular brand of democratic capitalism, or for anyone advocating any other form of political system. Do we really think that, just because Joseph McCarthy is dead, that McCarthyism is dead too? I don't doubt that history would repeat itself, because much as it was fifty years ago, the powers that be, the forces involved, are the same, but further entrenched and emboldened by their half-century of unchallenged ideological hegemony and power orthodoxy.
I hope the analysis I've laid out will prove to readers that I am a little bit more than just a cynic or a conspiracy theorist. But suffice it to say: a progressive third party will never emerge, because the political and social conditions of our country make it almost impossible, and because the current system is so adept at reinforcing these conditions that they will almost certainly never change in any kind of ideologically or politically substantial way. Those in power are thoroughly entrenched, and anyone with the kind of ideals necessary to form such a progressive party would never be privy to the kind of money and insider power necessary to give such a party a chance at success. You can't convince the people who continue to benefit from a broken system that the system is broken, and the ones who should be offering the public an honest and scathing critique of the way things are, a.k.a. the media, are in bed with power, rather than challenging it. And since schools aren't teaching people to see the "larger picture" and encouraging students to critique and analyze the fundamental forces of our system of government--much less the media's love-fest for it--it's effectively as though, consciously or subconsciously, for most people the inherent goodness of the current system is beyond reproach.
All in all, the current system of political socialization is self-reinforcing and nearly flawless, and I don't foresee it changing. The mere suggestion of a parliamentary system (and having lived in the Czech Republic for six months and being a student of politics and history, I am familiar with its various advantages) would have people crying out, as they already are, about European socialism, and gosh-darn-it-isn't-this-the-good-old-U-S-of-A? And we would all find ourselves quickly with our heads in the proverbial (or perhaps literal) guillotine for even appearing to threaten the American ideal of rugged and absolute individualism with what would invariably be marginalized as said European socialism. Forget that we've already taken steps to move in the direction of a more socialized, European style of economic governance, under a conservative president, no less. "European" and "Socialism" are still both dirty words in this country, and would immediately get pinned to a new progressive party by both Republicans and the media.
What I've outlined here, I think, also has its logical extensions in the answers to your fourth and fifth questions. "Is the Republican Party really as dead and pathetic as they look?" No, because as explained above, their power base is deeply rooted. The Republicans may be down, but they are not out, because Democrats and the media are both unwilling and unable to deliver the knockout punch. They both need Republicans to uphold the current system. Furthermore, Republicans still have tons of money, and the marketing strategists, psychologists, and spin masters on the payroll to re-brand themselves just slightly enough to be an appealing alternative again in two years, and perhaps in more than just the deep South--though I agree with you that their mainstream base appears to have waned at the moment. They will, however, inevitably be back.
And so, with those questions answered, this also becomes just a formality, but your last and perhaps most important question was "Should I just become a Canadian citizen and get it over with?" The answer here is yes. And so should I. (Funny that I actually started looking into the immigration process last week before this post even came up. Oh, wait, now I'm un-American. Oh well).
Monday, February 16, 2009
Who Speaks for us Crazy Progressives?
{NOTE: I'm posting this so that you guys can begin to think about your responses, I'm probably going to continue to edit it. If there are any heinous grammatical errors I apologize I'll continue to look at this post tonight and tomorrow, unfortunately my attempt to assimilate into French-Canadian society calls}
I want to stay on the theme of progressive politics for this week. What I want to consider is whether it would be possible for a legitimate third party to come to a position of prominence in the United States, and if such a thing could happen is it actually desirable.
One of my well known rants is that, while I recognize that I stand pretty far to the left of the "average" American, I wish that there was someone that was a part of the existing political structure that was representing the far left’s point of view WITHIN government. I mean, I love Feingold and Frank (Frank mostly because he’s large, gay and hilarious) as much as the next guy but they are still part of the democratic/republican power structure.
One of the central problems of the past few years is that the Democrats were foolishly tacking right, trying to appeal to people who they were fundamentally never going to appeal to rather then reaching out to the good old fashioned, disillusioned left. I told myself after casting a half-hearted vote for John Kerry that I was never going to vote for a candidate who I didn't believe in again. Alas, it seemed I might be doomed to a life of Naderdom. However, as I considered the implications of Naderdom I realized that that was no more of a reasonable option. I decided I would never vote for a candidate who did not meet AT LEAST two of these three criteria.
1. They would actually make a good president
2. They were genuinely espousing views that I believed in.
3. That the campaign would appeal to broad swath of people and thus allow GOOD ideas to leak into the mainstream.
I say two of the three because I understand the necessary need for compromise in government. Nate Silver at Fivthirtyeight.com laid this out very recently. I would argue that I am a “Rational Progressive” to use his terminology. However, I need to believe in something tangible beneath the typical ideological nonsense. Kerry, for instance met none of these criteria (perhaps the second but only in a generic Democrat kind of way). Nader only met the second (he would just be a hideous president if it ever came to that). What good are progressive ideas if we never get anywhere with them?
