Post Partisan Progressives

Conservatives hail the Obama appointments; progressives express misgivings. Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill celebrates Obama as "pragmatic," which she says may dismay some "on the left." David Corn says this isn't the change progressives voted for. The media wallows in the "disappointment of the left."

Welcome to the new "post-partisan" world, in the silly season on political punditry. Turns out the center has triumphed once again. But that, of course, depends on what you mean by center.

Last weekend, pragmatic centrist Barack Obama called for a bold recovery plan, grounded on strategic public investment rather than tax cuts to "help save or create" 2.5 million jobs, "while rebuilding our infrastructure, improving our schools, reducing our dependence on oil and saving billions of dollars." Elements that would include a "massive effort" to make federal buildings energy efficient, the "largest investment in roads and bridges since the creation of the federal highway system in the 1950s, "the most sweeping" program to upgrade and repair the nation's schools; and a new push to extend broadband to every corner of the country. While refusing to talk numbers, Obama pledged to "do what's required to jolt this economy back into shape," with anonymous advisors suggesting $500-700 billion as a possible price tag.

In scope and substance, Obama's plan tracks the elements of the Main Street Recovery Program, released by the Campaign for America's Future, and endorsed by over 100 unions, citizen action, women's, environmental and other progressive groups, and some 120 progressive economists. (To see the program, endorse or improve it, go here)

Now Republicans are reinventing their Keynesian heritage. Emil Henry, an assistant Treasury Secretary under Bush, writes that "investment in key infrastructure is consistent with Reagan principles," and that investment in "renewable energy will be key in our future." William Kristol suggests "small government Republicans" are virtually extinct, and suggests that Republicans support a "huge public works stimulus plan," only insist on directing the dollars to the "underfunded defense procurement rather than to fanciful green technologies." (Now that's a winning agenda: apparently spending about as much as the rest of the world combined on our military isn't enough.)

Bill Sher in his invaluable "progressive breakfast; memo, writes that now rabidly anti-government conservative business lobbies like The Chamber of Commerce and National Association of Manufacturers are climbing on the infrastructure bandwagon.

Welcome to the new center: post-partisan progressivism. "We're all Keynesians now," Richard Nixon once famously announced. And now the catastrophic failures of conservatism have set the stage for a new era of progressive reform. The election gave Obama a mandate and a majority for progressive reform: an end to the war in Iraq, health care for all, investment in new energy and education. He doesn't seem to have backed off on any of his major commitments yet. And the economic crisis is forcing an ever bolder response, driving the entire "center" to the left.

So to all the newborn progressives -- the DLC émigrés, the Third Way centrists, the Blue Dogs and abashed Cons -- welcome to the new center. And get ready for the most intense period of progressive reform since the Great Society. Only one thing. As the economic crisis gets worse and goes global, don't settle in. We've only begun to define the new economy which will come out of the collapse of the old.

Comments

[UncleDave]

'The Center' will be where our president says it is. He made it very clear. 'This is MY VISION'. The sniping and catfights will end on the day He takes power. We trusted Him to lead US. He will. We trusted His judgement. He will rule wisely. With a firm hand and an honest voice he will guide US to another place.I firmly beleave That. the naysayers can just whimper in silence. When the new dawn comes,best roll down your sleeves and work. OR get outa the way. New times comin'! Get on the boat. Build that road! Span that bridge! Show The World YES WE CAN. I'm READY.

[ouroborous]

It seems like nobody has a handle on where Obama really sits on a left-right spectrum. Conservatives claim that he (and/or America) are center-right. This article welcomes (warns of?) a progressive tsunami. Self-identified centrists claim that Obama is a centrist.

Unsurprising, really. Everyone sees what they want to see.

What I say is let's judge the man and his administration on his actions, not our projections. This means lauding him for the things we agree with (such as the infrastructure plan, as long as it doesn't just turn into more pork for the usual suspects), and lambasting him for the things that we disagree with (such as re-appointing some functionaries who have been permissive of torture and other rule-of-law violations).

