Progressive Movement

What Should Progressives Do About the President?

Richard Eskow — Thu, 29 Sep 2011 20:11:33 -0400

Progressives may sometimes feel like they're in a backdoor high-school affair with the President. You know the kind: The popular kid will make out with someone from the wrong side of the tracks. But he'll only take a rich kid from "the right kind of family" to the school dance.

The President often courts the left when he needs it, only to pitch his actions to the right at clinch time. Right-wing ideology is often mistakenly called the "center" today, despite holding views that are so conservative they're often rejected by Republicans as well as Democrats. But it's the right all the same.

Lately the President has made some significant moves toward the left, but the response has been cool in some progressive corners. The skepticism's understandable. His 2008 platform was progressive too, but after he was elected he tacked sharply right without even bothering to explain the shift. Progressives don't want to keep feeling like the kid who 'puts out' in the backseat of a convertible and then is all alone on prom night.

But if you believe (as I do) that the progressive movement should be independent of Barack Obama and the Democrats, then the decision to work with them should be made strategically. There are times to oppose them, but there are also times to support, encourage, and persuade them.

The President's new progressive moves aren't enough, and they're still watered down with unproductive and unpopular rightwing notions. But they are a move in the right direction. He deserves some credit for that. The progressive movement does too. So what's next?

The Right Left, the Wrong Right

There's no need to rehash all the mistakes of the last three years. The President and his advisors still cling to the mistaken idea that, as one of them told the Washington Post, "Fighting might make liberal groups feel good, but it isn't reasonable."

This "reasonableness" has led to Congressional gridlock, the appearance of weakness, and ongoing economic misery after inadequate steps were taken. The result is plunging approval numbers for the President, a disaffected base, and a surprisingly vulnerable re-election campaign. The White House has mistakenly assumed that we're still in the nineties, where you could win elections by rejecting the "Sistah Souljah left" and appealing to the "center."

That was two recessions, one financial crisis, two wars, and several million jobs ago. What the White House is hopefuly beginning to realize is that the 'left' is the new center. The President's proposed jobs act contains progressive ideas like closing corporate loopholes that are actually popular with a majority of Republicans. (So was the public option in healthcare.) And large majorities of Americans support his proposed millionaire's tax, another 'progressive' idea.

Fighting for these ideas won't just please 'liberal groups' - who seem to be a particular source of White House resentment. They'll please most Americans. In some cases, they'll please a majority of Republicans too . Hopefully the White House has begun to read the polls and reports that these 'liberal groups' (including our own, the Campaign for America's Future) has been giving them for years.

Perhaps the White House has come to understand that today's GOP, and the cynically compromised corporate mavens who compromise the so-called "bipartisan center," are unscrupulous and untrustworthy. The Administration has spent three years trying to please the wrong right, an intractable group of self-promoting radicals, while ignoring the right "left" - a progressive movement that has come to speak for the American majority on jobs, taxes, Social Security, and Medicare.

The Wrong Right

Case in point: The President appointed two right-wingers to run his Deficit Commission, a misguided effort that focused on spending cuts while the nation continued to struggle with lost jobs and frozen wages. Democrat Erskine Bowles is a Director of Morgan Stanley, the Wall Street firm whose brokers like to brag that "I ripped his face off" after taking advantage of one of their own clients.

That's right: The Democratic co-chair helps direct a firm whose brokers brag violently about taking advantage of its own clients.

The other co-chair was radical Social Security hater Alan Simpson, who yesterday turned on the President with an angry tirade about 'an abrogation of leadership, a vacancy of leadership."

"You can't get this done without hits across the board," said Simpson, who has adamantly opposed tax increases for millionaires or corporations as part of the "hits across the board." Simpson's also pushed for Social Security benefit cuts from seniors who have already taken "hits" like the eligibility age, which is already increasing as scheduled, and cost of living adjustments that don't keep pace with living expenses for seniors and the disabled.

The President has also learned that Congressional Republicans are dedicated to nothing so much as his own failure, even if that failure means extended economic misery for millions of Americans. The handful of GOP representatives who might work with them are hostages to the Tea Party and the radical right. That makes the President's rightward moves futile.

