Will Obama's Presidency End the Progressive Movement?

The progressive movement has had it easy. There's been a lot to mobilize for and unite against. Now what?

History doesn't offer much comfort. The conservative movement grew most when it was exile from the Republican Party. National Review was born under moderate Eisenhower. The grassroots conservative movement flourished in opposition to Rockefeller's presidential candidacy. The New Right arose to build an alternative to big-government Nixon. The early 1990s revival lead by Norquist, Reed and Gingrich was to oppose the tax-raising George H. W. Bush. At the same time, the conservative movement atrophied under the conservative presidents, Reagan and W., who governed the party in their name.

The progressive movement, in its short history, has followed a similar course. Progressive billionaires, bloggers and grassroots activists mobilized less against a conservative president than a complicit mainstream media and a Bush-enabling Democratic establishment. Their primary goal was not to defeat Republicans in 2004 but to nominate a choice, not an echo, who would come from the Democratic wing of the Democratic party. Progressive organizations were alternatives not just to the Heritage Foundation or the Americans for Tax Reform, but the Democratic Leadership Council and the Progressive Policy Institute. They were a people without a party.

Now, progressives are presented with a paradox from history. The more Obama embraces a progressive agenda the more the progressive movement will deflate. The more Obama moves into the territory of triangulation the more progressives will be inclined to build and mobilize.

Yet, politics is not simply a function of past occurrences, as today's inauguration testifies. History offers us an insight into probability but does not dictate necessity. It illuminates the difficulties that grassroots movements face when their leaders take office. As I have argued before, the progressive movement and the Left generally is inherently more unstable, less unified and more disorganized than their conservative counterparts.

Progressives have to work harder. To retain the advances made we must maintain fierce independence of the new Democratic establishment, the Obama presidency and mainstream media. Any capitulation to these institutions will wind back the incredible progress progressives have made in the past six years. If progressives lapse into the false security that conservatives under conservative administrations have done, they risk returning to the political exile from which they have returned.

Comments

[texanna]

I think the Progressive Movement is going to continue, because Pres. Obama is not naturally the progressive that the Progressive Movement would like for him to be. Even Pres. Obama recognizes that We the People are going to have to stay involved in order for any of the change and hope that we voted for to be realized.

[tjfxh]

Anyone who thinks that President Obama will govern as a progressive is sadly mistaken. In fact, he has never ever been a "progressive." Progressives will have their hands full keeping Democratic feet to the fire.

For example, President Obama is waffling on the all-important constitutional issue of investigating and prosecuting war crimes, as well as reversing the doctrine of the unitary executive that gives the president dictatorial powers even during times of undeclared war or national emergency. This issue is decisive in whether the US will have a constitutional government or a de facto dictatorship.

Progressive need to keep up the pressure to put principle before policy.

[PATina]

I believe (and hope I'm right)... that the Progressive Movement is bigger than one person. I overheard a conversation on Monday at a food/clothing drive. A woman was arguing that it was great that Obama was governing from the center since most of America was in the middle when a man interjected that the people in the middle only get involved in politics during an election year. He summarized that those whose normal lives involved politics... live on the left or the right. That those in the so called middle... will go back to their lives as usual (which didn't include involvement in politics).

I tend to agree. While Obama may have spurred a lot of people to get involved, many will do so only for the moment. Those who decide to stay involved will more than likely choose a place they are most comfortable... either the left or the right. Hopefully, if they get involved in "people" projects (i.e. food banks, homeless shelters)... they will find themselves more comfortable on the left... and the Progressive Movement will become stronger.

[erik1]

II hope so

[ouroborous]

I don't really care about the "progressive movement."

What I care about are progressive *goals*: an end to wars of aggression. An adherence to the rule of law (and yes, that includes prosecuting people for past lawbreaking). A redirecting of wealth and influence from the rich to the poor and the middle class.

If these goals are met, I could care less what happens to the "progressive movement." I'm interested in RESULTS, not movements.

[RoloTomassi]

Without "movements" the political will required to get RESULTS would never materialize.

Just a minor point you might want to consider....

[ernliz]

Very well written. If there's one thing we'd all like to see from the new administration it's that politics should be open, inclusive, and not as partisan as in the past. I believe Obama can do this. That will truly be "progressive."

[Peter007]

Rupert makes a good point.
I actually think that the conservative wing of the Republican party disintegrated under Bush. Bush proclaimed he was carrying the torch for conservatives but many conservatives were dumbfounded by his actions. He single handedly set back the conservative movement 20 years.
Merely calling yourself a conservative or liberal doesn't necessary make it so.

[SonofLiberty1]

Probably you are right.

We have a president now, one that really wants to help us all and like all president's must govern
from the center where most of us are anyway.

Trying new things until we find those that work, is progressive just like FDR.
Putting us on the path to rebuilding America, it's roads bridges and infrastructure and it's industrial capacity is progressive.

Letting some Americans, have their own way and defining themselves as a class where none really exists gives others the capacity to hate where none should be. That is not progressive.

[ouroborous]

One problem: where, exactly, is "the center?"

Stay in Iraq for "a hundred years?" Pull out today? Something in between? Prosecute Bush 43 war crimes to the fullest extent of the law? Let them off the hook? Something in between (say, a "truth and reconciliation commission")?

The problem with the trite canard of "governing from the center" is that every pundit and politician seems to think that HIS views represent "the center."

Why don't we do something crazy -- ask the American public what they want instead of governing based on platitudes?

[ImmanuelGoldstein]

I couldn't agree more, Ive become sick and tired of the meaningless 'governing from the center' cliche.

The 'center' doesnt exist in and of itself. The 'center' is created by the right and the left convincing people of the worth of particular ideas or ideologies. When they are successful, whatever the ideas are they move to the 'center'.