Mindless antagonism is as foolish as mindless support; in all things, judge the act itself, not what you think MIGHT happen or what you project WILL happen.

[RetireGreen]

What we need is a Progressive Libertarian coalition. Then, and only then, will we be able to overcome the corporate military duopoly of Republicans and Democrats.

[Coinyer101]

as a progressive, and a former libertarian voter ,[ron brown], i agree with you. everytime things wind up back in the 'middle', the country winds up back in gridlock.

[Coinyer101]

i don't care who is center , right ,left, or just confused. i voted for barack. i disagree with many of his cabinet picks. one quote ,during the campaign, keeps echoing in my ears, and it causes me concern:
"the danger in this election is playing the same old washington games, with the same old washington players, and then expecting a different result." ~Barack Obama, Dec. 17th,2007......the 'hillary' choice as SOS smells of the "politics of the past", and many of the other picks only add to that concern. i'll support, for now, his choices, and i hope they work out. but, i'm not as optimistic as i was nov. 5th.

[3rdOption]

"Center-Right" is the latest misleading euphemism for Corporatism.

Corporatism is a purchased loyalty, not an evolved ideology.

Thus Corporatism *doesn't fall* on the
Liberal - Moderate - Conservative
one-dimensional yard stick that is used to oversimplify political motives. Corporatism TRANSCENDS that yardstick.

Likewise, Corporatism transcends Democratic - Independent - Republican party affiliations.

A politician can run in any party, and market themselves from any point on the ideological yardstick, but when they take campaign donations from corporate lobbyists, they will act and vote as a sell-out Corporatist.

Corporatism trumps both Ideology and Party loyalty, always.

Being a Corporatist is like being a politician backed by the Mafia. You NEVER advertise it, you ALWAYS conceal it. (Think: Lieberman)

To find out who the Corporatists are, you have to stop falling for their marketing and simply observe their voting records.

Fake loyalty to party and ideology, ACTIONS to support Corporate interests. That's what you look for.

So when you hear "Center-Right", think Corporatist. When you hear "DLC", think Corporatist. When you hear "Blue Dog", think Corporatist. When you hear "bi-partisanship" think Corporatist.

The conflict now is not between nutjob hippie "Librals" vs Center-Right Moderates. It's between the vast majority of the electorate who voted for radical action to save the middle class, the American way of life, and the Constitution vs Corporatists bent on continuing the shift of all power and all economic advantage to a very tiny number of people.

[Querent]

Nice summary, 3rd. Your insight is a good one.

[chaos4700]

Favorited! Really good insight into what's really going wrong in the United States these days.

[CactusTom]

Only when a president is disappointing the left and right is he doing what is best for the nation as a whole. We have had in excess of eight years of petty partisan politics focused more on dumb ideology, power grabbing and paying off friends than making government do its job. I voted for Obama to try and end this sort of political nonsense. So far I am not disappointed in how Obama is lining up his ducks. Let's hope that common sense continues to rule the day.

[LaurieR]

Agreed 100%, CactusTom.

[Querent]

This is a great rule of thumb. It reminds me of a rule for how you find your way through the forest, using a compass. You make sure that your bearing is always an equal angle from the East as it is from the West. It works great, as long as your destination is due North or due South. Otherwise, it works about as well as your idea about the right and the left.

[WorkingClass]

Since the dawn of civilization there has been a conflict of interest between the ruling class and the working class (the right and left respectively). The conflict will not be ended by persuading the left to simply quit the field after three thousand years of struggle. The working class is not a label or an ideology. It is 80% of mankind. Parties and partisans may come and go but the dynamics of the class structure remain. Post partisan does not mean that class struggle is over.

[Euranya]

WorkingClass,
I agree that the working class isn't a mere label: It's a living, breathing organism, a vital organ of the U.S. economy. The working class, upon whom our whole manufacturing base has always relied, and the labor unions who represent them--are, were, and continue to be the backbone, the very foundation of this country's greatness.

