The PJRC

The Democracy Journal
Search Site
Get Involved
This form does not yet contain any fields.
    Support the PJRC

    Support the PJRC for continued original analysis on ending the wars, funding domestic priorities and preserving civil liberties.

    Make a contribution to benefit the PJRC now! 

    Conferences & Events

    Tom Hayden speaks in Port Huron, MI, in celebration of the 50th anniversary of the Port Huron Statement.

    Invite Tom Hayden to speak in your town! 

     

     

    Follow Tom

                    

    Contact Us
    This form does not yet contain any fields.
      Friday
      Dec132013

      An Opening for Progressive Democrats

      The sight of progressive Democrats shaming and exposing the Wall Street-funded "third way" Democrats this week is a sign of a powerful new opening for progressives on the American political spectrum.

      The standing of Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Sherrod Brown, Bill De Blasio and many others is on the rise. The Clinton Democrats are being challenged from the populist left; the AFL-CIO is supporting a new generation of organizers; the immigrant rights movement is reviving the tradition of the student civil rights movement; the LGBT movement is learning to win. And as long as the economy is failing for the poor, working people, and the middle class, the conditions for a new politics are ripening rapidly. 

      These moments come and go like the tides, which makes leadership, vision and strategy critically important. Where do social movements fit in? Or groups like PDA? Where is the new center of gravity? 

      Our eyes should be on 2016, achieving as much as possible from the Obama era, and defending against a right-wing rollback in that year’s presidential election. The centrist Democratic strategy thus far has been to paint the Republicans as dangerous extremists, which is working nicely with Republican cooperation. Because of the disastrous stumbling on Obamacare, however, Democratic prospects in the 2014 low-turnout congressional elections have stalled for now. The best that can be hoped for at this point is Democratic control of the Senate and a narrowing of the gap in the Republican House. Meanwhile, given the deep partisan divisions, at least 45 percent of American voters live under entrenched right-wing rule.  

      Despite the stalemate, there are multiple fronts where weird coalitions might prevail:

       

      • Immigration reform if the Republican establishment prevails over the Tea Party; 
      • Blocking of the secret pro-corporate trade agreements which will dismantle labor and environmental protections, assuming labor-liberal Democrats coalesce with the Republican libertarians; 
      • Reform of the Big Brother/Big Data surveillance apparatus by the same liberal-libertarian coalition; and 
      • Prevention of unwinnable, unaffordable military adventures. Diplomatic recognition of Cuba will be a heavy lift, but the president has shown he can overcome the Republican-led Cuban Right in the House and the unpopular Sen. Menendez in the Senate. 

      None of these achievements will be easy, but all are doable. 

       

      Keeping the White House in 2016 is vital in order to shift the balance on the US Supreme Court and to retain regulatory power over social, economic, voting rights, and environmental policies. It is also imperative to keep the Senate majority Democratic for its appointment powers and to prevent the conservative cancer from spreading from the House. It is important for the progressive Democrats in the House to fight aggressively as if they are behind enemy lines as opposed to a rational debating society.

      Any efforts to cobble together weird coalitions at the congressional level may fail or be resisted by the White House. Change is more likely to be delivered from social movements in progressive states and cities, however, not from the trench warfare in D.C. Call it a trickle-up populism. California, for example, already leads the way on conservation and renewables as well as immigration reform. Vermont is implementing its right to single-payer health care. Colorado and Washington are legalizing and regulating marijuana. 

      A major challenge for progressives is whether it is possible forge consensus on vision and program [or as consultants call it, narrative]. Obama is re-emphasizing an emphasis on economic inequality, framed as a choice between being on your own or all in this together. That’s a start for Democrats, and a welcome echo of Occupy Wall Street. The same theme accounts for the exceptional rise of Warren and De Blasio. But it is a fuzzy and incomplete vision, a blended blur of the New Deal ("expand Social Security") and the New Economy ("Facebook and Google will set us free"). The faulty vision reflects fault lines in the underlying coalition. Balancing the contradictions is the key to building a winning majority coalition electorally; too far in either direction can result in splits which favor the Republican strategy of divide-to-rule.