One of the problems is the puditocratic definitions of "centre, right and left". I remember breathless commentators saying after the 2006 congressional elections that the "center of American Politics had moved left". My response was "the center hasn't moved to the left, the center has always been against having sex with twelve year old boys. It just happens the Republicans have done more of that this time around."
All of this led me to become somewhat enamored with the Canadian Parliamentary system, wherein there are multiple parties, legitimately TWO to the left of the Liberals. There were a few things that drew me to this political system.
FIRST: confidence votes. For example, in 2006 Paul Martin's liberal government was toppled. Now I prefer the Liberals to the Conservatives in pretty much every way, but the Liberals got fat and lazy. They assumed that because they were the party most of the country related to they could do pretty much whatever they wanted. I think the fact that you can lose power at any time is an incentive to keep you on your toes. Plus, you can imagine in early 2006 on the heels of Katrina how the thought of being able to change leaders mid-stream was appealing.
SECOND- I didn't have to be upset the liberals lost because it was likely to open up more spots for the New Democratic Party anyway.
However, my views on this have evolved a touch over the past couple years. Maybe this is inevitable "shift towards the centre as I get old, rich and fat" syndrome but I don't think so. What is becoming clear in the Canadian system is that while the Conservatives remain a relatively small but focused party (not unlike what the successful version of the Republicans was), the liberals are represented by three parties (Liberal, NDP and Green). As long as this is the case Canada is likely doomed to a series of Conservative minority governments. Recently the Liberals, NDP and Bloc Quebecois have proposed toppling the Stephen Harper’s Conservative government with a coalition government where the Liberals and NDP would share power. In theory, this sounds like a great idea, and I am curious as to whether it would have worked.
I'm not going to get into the specifics of the proposed coalition here because quite honestly I only have so many hours in the day with which to write but my fear is that the nature of electoral politics will inevitably cause people to leave the other more progressive alternatives for the safe-liberals in order to defeat a conservative government. Now, let me stress I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing, and in fact if I was able to vote, I likely would be in that camp because I’m a fan of Micheal Ignatiff, the new Liberal leader. The problem is that we will eventually revert back to the progressives being an annoying voice in the background without any real impact.
Now, I'm overstating the problem in Canada because the fact of the matter is there is plenty of progressive to go around. What I want to address is what is going to happen in the U.S. Here is one scenario:
Since so many moderate republicans were among those who got picked off in the most recent elections it is increasingly becoming a party that is limited to the south and pockets of the west (where no one lives).
The flip side is that, obviously, many of the moderate republicans were replaced by "moderate" democrats. Really people who would have been republicans 15 or 20 years ago before the party completely lost its collective shit. What has happened is that a handful of moderates wield an inordinate amount of power because they have the ability hold the rest of the party hostage.
My suspicion is that in the coming years it is not going to be so trendy to be a Republican, which is going to lead people to come up as affiliated with a different party. However this is likely to fill an already bloated Democratic party to the point of exploding. Which, and I’ll put the time frame of this as 15-20 years, will lead the left part of the democratic part to split in to what will essentially amount to a New England and California party; leaving us with a centrist party and two flanking ideological parties.
I'm not sure this is such a great scenario. I've begun to wonder if the real answer is in trying to elect as many progressive democrats as possible to try to counteract the blue-dogs (essentially the Daily-Kos strategy).
So here are my questions that we should get at throughout the week
1. Is it possible to conceive of an American liberal third-party that would make sense and could legitimately win elections?
2. If so is this desirable?
3. In this new technological age, does the progressive left actually get enough airing compared to how it used to be, or to put it another way is the best way for the progressive left to get its voice heard within the confines of government?
4. Is the Republican Party really as dead and pathetic as they look?
5. Should I just become a Canadian citizen and get it over with?
I want to stay on the theme of progressive politics for this week. What I want to consider is whether it would be possible for a legitimate third party to come to a position of prominence in the United States, and if such a thing could happen is it actually desirable.
One of my well known rants is that, while I recognize that I stand pretty far to the left of the "average" American, I wish that there was someone that was a part of the existing political structure that was representing the far left’s point of view WITHIN government. I mean, I love Feingold and Frank (Frank mostly because he’s large, gay and hilarious) as much as the next guy but they are still part of the democratic/republican power structure.
One of the central problems of the past few years is that the Democrats were foolishly tacking right, trying to appeal to people who they were fundamentally never going to appeal to rather then reaching out to the good old fashioned, disillusioned left. I told myself after casting a half-hearted vote for John Kerry that I was never going to vote for a candidate who I didn't believe in again. Alas, it seemed I might be doomed to a life of Naderdom. However, as I considered the implications of Naderdom I realized that that was no more of a reasonable option. I decided I would never vote for a candidate who did not meet AT LEAST two of these three criteria.
1. They would actually make a good president
2. They were genuinely espousing views that I believed in.
3. That the campaign would appeal to broad swath of people and thus allow GOOD ideas to leak into the mainstream.
I say two of the three because I understand the necessary need for compromise in government. Nate Silver at Fivthirtyeight.com laid this out very recently. I would argue that I am a “Rational Progressive” to use his terminology. However, I need to believe in something tangible beneath the typical ideological nonsense. Kerry, for instance met none of these criteria (perhaps the second but only in a generic Democrat kind of way). Nader only met the second (he would just be a hideous president if it ever came to that). What good are progressive ideas if we never get anywhere with them?