Prom Night

Now Barack Obama has begun taking some steps toward the progressive positions that define the new American center. His American Jobs Act balances some ineffective cuts with some excellent moves toward direct spending on infrastructure, the millionaire's tax, and other popular measures. He has backed off his offers to cut Social Security and Medicare, and has even started to use progressive economic analyses that explain what's really going on with those programs.

He told a Latino voters' meeting, for example, that "The way social security is set up, the (cost of living adjustment) is made automatically but over the last two years, because of the recession, it hasn't happened. We tried to provide an extra check to those receiving social security checks to make up for the loss but it didn't pass through Congress."

That's a welcome break from recent statements that those cost-of-living adjustments could be adjusted downward without serious harm to seniors or the disabled. And it's sweet talk, for sure. But "prom night" happens when the President and other Democrats act, not when they speak. How can progressives make sure we get better actions, and better election results?

Press On

The President hit a lot of progressive talking points in his recent speech to the Congressional Black Caucus. Then he seemed to lecture his audience: "I am going to press on for jobs. I'm going to press on for equality. I'm going to press on for the sake of our children. I'm going to press on for the sake of all those families who are struggling right now. I don't have time to feel sorry for myself. I don't have time to complain. I am going to press on.

"I expect all of you to march with me and press on. Take off your bedroom slippers, put on your marching shoes. Shake it off. Stop complaining, stop grumbling, stop crying. We are going to press on."

Many of those in his audience had been "pressing on" without recognition or reward for more years than the President has been alive, and some of them found these remarks condescending and inappropriate. But they'll work with him anyway. All he has to do is "shake off" his 90's-era obsession with right-wing "centrist" ideas, put on his job-creating shoes, and press on.

How can he and his party be guided in that effort? We need an independent movement to push for better (and more popular) policies. It should be centered around the kinds of positions reflected in the Contract for the American Dream - positions that end Wall Street recklessness, end two expensive and unproductive wars, create jobs, encourage growth, and rebuild the middle class.

This movement can help encourage genuinely progressive politicians at the local, state, and national levels. Because it's independent, it can also keep the pressure up to make sure they carry out their promises. The President and his staff seem to resent pressure from the left, but they're responding - and his new left-leaning approach could help him, too.

That still leaves a lot of questions unanswered: How should this independent movement be organized? How much of its efforts should be "inside the Beltway" and how much should focus on the rest of the country? Is there a role for a third party? How can the labor movement help - and be helped - by sucha a movement? How can grassroots actions like the Wisconsin sit-ins and #OccupyWallStreet be supported and expanded? Do we need primary challenges in 2012 or later?

Those questions and others are the reason why we're gathering next week in Washington for the "Take Back the American Dream" conference to have a series of in-depth conversations.

But a little self-congratulation is in order, along with the soul-searching. Four years ago the country elected a different kind of President - one with some explicitly progressive positions - and gave him both houses of Congress. That's a pretty huge accomplishment, whatever's happened since.

Since then we've seen the uprisings in Wisconsin, the failure of austerity economics in Europe, and the sudden appearance of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Like the old saying goes, this could be the start of something big. In other words, it's almost prom night. Once the dancing starts, will progressives follow ... or lead?

Obama, Progressives, and Leadership: or, I've Been Doing Some Thinking About Us ...

Richard Eskow — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 02:22:51 -0400

I was getting ready to attend next week's America's Future Now conference, whose theme is that progressives must lead, and thinking about the relationship problems progressives are having with Barack Obama and the Congressional leadership. All the relationship books say that you need to be clear about what you need, so that you can communicate those needs to your partner in a healthy way. (At least that's what I imagine they say; I don't really know.)

The relationship between progressives and the Democratic leadership involves love, anger, and a lot of co-dependence. Some progressives seem to defend the President no matter what he does. Others have written him off as the hopelessly cynical tool (or manipulator) of a corrupt political system. Then there are those in the middle, the ones who get disillusioned and then fall in love all over again whenever he gives a great speech like he did yesterday. Political life must be a series of fifty first dates for them.

The first two groups periodically get angry at each other, while the third group probably alternates between ecstasy and heartache. It's a dysfunctional relationship, all excess and no balance. Here's an example of a middle way, inspired by this week's events: Progressives can congratulate the President when he speaks brilliantly about topics like the environment, while letting him know that he'll lose credibility if he doesn't back his words up with concrete action.

