A fifth major lesson of 2009: center-left disagreement is essential to center-left governance

[babylonsister]

http://www.openleft.com/diary/16800/a-fifth-major-lesson-of-2009-centerleft-disagreement-is-essential-to-centerleft-governance

A fifth major lesson of 2009: center-left disagreement is essential to center-left governance
by: Chris Bowers
Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 16:24


The co-directors of the Campaign for America's Future have four great lessons for progressives to learn from the frustrations of 2009. Here are the lessons summarized in the form of bullet points:

1. Change is brutal, and will always be resisted by powerful entrenched forces.

2. No matter how popular a reform idea is, like the public option, it still faces the buzzsaw of the United States Senate.

3. Progressives cannot wash their hands of the political process. We have to organize more, independent of the political parties.

4. This is still the best opportunity in 30 years for progressive reform.

I agree with all these lessons. Watch the following video for more on each of them (at link)~

I would add a fifth major lesson: stop expecting, or even hoping, for the center-left coalition to agree with itself. The longstanding internal argument within the center-left coalition over whether the change on the table goes far enough or not is an essential part of the process to any progressive change happening at all. Without that disagreement, progressive governance of any sort would be impossible:

* Without people on the left arguing that the coalition isn't going far enough in terms of candidate selection or legislative policy, then there would be no way to push candidates or legislative policy to the left. In order to continually make progressive ideas mainstream, you have to push the Overton window. In order to make legislative policy under a Democratic administration more left-wing, you need people demanding that it become more left-wing. If there is no left-wing criticism, of the actions of the center-left coalition, which in this country means the Democratic Party, then the conveyer belt of promoting left-wing ideas into the mainstream-much less into actual legislation, stops dead.

* At the same time, if there is no one in the center-left coalition willing to accept more incremental progressive change, then progressive change is never going to happen at all. The federal government is simply never going to be as, much less more, left-wing than the country as a whole (much less the actual left-wing). Even in a representative democracy, the power and resources of status-quo and regressive institutions will always provide them with government disproportionate control of government at all levels. This power and resource imbalance will always render governance relatively regressive compared to the country as a whole.

What this means for progressive governance is that we need people willing to accept, or even favor, partial, slow, incremental change. Even extremely partial, extremely slow, and extremely incremental change. Without that, no change will ever happen at all.

All of this makes ongoing, prominent, the center-left disagreement absolutely necessary to making progressive change happen within government.

Center-left unity would actually end any prospect for change, both in the short-term and the long-term, rather than increase it. This is a basic principle for progressive governance that more people should learn, no matter which side of the center-left divide they fall on at any given time. It is interesting that former President Bill Clinton has long been one of the biggest proponents of understanding the need for center-left disagreement, and perhaps explains quite a bit about his political career.

[MNDemNY]

1. Where is the "center-left" governance???

Certainly not this right of center administration!What a joke.:+ :+ Two dead clowns for that drivel.:rofl: :rofl:

[msongs]

2. with conservative dems in charge of congress and the white house....you may have a point lol nt

[ShortnFiery]

3. Yes, that's a HOOT! eom

[burning rain]

11. Good point.

Most of our Washington Democratic officeholders would be neither wanted nor welcome in European political parties like Germany's Christian-Democrats, France's Gaullists (RPR + UDF), or even the UK's Tories--they would be too far to the right on economic issues to be credible.

[SteveM]

4. Thanks for posting. The "Left" should look at a success story: the GOP...

My only significant disagreement with the 4 points is the third. Not because we should wash our hands, not because we should not organize outside of the parties, but that we should see what happened with the Republicans. They cleaned house of even its moderate wing and went cold-steel hard with their ideologies and brevity; the closest think lefties ever did in this regard was with the "take-over" of the McGovernites in the early 70s. Since then, the Democratic Party has worked steadily to wean itself away from leftist influence and even let the clock run on standard-issue liberals. We now have a party bereft of ideology, policy and clarity. If the Left is to have any influence within the Democratic Party, it should elect a core of candidates (up to the national level) so it has something to show at the table. You don't need a majority, but you need "enough gun," as Robert Ruark would say.

Our modern "Left" does not engage. It has been out of influence since the 70s and doesn't know how. But it sure knows how to dance with push-button culture war issues.

[ShortnFiery]

6. The "left" can not ever fully win because we're not motivated by the mean green or greed.

Both Political Parties are now SHAMELESSLY INFLUENCED by money and power.

Our system is BROKE and it's not the fault of "the left" but one of CORRUPTION within both political parties.

THE LEFT primarily stands-up for supporting those who are NOT powerful and/or are disenfranchised from society's MAINSTREAM.

I'm proud to be a member of "The Left" first and foremost before any corrupt Political Party.

[Armstead]

8. The "left" IS engaged at all levels -- And what is "the left" anyways?

The problem is not that "the left" is ineffectual. It is that they have to spend so much time trying to get taken seriously by the party that is supposed to represent them that the energy has to be too divided.

The biggest point against your claim IS THE FACT THAT OBAMA IS PRESIDENT.

Why is he president? Because in the general election his campaign had the support of "the left" of all degrees. Liberals and progressives helped Obama with resources and other support that helped him win. And there was not an independent challenge like Nader 2000.