One of the problems is the puditocratic definitions of "centre, right and left". I remember breathless commentators saying after the 2006 congressional elections that the "center of American Politics had moved left". My response was "the center hasn't moved to the left, the center has always been against having sex with twelve year old boys. It just happens the Republicans have done more of that this time around."
All of this led me to become somewhat enamored with the Canadian Parliamentary system, wherein there are multiple parties, legitimately TWO to the left of the Liberals. There were a few things that drew me to this political system.
FIRST: confidence votes. For example, in 2006 Paul Martin's liberal government was toppled. Now I prefer the Liberals to the Conservatives in pretty much every way, but the Liberals got fat and lazy. They assumed that because they were the party most of the country related to they could do pretty much whatever they wanted. I think the fact that you can lose power at any time is an incentive to keep you on your toes. Plus, you can imagine in early 2006 on the heels of Katrina how the thought of being able to change leaders mid-stream was appealing.
SECOND- I didn't have to be upset the liberals lost because it was likely to open up more spots for the New Democratic Party anyway.
However, my views on this have evolved a touch over the past couple years. Maybe this is inevitable "shift towards the centre as I get old, rich and fat" syndrome but I don't think so. What is becoming clear in the Canadian system is that while the Conservatives remain a relatively small but focused party (not unlike what the successful version of the Republicans was), the liberals are represented by three parties (Liberal, NDP and Green). As long as this is the case Canada is likely doomed to a series of Conservative minority governments. Recently the Liberals, NDP and Bloc Quebecois have proposed toppling the Stephen Harper’s Conservative government with a coalition government where the Liberals and NDP would share power. In theory, this sounds like a great idea, and I am curious as to whether it would have worked.
I'm not going to get into the specifics of the proposed coalition here because quite honestly I only have so many hours in the day with which to write but my fear is that the nature of electoral politics will inevitably cause people to leave the other more progressive alternatives for the safe-liberals in order to defeat a conservative government. Now, let me stress I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing, and in fact if I was able to vote, I likely would be in that camp because I’m a fan of Micheal Ignatiff, the new Liberal leader. The problem is that we will eventually revert back to the progressives being an annoying voice in the background without any real impact.
Now, I'm overstating the problem in Canada because the fact of the matter is there is plenty of progressive to go around. What I want to address is what is going to happen in the U.S. Here is one scenario:
Since so many moderate republicans were among those who got picked off in the most recent elections it is increasingly becoming a party that is limited to the south and pockets of the west (where no one lives).
The flip side is that, obviously, many of the moderate republicans were replaced by "moderate" democrats. Really people who would have been republicans 15 or 20 years ago before the party completely lost its collective shit. What has happened is that a handful of moderates wield an inordinate amount of power because they have the ability hold the rest of the party hostage.
My suspicion is that in the coming years it is not going to be so trendy to be a Republican, which is going to lead people to come up as affiliated with a different party. However this is likely to fill an already bloated Democratic party to the point of exploding. Which, and I’ll put the time frame of this as 15-20 years, will lead the left part of the democratic part to split in to what will essentially amount to a New England and California party; leaving us with a centrist party and two flanking ideological parties.
I'm not sure this is such a great scenario. I've begun to wonder if the real answer is in trying to elect as many progressive democrats as possible to try to counteract the blue-dogs (essentially the Daily-Kos strategy).
So here are my questions that we should get at throughout the week
1. Is it possible to conceive of an American liberal third-party that would make sense and could legitimately win elections?
2. If so is this desirable?
3. In this new technological age, does the progressive left actually get enough airing compared to how it used to be, or to put it another way is the best way for the progressive left to get its voice heard within the confines of government?
4. Is the Republican Party really as dead and pathetic as they look?
5. Should I just become a Canadian citizen and get it over with?
Oops!
Hey guys. So, I'm an idiot. I have my whole peice written for this week and was going to do a final edit at work and then promptly forgot to send it to my e-mail. Thats what I get for anticipating slack-time during work. I'm going to try to rush home and edit between work and french class, but the slings and arrows of Montreal traffic may foil that plan. I'm not going to step on myself because a) i'm not that flexible and b)my brilliant insights in to the American and Canadian forms government deserve the full light of night for your consideration. But here is a teaser:
Since we all know Ralph Nader is a douche, is there any chance a real, important and enlightened third party could form in the United States and do we want this?
I'll try to get the post up around 6:15.
In the meantime read this article from the Times about the man who will hopefully be Canada's Next Prime Minister soon rather then later (did you know there was a reality show on the CBC called "Canada's Next Prime Minister"?)
Since we all know Ralph Nader is a douche, is there any chance a real, important and enlightened third party could form in the United States and do we want this?
I'll try to get the post up around 6:15.
In the meantime read this article from the Times about the man who will hopefully be Canada's Next Prime Minister soon rather then later (did you know there was a reality show on the CBC called "Canada's Next Prime Minister"?)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)