As noted in my previous post, I’m apparently an “Obamabot.” I'm in good company. Some of the smartest people I know are “Obamabots.”
That title was bestowed upon people like us by a small number of high profile, supposedly progressive bloggers who have come to be known as “the professional left,” an incredibly accurate term coined by Robert Gibbs, President Obama's former press secretary. We were given the title because some on “the professional left" can't seem to understand what most progressives know; that diversity of opinion is actually a positive trait progressives possess. They feel that those of us who like Obama more than they must not be able to think for ourselves. Those who have labeled us as such also have quite the history of labeling anyone who doesn't agree with them as less than "real progressives."
I've said it before, and I’ll continue to say it, because it’s an important fact; we live in a democracy. And whether you like it or not, the only people who actually get to make decisions about policy in a democracy are those who get the most votes. To use the vernacular, they are “elected officials.” Oh, I know, some officials are appointed, but they are appointed by elected officials.
I know. I can’t believe I have to make this seemingly elementary point, but apparently I do, because some on "the professional left" can't seem to grasp the concept. You can have all of the "correct progressive positions" about human rights and corporate power and all of that, but if you’re not doing what you can to influence the electoral process, it’s all in vain. Once in a while, that means electing the right people to office, but sometimes it means unelecting the wrong people. Both are important.
Marches and protests didn’t give women the right to vote; legislation did. Blacks didn’t get equal rights (on paper) because of marches and protests; they got it through the Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act and affirmative action statutes. Title IX was a law, not the name of a branch of the SDS. Medicare wasn't created by a voice vote by "we, the people." The Vietnam War didn't end because of marches and protests; it ended because the American people tossed out the elected officials who started that mess, and elected new officials with the courage to end it.
It works the other way, too. If the wrong people get elected, we lose things we fought hard for. I’m sure you’ve noticed that workers' and union rights have been severely weakened, and the right to vote has been under attack for years. I hope you’ve noticed that we’re probably about 1-2 steps away from severe limits on reproductive rights for women. And I know most of you have noticed that we finally got the beginnings of a universal health care system, but that it was far weaker than it had to be. Well, that's because of a bloc of 40-41 Republican Senators who were using procedural rules that they created when they were in the majority to stop any and all legislation that might have helped people.
Yet, "the professional left" spent TWO YEARS trashing DEMOCRATS, calling them "spineless." The Democratic House passed hundreds of bills (here's a sample of some of them) that progressives would have loved, but 40-41 Republicans blocked them. The solution was fewer Republicans, yet "the professional left" spent all of 2010 trashing Democrats.
Doesn't anyone wonder why they would do that?
One thing you should know; though they THINK they’re the ultimate progressives, the loudest and most obnoxious of “the professional left” are not representative of most liberals at all. Many of the most influential blogs in the “liberal blogosphere” are all run by relatively weathy white people. Among the most prominent (and those who tend to be the most dogmatic) include;
- a Manhattan litigation lawyer for a high-powered firm and former right winger who at some point had a “change of heart”;
- a wealthy socialite who was once married to a gay man and a far right Republican, who at some point had a “change of heart”;
- a movie producer and author who made millions producing and writing extremely sensational music, movies and books before turning the same talents to writing about politics, out of boredom;
- a lawyer and former acolyte of a notoriously right wing Congressperson who at some point had a “change of heart”.
I'm not using names, because it's not pertinent and it's not personal. There's nothing wrong with being a lawyer, movie producer or author; some of my best friends are lawyers, I know a couple of film producers and I am an (admittedly starving) author. Although I refuse to write gossipy, sensationalist crap about real people, that’s my personal choice; I don't pass judgment on that. I also don’t have a problem with changes of heart; some of the best people I know started out on the dark side and saw the light later. Hell; I love Media Matters for America, and that was started by a former right winger.
But doesn’t it seem strange that so many of the most prominent and loudest voices within "the professional left" used to be right wingers? I'm not talking about just leaning a bit to the right, mind you; these folks were right wingers. You don't work for the guy who wrote the strongest anti-choice legislation of the last 40 years if you're just a little conservative.
So, here's the question; when such bloggers above promote ideas and memes that actually undermine the progressive cause on a fairly regular basis, why shouldn't more of us take exception. And given the frequency with which many of them take a position and claim anyone who doesn’t think the same way is not a “good progressive,” why shouldn't more of us be pissed. I have been happily progressive since I was in sixth grade; who the hell are these former right wingers to tell ME I’m “not progressive enough"?