[PATina]

You make a very good point.

[MagisterLudi]

In American politics betraying promises made during the camping is politely called "moving to the center."
People with some analytical ability always knew Obama was a centrist Establishment candidate. People who believed Obama's campaign speeches had a case of "reality malfunction."
But in American politics liberals are considered the radical left wing.

[CaptainObvious]

Correction: In American politics, Liberals founded this country, while conservatives largely remained loyal to King George. Only in the mind of a dittohead could American Liberals be considered "radical".

[Overd0g]

Once again, "liberal" and "leftist" are confused. Modern "liberals" have no connection with the founders.

[Euranya]

Captain Obvious,
There's a difference between "Liberals" and "liberals," just like there's a difference between "Catholic" and "catholic." The latter liberals are the ones you seem to be referring to, the former the ones MagisterLudi seems to mean. Capitalization matters, folks!

[foodtube]

Obama left the Democratic party? Nobody told me!

[LaurieR]

As much as I, as a pretty left-wing person, would LOVE a nice left-wing agenda, I not only don't see it happening, but don't want to. I think we've all seen what an extreme partisan agenda does to the country, and it's just not good. It's divisive and leaves too many people out of the process. For 8 years people on the left and even in the center have been completely shut out of everything. I don't want to see that ever again, even if it IS to my own personal advantage. That's the difference between Democrats and Republicans, really. Our concern is for the common good. Theirs is "me, me and more for me."

I think Obama is going about things in exactly the right way, and is exactly what I expected from him.

[MagisterLudi]

"I would LOVE a nice left-wing agenda..... but I don't want to."

NICE!

[LaurieR]

Not sure if you're being sarcastic, since it's hard to tell from the way you chopped up what I said... but in a nutshell, I meant that the agenda I'd LIKE to see is not necessarily what's best for the country as a whole. Not because I think the policies wouldn't be best for the country (they would), but because the resultant divisiveness would not be best for the country. We've all been pitted against each other in a sort of political death match for 8 years due to the extreme partisan politics of the ruling party, and I'd rather give some ground than see that go on for another 4 or 8 years.

[Overd0g]

The center is the middle between fascism and communism. What we wind up with is a blend of both.

[MagisterLudi]

I disagree. In modern American politics the center is between ultra-conservatives and middle class liberals. While ultra right wing is well represented, left wing( socialists, communists) simply doesn't exist.

[Overd0g]

I don't think the ultra right is well represented. I see no major party or group advocating a military dictatorship.

[foodtube]

The center is between anarchy and... perhaps fascism.

[HumbleSage]

The best thing about this fine essay--which should be re-entitled--is the attempt to define the "Post-label Politics" Obama will institute. Problem is we all think with the old labels, and the formula of "left right and center" will distort what is happening. And "pragmatist" is no label at all, more like a methodology.

Obama is likely to make us invent new labels--Obamanomics is already out there--that will not emerge until we see what his administration actually does.

By the way, I do not forward essays like this to my "progressive" pals anymore as they are mightily pissed with Obama's crew picks. I've already lost a very long time friend because of his anger at me for suggesting that Obama is doing the right thing. Many "progressives," often arm chair ones, are straightjacketed by their own untested ideology. And of course Nader still claims there's nothing worth talking about when it comes to Obama and there's still not a dime's worth of difference between the two parties. Poor Nader, and Kristol and even Chomsky--events and the new man in town have past them by.

The real problem is that Obama has been handed a flaming bag of dog poop and told to turn it into gold. The old politics will surely fault him if it's not left right or center gold.