When I say "progressives," I mean people who care passionately about achieving a core group of goals - goals like universal healthcare, real financial reform, a renewing of the social contract with working people, an end to fruitless wars, and a commitment to caring for the poor, the elderly, and all children. I mean people who don't just support these ideals, but are engaged with them - as activists, organizers, bloggers, and/or as people who read and think about these issues on a daily basis.

In other words, I mean you guys - most of the people who are reading these words.

Some progressives think the only problem with Obama's performance so far is that people like - well, like me - don't give the guy a break. When I criticized Obama's continued use of Larry Summers to lead the financial reform charge, for example, this was a typical comment: "Sigh. Doesn't Obama get to do ANYTHING without being second-guessed?'" There were lots of others like this one, too, about the Justice Department's decision not to prosecute anyone in the AIG case: "... every politician, sooner than later, is but a paid stoodge (sic)."

Even Paul McCartney got in on the act on the pro-Obama side, when he said this week that the President's "a a great guy, so lay off him." Pace Paul, here's what I consider to be the right progressive response: The President seems to be a nice guy (though I have no idea if he is or not, and nobody's ever accused Rahm Emanuel of excessive niceness). But he's clearly responsive to political pressure, so we need to keep the pressure up from our side. If you're more comfortable putting it this way, let's say that we want to make a nice guy even nicer.

Other people will express their opinions at next week's event about how to lead in the age of Obama. (That's a session topic at next week's conference..) But here's my take: Don't support politicians - support results. Help politicians who are likely to achieve those results, oppose those who are likely to obstruct them, and pressure all of them to do the right thing whenever possible. (Note, for example, that a number of Republicans supported some meaningful financial reforms.) My view about politicians is respectful, but strictly utilitarian: They're tools for the greater good. I like some of them, but I reserve my deepest emotions for people in real need.

In some ways politicians - and make no mistake, they're all politicians - are like one-celled organisms. They'll respond to positive stimuli and avoid negative ones. So our role becomes a form of behavioral mod: reward them when they do the right thing and to degrade their quality of life when they don't. We should work to make sure that all politicians, from Obama on down, develop a splitting headache when they work against the progressive agenda. And we should work just as hard to help them to experience a warm and satisfying glow of satisfaction when they support our goals.

That means showering them with calls and letters of praise for their positive actions, followed by flowing cascades of donations, volunteers, and support. Believe me, that'll make any politician's cheeks turn rosy with afterglow. When they don't do the right thing? Stony silence, angry letters, lack of funds or volunteers - hey, maybe even a primary challenger. This needs to be tactically applied, of course - to have a Democrat replaced by an even worse Republican is usually a Pyrrhic victory. But Halter's primary challenge to Sen. Blanche Lincoln was an excellent example of the progressive movement's ability to punish anti-progressive behavior, which discourages it, while also pressuring pols to take better policy stands (like Lincoln's excellent amendment on derivatives.)

I've been disappointed at times with the behavior of some progressive colleagues during the health and financial reform debates, too. That includes activist organizations, progressive politicians, and liberal pundits that I respect and appreciate. Many of them are too eager to heap undeserved praise on a bill even before it's finished. When you do that you undercut yourself. Politics 101: If you're no longer a threat, you no longer have leverage.

Some colleagues were horrified at the criticism some of us directed toward the health bill as it was being defined, too. We were even called "traitors." One friend, for example, tweeted something like "Bernie Sanders likes the bill. Is he a liberal sell-out?" My answer was "No, but Bernie Sanders got $12 billion for primary care centers before he went along. What did you get?" Sanders' handling of health reform was a perfect example of bold, pragmatic, goal-oriented progressivism. Support the bill if it's a good one - but only after you've won every concession you can possibly win.

Progressives shouldn't follow leaders - they should exploit them. Politicians aren't heroes, they're tools to be used in a greater cause. So are we. We need to be unrelenting in their challenge of the right, whose ideology has demonstrably failed. We need to take that case to the people, even if - especially if - Democratic leaders won't. And we need to be much bolder in our vision, in our articulation of that vision, and in our willingness to lead instead of being led.

Action is a bitch. Leadership is a headache. Passionate involvement can mean a lot of sleepless nights. But take the reins anyway, progressives. It's your time. Let the politicians follow you for a change.