Basically, In other words, they are bringing a right wing style of politics to the left, and it’s killing the progressive cause. Let the idiots on the far right decide who's a RINO. The Democratic Party is and always has been a big tent, and so has progressive politics, and I'll be damned if former right wingers are going to come in and tell others we're not good enough. I'm okay with them coming in; all are welcome. But they don't get to play their "Social Darwinist" game and disenfranchise the rest of us.
This is my first big problem with these people. Look closely at my blog and Twitter feed, I NEVER attack anyone on their core beliefs. My criticisms of some of the left has to do with strategy. Yet, whenever I criticize any of these people, or their faithful followers, I’m accused of being a “centrist” (used as a pejorative, no less), or a "bad progressive." I’ve had more than a few followers of my Twitter feed drop me because I wouldn’t kiss the asses of their favorite bloggers.
Where does their authority come from? As progressives, we advocate for the poor, the sick, the children and all of those who have been treated badly by our society. We count among our numbers black and brown people, single mothers, the working class, unions, welfare recipients, the poor. those without health insurance and many others. Where do wealthy white former right wingers get off telling the people in those categories they’re not “real progressives” because they don’t conform to their idea of what every progressive should believe?
I’m relatively poor, I’ve been a single parent, I’ve not had health insurance for long periods, I have been screwed out of health care because of a pre-existing condition. When I was advocating HARD for the Affordable Care Act (ask anyone, I worked my ass off to get that passed), I was often derided by "the professional left" because I stated, more than once, that I didn't think "the public option" should kill the entire bill, and they thought is was absolutely essential." I PROVED that it wasn't essential, and I actually demonstrated that, once the whole thing is in place, private insurance companies themselves would (will) probably demand a public option, because they won't be able to handle the risk. I was called all sorts of names by some of these folks, because they had gotten it into their heads that the phrase "public option," though meaningless, was the only way the ACA would work.
Think about that a minute. These so-called progressives, including former right wingers, were advocating to deny 30 million people access to health insurance, because of something that didn't even have an actual definition. Seriously; Google "robust public option" and count the number of different definitions you get.
I’ve been a progressive since I was a baby, I've worked for progressive candidates since I was 14, and my views have NEVER changed. Yet, these wealthy former right wingers are telling ME I’m not “progressive enough” or that I’m a “centrist” because I don’t advocate letting 30 million people be at greater risk, so that they can get their pet idea put into legislation? Is that how we make progress? By blackmailing people until we get our way? I've never thought so. Persuasion works better than blackmail.
Very few of these folks are more qualified than I am to speak on politics. One difference between us is, I try to stick to facts and my overall goal is to see Democrats win elections. I openly challenge my readers check my facts; I welcome corrections, as long as the correction is based on fact. Yes, I can be combative at times, but look closely; I only unleash it when they state something fictional as if it was fact and continue to do so, even after they’re told it’s untrue. My combative tendencies are calculated; designed to make bystanders go look up the facts for themselves. I don't just do it to be pissy.
I’m confident that the posts I place on this blog are factual, because I don’t simply react to anything; I read something at least twice, I make note of the alleged “facts” that seem a little ripe, and I correct the record when I find some to be false. An example is my list of President Obama’s accomplishments. I could have gone “the professional left” route and just listed them, but I made myself cite every single one. There were actually about 20-30 that I couldn’t corroborate, so I left them off my list.
On the other hand, “the professional left” tend to act like right wingers. They simply react to something that happens (usually something small), offer up a pointed opinion about it, and demand that everyone who read their incredible wisdom simply accept it as gospel, because they said it. That wouldn’t bother me so much if most of the assertions they make weren’t completely out of proportion to reality. Everything about what they write seems to be designed to piss people off. Again, they're applying the right wing mentality to left wing politics, and it’s killing us.
For some reason, this small, loud cadre of progressives has decided that the best way to make liberalism successful is to “fight” the way the right wing does. As a lifelong progressive, I can assure you, it doesn’t work. If you doubt me, look at the 32 years since progressives abandoned Carter and allowed Ronald Reagan to win. Attacking others is not an effective political strategy for rational people. The current “base” of the Democratic Party isn’t rational; why would you adopt their rhetorical style?
Here’s a stone cold fact; when it comes to positions on issues, progressives are right, the far right is wrong. Period, end of story.
Unfortunately, that’s not what “the professional left” seems to care about. To them, the debate is always about ideological purity, as if there is such a thing. And it’s a definition of “ideological purity” that they themselves have defined. Again, who are these people to tell us what everyone else should or should not believe?