One can say with the wisdom of hindsight that maybe progressives misinterpreted Obama. But that's beside the point. he presented himself as a champion of the same basic values and goals of progressives, even if he was more moderate than some would prefer.

I could cite a lot of other examples of how "the left" has been successfully engaged over the years.

[SteveM]

9. Thanks for your response, and I agree with your main contention...

"...that they have to spend so much time trying to get taken seriously by the party that is supposed to represent them..."

They do indeed have to spend a lot of time, because the Democratic Party is hostile to what they consider the left; the DNC wants their votes, but not much else.

While there is significant truth to your statement "The biggest point against your claim IS THE FACT THAT OBAMA IS PRESIDENT," Obama won with a lot of support from indies and (previous) non-voters who were sick-as-the-flu with Bush and the GOP. My contention is that the left has so little influence that the DNC can ignore/disparage them (after the election, of course) at will. They just wouldn't do that if there wasn't the implicit understanding that (1), they have little recourse but to go along with us, and (2), we cannot allow the public to see (or the corporations to become uneasy because) we have these folks in our midst. In the jargon-jive of the current crop of pragmatists, condemning the "left" is a "win-win" situation.

I have no problem with hindsight; Obama was my 3rd choice among the Democratic candidates (No, Hillary was not in the "Top 2"). I was not particularly shocked when Obama withered in the face of chrome-steel opposition of the GOP (I was not shocked by that, either). (I must speculate here. I think the GOP also realizes that Obama isn't really a leftist, but a product of Democratic Party fall-out since the McGovernite debacle of the early 70s; iow, he has no sharply defined base and is therefore open to a wide range of attack. The GOP's aim is to go 24-7-52 after whatever the Democratic Party is and render them too weak to govern.)

We can all cite "examples of how 'the left' has been successfully engaged over the years," but the question is: In the face of a grim future for the U.S., what can the left do to increase its waning power and be a player against the Far-Right. My contention is continuing local action, and establishing a meaningful power base within the Democratic Party (at least strong enough not be be casually cut-down by Party leaders), or establishing another party. Ideology and policy? Economic justice, civil rights, fiscal responsibility, non-military international policy.)

Thanks for engaging.

[Armstead]

12. Here's something I posted that relates to this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x111802

That is something I wrote back in 06.

It relates to the point here. In my opinion, the issue of corporate power and siphoning of power and wealth upward is a core issue that is progressive, left, whatever that is also something that could resonate with many moderate independents and even many conservatives. It is very mainstream to believe that policies should benefit the majority, and it is is the tradition of America to believe that power should not be limited to the fat cats.

If the majority of the Democratic Party would push a message and agenda that is progressive and populist in terms of the issues of Wealth And Power,I believe it would also make the party more potent politically.

The Democratic Big Tent means there will always be divisions and corruption. But there are enough Democrats who want to see real reform that they could push the Cat Herd in that direction. But that isn't going to happen as long as real liberal/progressive reform is marginalized as "the left" and dismissed by good Democrats who support the same basic goals.

Just my opinion, of course.

[SteveM]

13. Good statement. I find it hard to imagine why some would imply...

this outlook as a negative one, yet they do by pinning the word "left" to it. When the Democratic Party gives up its role as check to corporate power, it leaves only culture-war issues to fight over. While some of these are valid and important, they usually derive from economic dislocation and consequent weak political power. The problem comes when the Democratic Party, having accepted the support of various interest groups, must then answer for them time and again in public debate, a debate which is usually framed best by the GOP. If the Party centered its purpose on economic fairness and "promotion of the general welfare," then many of the "special interests" which make up the Party will find it easier to pass legislation favorable to them; sloppy, but effective.

I sympathize with your puzzlement as to what constitutes the "left." Hell, even LBJ would be termed "left" by not only the GOP, but MSM pundits and many Democrats. Sheesh.

[Armstead]

5. That's all fine and good -- But moderate" is different than "centrist"

Ya know, it would be one thing if the debates were simply differences over the extent of proposed policies and legislation and overall direction.

But there are a couple of problems.

1)Anytime people on "the left" (whatever the hell that is) actually try to participate and inject alternatives into the process, the "centrists" (whatever the hell they are) get all defensive and go on offense against them. The crap surrounding the healthcare debate is a classic example. Not very conducive to building consensus and compromise.

2)Moderate liberal Democrats do share the basic goals of those who further to the left. We'll all rowing in gthe same direction, and the only real differences are over how fast and far we should go....But the so-called "centrists" DLC types are rowing in a different direction. They are trying to push basically conservative corporatist policies and positions on issues of wealth and power. Unlike moderates, the DLC-style centrists are causeing the boat to go in circles and/or move backward.

[ShortnFiery]

7. Any action suggested that doesn't funnel money primarily to the Upper 1% is considered "Left." eom

[SteveM]

10. Precisely. One can be "centrist" and still be extremist...

It's not a play on words, but centrism is merely another place of the political spectrum with no more or less moral value than any other place on the spectrum.

You are right about this as well: "...all rowing in the same direction, and the only real differences are over how fast and far we should go... But the so-called "centrists" DLC types are rowing in a different direction.

Aside: The DLC guys run the party and have given us that wonderful issue of "gun-control" and somehow converted it to mean "liberal."
A study should be made to determine just how "liberal" this issue is. It's DNC, it's crap, Jim Crow moved North.