[MomfromTexas]

Great post! And I completely agree with this: "Obama is likely to make us invent new labels--Obamanomics is already out there--that will not emerge until we see what his administration actually does." Obama does not fit a label. In some ways, he's progressive, in some ways liberal, in some ways moderate, and in some ways conservative, and he always has been. I am fascinated by this anger coming from the progressives, with their stating that he was THEIR candidate, and he's letting them down. Oh, my! I'm a progressive, and I NEVER looked at him as a progressive candidate. I think he's fascinating, a master negotiator, and extraordinarily intelligent. I look towards the next four years with enthusiasm, but I don't expect for him to fulfill my progressive agenda because he's never said anything in the last two years that would make me think he would.

[JJK]

Provocative and well-written. I've always thought that the "Center" is a relative concept, shifting from a little to the left to a little to the right secularly.

If we go back to the beginning of the 20th Century, the Mainstream center was well to the right with nothing by way of safety nets and little by way of workers' rights. FDR moved the Center firmly to the left; a movement that came to full fruition only with the Warren Court and LBJ's Great Society three decades later. Reagan shifted the Center back to the right, reaching its fruition in the Scalito Court and the disasters of the last eight years. Now the Center is shifting again. Even six months ago the effective nationalization of major industries, by bipartisan consensus, and the virtually unchallenged creation of massive works programs would have been unthinkable.

My personal view was articulated by the late William Sloane Coffin in the title of his wonderful book, "The Heart is a Little to the Left."

The only place I disagree with you is that the November Election represented a "mandate...for progressive reform." That's not what the raw numbers or the exit polling suggest. It's off topic here, but I would be happy to debate that with you down to voter subgroups. The election is a mandate to fix the Economy through extraordinary measures and keep us out of ill-conceived wars that waste national treasure in human lives and economic capital.

[jbatch]

I know this is tangential to the main point of your article, but is there no end to the sheer stupidity of Bill-call-me-William Kristol?

Underfunded defense programs? Really?

Forget, for the moment that any economist will tell you that defense spending has the lowest multiplier (and therefore the least stimulus effect) of any public investment; forget that we spend more than the rest of the world combined on Defense-- much of it on irrelevant crap designed for the cold war that's ben oer for decades. What I'd like to know is just which Defense programs are underfunded?

As the New York Times follows the print media down the toilet and wonders what happened, I would offer Bill Kristol as exhibit A.

When you think your job is to present both "sides" rather than to report the truth; when you think balance is more important than accuracy; when you eschew context for a stenographic repetition of talking points -- in short, when you hire a guy like Bill Kristol, intelligent people stop reading.

Hiring Bill Kristol was the print media's jump the shark moment -- the point at which it all became too absurd to believe. And Bill Kristol's contention that we should fund "underfunded defense programs" AS AN ECONOMIC STIMULUS MEASURE, YET was his own personal jump-the-shark moment.

Absurdity piled on top of absurdity.

[Rog49Thomas]

What's an interesting and very important footnote to this whole debate.

Have you ever noticed that only certain folks are asked to shut up and take what's given to them?

When the common laborer asks for a raise, he's told he's being greedy. So shut up. The boss of course deserves a raise. He's never told to shut up.

When some big corporation wants a no-bid government contract, it's not told to shut up. Or told that this contradicts the free-market system we all imagine we live in.
However, when the little guy complains he can't "put food on his family", he's told to pull himself up by his bootstraps. If he's lucky, maybe someone lends him a pair.

When the progressive notices a dearth of progressives in the government and speaks up to ask formal representation in Washington, she is told not to be divisive. To have some trust. Of course, the other political tendencies - the right and the so-called center, never have to speak up cause they're always well represented in government. So Ms. Progressive just take your seat in the back of the bus and keep your mouth shut!

[MidnightRambler]

When sports stars and CEO's make millions a year we are told they are worth whatever they can get, it's an open market but unions and union employees are destroying the country with their greed. We are constantly fed a line of BS.

[Rog49Thomas]

And sadly "we" believe it.

[Overd0g]

True. And the union employees are worth whatever they can get. But if their companies go under, they aren't worth it anymore.

[PATina]

You hit the nail on the head.