An example of just how silly they can be comes with their absolute glee and giddiness in the wake of the 2010 election. How could anyone be happy at those election results? They were a disaster. It's because so many “Blue Dog Democrats” lost. You see, to many on “the professional left,” Blue Dogs are simply impure, because they sometimes vote with Republicans and because they sometimes disagree with the definition of “progressive” they have decided is the “right one.” (I'm working on a really wonky post for later this year that will PROVE that Blue Dogs aren't that bad. Stay tuned.)
With the country being run into the ground by right wingers for almost 32 years, one would think getting rid of them would be a pretty high priority. After all, if the ship is sinking, do you bail water first or do you patch the hole? Crazy me, I’m patching the hole first, then bailing. So, why would anyone think themselves smart politically for spending most of 2010 trashing Obama and the Democrats for not being “good enough” at a time when Democrats were passing hundreds of bills that 40-41 Republicans were successfully blocking, using procedural tactics?
The seeming political naiveté on the part of “the professional left” is both mind boggling and mind-numbing. They seem to have no clue how the average voter thinks, yet they demand that we accept their expertise on the subject. And I wonder how many of them could live up to the standards they hold President Obama to if they were running the country. For example, he’s constantly derided by “the professional left” for not closing Gitmo. (Bill Maher actually said Obama “lied” about it the other night on his show, and it made me livid). He signed an executive order, and he pushed Congress hard on it for over a year. Then, Congress passed a law that made it impossible to move the prisoners out of the prison and bring them into US Courts to try them. What's he supposed to do? “The professional left” is always quick to blame Obama, but they never say what they would do if they were in his shoes.
I suppose they think he should continue to “fight,” according to their definition of the word. Unfortunately, he'd be fighting against an immovable object in the current Republican Party. “Fight” with them hard enough, and all you do is strengthen their resolve, which means you get no laws through. Plus if you “fight” for a number of high profile issues and lose, you get branded a “loser,” and nothing will ever get through, and we could end up with a President Romney. Legislative success isn’t just about fighting; it’s about getting laws passed, and that means picking and choosing your battles.
Besides, it’s OUR job to fight for issues, not the president’s. The president represents the entire country, not just “the professional left”. Besides, if “the professional left” knew anything about the vast majority of voters, they would know they HATE “fighting.” They want to elect people to solve the country’s problems. Yes, they want someone with principles, in the abstract, but they don’t sit there and examine every single act this person does and judge them on it. They want to vote FOR someone. That's why the negativity coming from the left is so valuable to the right. They WANT us to spend all our time calling Glenn Beck a dick and obsessing over Fox News, because it pisses the average voter off and keeps them away from the polls. Thanks, geniuses.
True progressives have a wide variety of opinions on a wide variety of issues, and the overall goal has to be to make “progress.” After all, it’s in our name. We’ve allowed “the professional left” to hog the spotlight and pretend to speak for us for far too long, and we’ve had 32 years of neocon government as a result. “The professional left” is the reason we had to deal with a President Reagan (Carter wasn’t “progressive enough.” They’re the reason Dukakis lost in 1988. They’re the reason Bush v Gore was close enough for Bush and the Supreme Court to steal (blame NaderI) and the reason Kerry couldn’t get over the hump in 2004. “The professional left” is overwhelmingly negative; they are quick to label who is a “good progressive” and who’s not; and they have a tendency to deride people in the political center, who just happen to make up about 70% or more of the electorate. In a democracy. Given that the Republican Party’s main strategy is to piss people off and depress turnout, I hope you can see how such negativity and feigned superiority plays into that.
Some of you are probably sick of reading this from me, but it’s really simple; when turnout is high, Democrats win, and when turnout is low, right wing Republicans win. I want you to look at a chart I found last week. Check out the overall turnout figures in the 1960s and 1970s when Democrats were dominant, and there were such entities as "liberal Republicans." Now compare them to figures in recent years. The 2008 election that swept Barack Obama into office featured the highest turnout in any presidential election year since 1968, because progressives were largely positive and hopeful. The prospect of electing a black president caused even “the professional left” to set aside their usual whining, and the result was magic.
But as soon as the election was over, the negative crap started again, and the 2010 election turnout was back down to where it has been for the last 30 years.
I don’t have a personal problem with “the professional left.” But I do have a political problem with them, because they have no concept of how to win elections. And if progressives can’t see the value in winning elections (“making progress”), how progressive are they, really?