      The first contradiction for Democrats, and even some progressives, is whether to be “all in” in the fight against climate change, or to take a “balanced” approach for electoral reasons by flirting with “clean coal”. The return of John Podesta to the White House is encouraging news for environmentalists in this regard.

      The equally problematic contradiction for Democrats, and even some human rights groups, is whether to embrace more military intervention, secret ops, and drone tactics, in order to satisfy the “liberal interventionists”; including Samantha Power, Human Rights Watch, the Feminist Majority and AIPAC, or whether to deepen policy of avoiding unwinnable and unaffordable wars at the risk of being labeled “isolationist.” The reality is that there are not enough discretionary funds for health care and warfare.

      A third contradiction is between labor, progressives and human rights groups on one side and the corporate-leaning Democrats on issues of international investment and trade, a rift which has continued since the Seattle uprisings of 1999, where Bill Clinton both sponsored the WTO Summit and distanced himself from the shambles that followed.  

      While every effort should be made to reconcile such contradictions, the predictable truth is that they will be fought out in the 2016 Democratic primaries. 

      There are problematic contradictions on these issues in the Democratic coalition. Liberals on domestic policy frequently avoid taking stands on national security or even endorse hawkish policies.

      The Democratic progressive base is making clear that Hillary Clinton must make an adjustment from her hawkish centrism towards the new populism, or lose significant support either in the 2016 primaries or the general election.

      One battle Democrats, labor and progressives can agree on is the expansion and protection of the emerging political majority from the Republican effort to diminish their voting rights, turnout potential and representation in the Electoral College. The seemingly-insane Republican over-reaction to the recent modest change in Senate filibuster rules is an indication of how greatly Republican political power rests on guarding their minority status. The fight over media reform is another struggle between the public versus the corporate interests where progressives must gain and hold their ground. A similar unity should prevail on chipping away against Citizens United, but the party is unable to end its overall addiction to a fund-raising frenzy which empowers many of the most unsavory elements in the political culture. They cannot agree even on eliminating the business tax deduction by which special interests use taxpayers’ money to pass legislation ripping off the same taxpayers. Every local, state and federal reform of the campaign finance system is a vital gain for democracy, and a base for progressives winning electoral seats.

      PrintView Printer Friendly Version

      EmailEmail Article to Friend

      Reader Comments (2)

      Tom,

      I fail to understand how you still seem to see Obama as part of the progressive front, as if a speech he gave(!) regarding income inequality is in any way pertinent when this is the same man who is pushing the horrendous TPP, and this time, seeing as how its been negotiated totally in secret, with no Congressional input, there can be no excuses made that he's been forced to promote less than progressive policies because of Repub intransigence.

      As an aside, I am one lefty who has no problem with income inequality, as people should be paid unequal amounts based on many factors. To me, the better word which describes the income situation today is "injustice" in that the wages paid are not by any measure just, either in practical terms, because many cannot live on their wages without some form of government subsidy, a cost their employer evades and foists on the rest of society, or morally, because the rich of today seem to have no limit on their greed and not a scintilla of social conscience.

      I will not for any reason vote for Hillary in 2016, because whatever she sounds like on the stump, and that won't be all that progressive anyway, the Walmart b*tch still lies not far underneath, and will appear, ready to go, come January 20, 2017.

      December 13, 2013 | Unregistered Commentermichael nola

      Excellent analysis. My only quibble is that I'd like to see more emphasis on reviving organized labor. Not only is this an important goal in itself, but any such effort rapidly uncovers the DINOs in our midst. A revitalized organized labor would also help to counter one of the more negative aspects of progressive movements in recent years, their exploitation by individuals as a springboard for their own political advancement. Finally, a revitalized organized labor would only add reinforcements to what is already one of the most effective "ground units" of the Democratic party.

      December 13, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Wynn
      Comments for this entry have been disabled. Additional comments may not be added to this entry at this time.