fbpx
Politics Foreign Affairs Culture Fellows Program

Pragmatists And Progressives

Netroots progressives are understandably frustrated by the general lack of progressives appointed to the Cabinet and other positions, the minimal punishment of Lieberman and the various Democratic capitulations to the Bush administration over the last two years on policy. In a TAC article in June of ’07, when talk of the death of neoliberalism was […]

Netroots progressives are understandably frustrated by the general lack of progressives appointed to the Cabinet and other positions, the minimal punishment of Lieberman and the various Democratic capitulations to the Bush administration over the last two years on policy.

In a TAC article in June of ’07, when talk of the death of neoliberalism was in the air, I argued that this was likely how things would turn out:

Progressives should thus be extremely wary of their new burst of popularity within the Democratic Party since it is very likely that their brief empowerment will only serve as the means of electing a Democratic president in ’08 or ’12 who will once again marginalize, undermine, and betray their agenda—every bit as much as George W. Bush has done to the conservative agenda. If they are anything like some conservatives today, progressives will thank and love the president that
does this to them.

However, that last line may not hold up so well over time. For one thing, progressive activists do not seem to be deferring to party leaders nearly as much. We are already seeing much stronger and relatively more widespread criticism of Democrats in Congress and the incoming administration just a few weeks after the election than we saw from the right at a comparable point after the 2000 result was resolved. This may partly be a function of the closely-contested and controversial nature of Bush’s first election, which solidified the right behind him and gave to their support of him a greater intensity. While most conservatives came to identify more and more with Bush over the course of the 2000 election, capped off by the recount controversy, which also served to link conservatives and the relatively more moderate Bush in the minds of the public, Obama has had a strange one-way relationship with a lot of progressive activists. Conciliatory where they were combative, and running slightly to the right of Clinton, Edwards, et al., Obama annoyed many of them. He imitated their online and grassroots mobilization, but did not rely on them. Many of them grudgingly came around to supporting him, and his early summer flips and “refinements” created more causes for dissatisfaction. During the rest of the general election, these strains faded into the background, but they are now quickly re-emerging. The size of Obama’s victory has probably made the netroots more willing to criticize party leaders early on, just as it has made it easier for party leaders to ignore them.

Ironically, Democrats were in this respect too successful at the polls. As far as Lieberman’s mild punishment goes, it seems as if he would have lost more than his subcommittee chairmanship had the presidential election been closer and had the Democrats not picked up so many seats in the Senate. Lieberman’s boosting for McCain received a weak punishment because it clearly made no difference in the final outcome. Disloyal and ineffective–I believe that is the unofficial Lieberman motto. I imagine this is not an original observation, but it seems that as the Democrats have come closer to a filibuster-proof majority the more likely they were to let Lieberman off the hook. So they have gone from relying on Lieberman for their majority to depending on him for what might be (depending on the Minnesota recount and Georgia run-off outcomes) their 60th vote.

While it may be tempting for so-called “centrists” to make the argument, it is probably wrong to conclude from the last two years that the netroots and progressives in general are politically weak. The “broken glass” mentality (i.e., progressives would crawl across broken glass if necessary to defeat the GOP in the presidential election) had a lot to do with keeping a real rebellion from breaking out over any of the things Sirota cites as betrayals. In terms of the level of engagement and the size of the audience, taken as a whole the netroots reaches a significant portion of the Democratic Party’s most active supporters. Journalists and pundits may have the luxury of writing off these people and ignoring their concerns, but the Democratic leadership and Obama do not. The politicians nonetheless seem to be exhausting progressives’ patience far more rapidly than even George W. Bush did with conservatives. It is common for party leaders to take reliable supporters for granted, but usually not so early on and not so comprehensively as Democratic leaders seem to be doing now.

Update: Sirota comments on the NYT article linked above:

Please, don’t try to claim that because the Democratic Party is supposedly “the left,” that means its “center-right” is actually the “center” of American public opinion. Votes on Iraq, the bailout, FISA, deregulation, free trade, etc. etc. have shown us that the “center-right” of the Democratic Party is at least the “center-right” of America – if not the full-on right.

In terms of the New York Times story, at least we know the undeniable (if unsurprising) reality now, and can strategize around it and use the far more progressive election mandate as momentum – rather than simply pretending to live in an alternate reality.

Second Update: Chris Bowers and Chris Hayes are both frustrated as well.

Advertisement

Comments

The American Conservative Memberships
Become a Member today for a growing stake in the conservative movement.
Join here!
Join here