It can be done. We can do it. Let's start by telling our political "significant others" that it's time we had a little talk ... about us.

Robert Borosage: "We're Not Likely To See This Opportunity Again"

Isaiah J. Poole — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 16:03:48 -0400

America's Future co-director Robert Borosage opens the America's Future Now! conference with a challenge to the progressive movement to seize a chance for progressive change that the nation has not seen since at least the 1960s. The dramatic and sweeping failure of conservative policies and the ascendancy of the Obama administration and a Democratic—albeit not always progressive—Congress gives progressives the opportunity to enact bold reforms in areas ranging from health care to energy policy. "We are not likely to see this opportunity again," he says.

In this address, Borosage answers the question of whether progressives should support the Obama administration as it pursues its agenda or challenge it to change direction. "There is one certain answer to that choice," he says. "Yes."

Breaking Down the Status Quo in Six Easy Steps

Sara Robinson — Thu, 28 May 2009 13:04:18 -0400

One of the things I'm really liking about the new regime is the way the stark, terrified silence of the Bush years is giving way to noisy, energetic public discussion of subjects that would have been considered hardcore political pornography just a year or two ago.

Mr. Obama himself may not want to talk about single-payer health care or employee free choice or special inquiries into CIA torture practices, but the American people are definitely going there, with or without him. We seem to have recovered our moral voice, and relocated our own interests. And the powers that be, along with their paid minions in Congress, are feeling very, very nervous about it. I admit it: I'm enjoying watching them squirm.

Watching the rhetorical give-and-take between activists, change agents, and just plain fed-up Americans on one side, and those defending a very profitable status quo on the other, I've noticed that there's a repeating pattern to the way subjects that were once considered politically obscene move onto the public agenda, and how the defenders of the old regime respond to public demands for change. And it occurs to me that understanding the phases they go through -- and how their behavior shifts at each stage -- might allow us to respond more strategically and effectively to each stage, spending less political capital overall but getting far more for it in the end.

My first rough sketch of this process (I'm open to suggestions for refining it) involves six stages through which changes that our corporate masters never even wanted to discuss eventually become wholly-owned parts of their history. The steps I'm seeing go like this:

1. Backstopping the Overton Window. This disreputable idea is so far outside the bounds of acceptable discourse that sane, rational people will never, ever discuss it. The fact that you even dared to say it out loud in mixed company is incontrovertible proof that you're a certifiable loony. Anybody who could even think such a deranged thing is probably a danger to self and others. Please leave quietly, before you lose control and make a scene and we have to call the cops. And don't even imagine that you'll ever be invited to nibble cocktail shrimp in this town again.

2. Getting it out on the table. In spite of the Overton Window taboos, a small but insistent cadre of unimpeachably credible people dares to publicly discuss the idea anyway. They back up this bold transgression with an early round of solid research, along with a handful of real-world examples to prove that the concept might actually be economically and politically sound. Lining up the facts and people to kick off these discussions is usually the work of think tanks. Being one of these people once too often can put some real dents in an otherwise sterling reputation—or enshrine you forever among the visionary political avant-garde, depending.

That's because once the idea is out on the table and being discussed by reasonable people (which does not, of course, include the mainstream media), the defenders of the status quo react by making a wild, scrambling lunge to push it back off again. This always involves undermining the credibility of the proponents, their research, and their examples; and reminding everybody once again, in the most hysterical terms, that this idea is completely nuts and utterly impossible.

It's preposterous, they sputter. It will destroy the economy. It will put an end to the American way of life. Hillary Clinton will pick your doctor. You'll be forced to power your entire household off a windmill in your back yard. Al Qaeda operatives, along with the entire Mexican state of Oaxaca, will be bivouacked in your tool shed. Anybody who sides with these pathetic losers is probably a Communist, an intellectual, or siding with the terrorists. These are real and serious threats; and anybody who says otherwise is irrational and making shit up.

3. Clouding the issue with facts. You can tell that the initial attempts to discredit the idea have failed when the rhetoric gears down a notch, becoming less hysterical and more practical. The name-calling eases off, and opponents start coming back with studies and facts of their own. At this stage, the media have picked up on the issue and the politicians are starting to pay attention, so crazy talk stops and the debate is joined in earnest.

Numbers begin to be bandied about. This change will cost XX thousand jobs. It will reduce the tax base XX percent. It will affect industries A, B, and C. We'll be forced to move our factories to China and our headquarters to the Cayman Islands. No, seriously; it's a bad idea.

Even if the data the opponents offer is self-serving and slanted, the very fact that they're putting it forward and engaging in real-world debate is a good sign. It means they're taking the threat of change seriously enough to hire consultants and commission studies. Which also means they're quietly beginning to seriously explore what this change will mean for them, and are laying the strategic groundwork to prepare for it. As that process unfolds, they usually start to see where their next opportunities lie, and discover some real competitive advantages to making the change (though they'll never admit this publicly, out of fear of tipping their hand to their competitors, and giving up too much ground too soon.) The goal is no longer trying to prevent the change; it's now about trying to control what shape the change will take, and what the time frame will be.

4. Real negotiations. You know the old regime has made their peace, formulated a plan, and is ready to move forward when their arguments come down to two essential points: 1) We can do it, but it's going to cost a hell of a lot of money to retool for this; and 2) We can do it, but we'd be running afoul of a shelf full of government regulations that were designed to manage the outgoing order. This sounds like they're still balking, but it's actually a capitulation to the fact that change is coming -- and the opening gambit in serious, formal negotiations over what concessions they can get in exchange for dropping their fight.

"We can't do it because of regulations" means "We'll do it if you change or lift the existing regulations to make this even more profitable for us than doing business the old way." "It's going to cost too much money" means "We'll do this if you offer subsidies, grants and tax breaks to reduce our risk and make it worth our while." At this final point of resistance, they're just looking to auction off their cooperation to the government for the best price they can get.

5. A Brave New World begins! We are making this change! And we are so wonderful and forward-thinking to be out there cooperating with the government and the people and the planet in this way, and making life better for everyone! Splashy PR campaigns put the happiest possible face on changes they had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to make.

6. History, Rewritten. Looking back five years later? Well, of course, we were for this all along. In fact, we took the lead in initiating this bold, innovative shift in the way business gets done. We were the visionaries who had the foresight to stand up to those balky, closed-minded government regulators who opposed us every step of the way. We forced them into it, and the country is better off because we did.

Our profits are up. Our business is better than ever. Weren't we incredibly smart to see this opportunity? Weren't we noble and daring to step out over the opposition and do the right thing, and damn the risks? Isn't America blessed to have a free enterprise system where brave entrepreneurial companies can instigate such audacious and progressive changes? And just think how much more we might accomplish if government would just stand aside and let us do what comes naturally!

♦ ♦ ♦

Four months into the new Congress and administration, I'm noticing that several of the discussions that were covered with the steamy, overheated froth of Stage 2 just weeks ago are starting to cool down into Stage 3. Hysteria is giving way to more solid, fact-based debate. The beneficiaries of the old status quo—weakened by the economy and increasingly confronted by the people and their government—are coming to terms with the need for deep structural change, and are starting to seriously consider their options and strategies. At the same time, the next wave of subjects that have been utterly unspeakable for 30 years are re-entering national conversation, moving from the shadows of Stage 1 to the sunshine of Stage 2. With any luck, this could go on for years. It's messy and contentious—but it's how change happens.

Unfortunately, the Democrats are proving so far to be disastrously feckless at Stage 4, which is the moment of greatest government leverage over the process. At that point, they're negotiating against an opponent who's accepted the need for change, and is simply asking them to set the terms under which the new order will unfold. The decisions made here often stand for decades, so it's a moment that calls for boldness and tough bargaining. Unfortunately, until we get real campaign reform, the bitter truth is that this will continue to be the moment when massive amounts of taxpayer money get moved into private pockets, with no real change demanded in return.

But the most galling stage of all may be Stage 6, which was first pointed out by Rick Perlstein. In the end, conservative politicians and business leaders always to do their best to take credit for instigating changes that, in reality, they fought with everything they had. Those billions we spent on lobbyists and PR folks? Just a cost of doing business. And those absurd scare stories? I never said that, you can't prove it, and besides, I was taken out of context.

Fortunately, in an age of Google and YouTube, it's a lot harder to rewrite history that way. Still, as the changes start coming down, we need to be hyper-vigilant in watching for this kind of revisionism, because every time they succeed, they're underwriting the conservative frame that unfettered business is the only meaningful driver of innovation, and that all government can ever do is obstruct progress. At the same time, they're also depriving thousands of hard-working activists and citizens their rightful share of glory, which in turn deprives the rest of us of the inspiration of their example.

In an age when government is reasserting is role in defining and defending the public good -- and citizen activists are the real visionaries in creating a survivable future—that's not a win we can allow them to have.

AFN Conference Demonstrates The New Progressive Majority

Robert Borosage — Wed, 27 May 2009 18:58:16 -0400

The America's Future Now! conference in Washington starting June 1 sets up the political fights that will be at the center of the political debate as the Obama administration moves its agenda. It is an exciting time for progressives and the conference is an opportunity to develop strategies for alternately supporting and challenging the new administration, while building an enduring progressive majority.

Andrew Slack

Andrew Slack — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 15:02:47 -0400

Andrew Slack is creator, co-founder, and Executive Director of the the Harry Potter Alliance which takes a creative approach to activism by mobilizing thousands of kids to spread love and fight for justice in the spirit of the Harry Potter novels. The HP Alliance has been featured in over 200 US publications including Time Magazine, and the front covers of both the Chicago Tribune Business Section and Politico Newspaper. Andrew's HP Alliance piece in the LA Times was the Times' most viewed and emailed piece for two straight days.

In his prior career, Andrew performed comedy at hundreds of venues across the US and produced four videos that have been viewed close to eight million times.

Andrew has studied acting at a conservatory in London, served as a coexistence fellow in Northern Ireland, and done in person interviews with Civil Rights activists from Boston to New Orleans.

A Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Brandeis University, Andrew is dedicated to learning and extrapolating how modern myth and new media can transform our lives both personally and collectively. He lives in both Honolulu and Boston.

Contact Andrew at andrew@thehpalliance.org

Why I don't think the Greens can do it for the Progressive Movement.

Michael Kwiatkowski — Sun, 04 May 2008 13:28:30 -0400

I've been trying, in my humble way, to help jump-start a renewed Progressive Party presence. But a question that is often asked of me is why not just join the Green Party. I could go into a long and detailed explanation, but the short of it is that I don't think they're very organized and some of their campaigning methods rub me the wrong way. (For the record, the reason I don't say much about the Libertarian and Socialist Parties is because I don't know enough about their organizational structure or their methods of campaigning to make an informed assessment.)

First, my distaste for the Green Party's methods in campaigning. As reported by CBS News, they accepted money and assistance in 2006 from then-senator Rick Santorum of the Republican Party in order to get on the ballot. The state's high court threw candidate Carl Romanelli off the ballot citing insufficient signatures, but the story exposed an even deeper rot within the Greens' political machine in Pennsylvania: the willingness to be compromised just to try to stick it to the Democrats, whom Greens consider little or no better than the GOP.

There is, of course, a valid argument to be made in claiming there is difference between the two major political parties. One need only look at the voting records of the two Prima Donna Democrats competing for their party's nomination to run for president, and the complicit cowardice by most Congressional members in either chamber, to see the truth in this point of view. But for the Greens to accept help from a GOPer so vile as to have had post-anal sex discharge named after him reveals both a lack of integrity and a sickening display of hypocrisy. Such actions add otherwise undeserved legitimacy to charges by Democrats that greens are somehow bent on "stealing" votes they feel belong to their party.

Then there is the organization of their campaigns for national office. Or, rather, the lack of organization. As I have pointed out in my recent three-part series on Progressives, Liberals, Movements and Political Parties, trying to run presidential candidates before having secured enough state-level offices (especially state secretary, judicial, and legislative positions) waste resources that are better spent building up presences in the various states so as to achieve the ability to gain traction at the national level. What good does it do to run candidates for president when the Green Party hasn't even made headway winning state legislative and executive offices first?

That's why I think it's better to rally the Progressive Movement through its own namesake political party. I'm not saying we can't or shouldn't work with Greens; since their platform so closely matches that of the overall Progressive Movement, they make natural political allies and might even be tempted to switch over. But I think as long as some elements in the party are willing to help Republicans, and as long as the party leadership insists on trying to build the party in a more top-down manner, their effectiveness as a political party is severely limited.