Progressive, like Bernie, or Progressive, like wiped with a cloth?
As we know, Bernie, Barack and Hillary, and many other neoliberals identify their policies as "progressive." That makes "progressive" one of many words liberals must not say. However, this essay violates that rule. 
A recent article prompted me to post an essay cautioning against supporting new groups and candidates before researching their back story, funding, motives, honesty, competence, and the like. While that may seem self-evident, some of us are so eager for something different that we may jump on a bandwagon too hastily, as I have, more than once.
From another perspective, Democrats seem all too eager to appeal to progressives, but without changing much of anything legislatively. For that reason, I don't put past them creating their own "independent" "progressive" organizations and/or candidates, but also without actually changing much of anything. (Oh, look, a squirrel!) Additionally, a couple of comments in the article gave me pause. This was one of them:
The Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee (DLCC) "is excited to see a renewed focus on down-ballot races from Democrats and progressives ... this focus and energy is finding form in groups newly active in the state legislative space," said Jessica Post of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee. "DLCC is pleased to welcome these groups as new weapons in our arsenal ... in our fight to flip state legislatures and build Democratic power in states."
Hmmm. That quotation from a Democratic Party says only that the DLCC is happy to have help in flipping seats to Democrats. (Duh?) Second, Ms. Ms. Post's CV is long and instructive and tells us that she works for the DLCC and private clients. An example of her past accomplishments is organizing beer companies to fight a state tax on beer. (Hmmm. Is the potential conflict of interest in being a Democratic Party operative and working for private clients a bug or a feature for the Democratic Party? Oh well, that's a different essay.) Anyway...why would a Democratic Party operative even pretend to welcome groups that might put up candidates who compete with those the Democratic Party might be supporting? So, are we now using "progressive candidate" as a synonym for "Democratic candidate?" Because according to bloomberg.com, the Democratic Party will be running more Blue Dogs, at least for the House.
The article notes that, while a number of candidates endorsed by Bernie and/or Our Revolution have won elections, more of them lost. What the article does not note is that some of the winning candidates whom Our Revolution endorsed were incumbent Democrats, like Jean Shaheen, who had endorsed Hillary in the primary. (An email asking me for money to help re-elect Shaheen unintentionally convinced me that "Our" Revolution is not for me. YMVV.)
The article devotes several enthusiastic paragraphs to election of a candidate who ran as both a Democrat and the Vermont Progressive Party, which the article describes as a rare successful "third" party (while omitting the word "Vermont"). (With well over 200 state parties, are all of them "third?") The election he won? A seat in liberal Vermont. On the city council. In the city where Bernie and Jane Sanders live.
I am not scoffing at the candidate or the Vermont Progressive Party, even a little--this is how you build parties, in tandem with running people for more widely-publicized offices. But, if a candidate endorsed by Bernie and Our Revolution lost that particular election, Our Revolution should have packed it in the second the ballots were counted, no? On the bright side, the candidate did win and we got a link to tips about running progressives in your state. Now, back to another excerpt that gave me pause:
Indeed, while Our Revolution has had 16 wins in 2017 elections, it has also had 29 losses. Is this reason for despair? Not according to organizers, who note that one of the key strategies of this tactic is running progressives in red states and other places where these candidates have not succeeded in the past. Even in losing, organizers argue, the campaigns lay the groundwork for future engagement among voters and keep progressives from feeling alienated..
Which progressives even ran in red states in the past? Of course but, Democrats haven't succeeded in red states, either. (A rare exception is that Obama carried Indiana, where one of his mother's ancestors had history, but only in the perfect storm of 2008.) Inasmuch as I don't know whom anyone considers a "progressive," I don't know whether or not losing would be a reason for despair.
All I really want is to understand that quotation correctly. The strategy is not so much unseating incumbent Third Way Dems wherever possible? It is running progressives against Republicans in red locales where the Democratic Party may not even have run anyone lately? Is that right? But, an upside of progressive candidates losing races in red locales supposedly is keeping progressives from feeling alienated? Really? Why would losing repeatedly keep anyone from feeling alienated? And alienated from what? From the Democratic Party? If so, I really need not donate because having progressives, at long last, become alienated from the Democratic Party is just fine with me! In fact, I'll be keeping a light on for them.
But...Hmm. Doesn't running "progressives," however someone defines them, who lose elections only feed the narrative the Democratic Party has been promoting since at least 1972? That the Party simply cannot run liberals, even if the base votes for them in a primary, because liberals are simply not electible? The very reason the Democratic Party brazenly mislabeled Mondale "liberal" and even more brazenly invented the decidedly undemocratic concept of super delegates who can override Presidential primary results absent a huge margin? (IMO, they'd far prefer rigging primaries to going on record as having overridden them, but that, too, may be another essay.)
So, while the Democratic Party plans to run more Blue Dogs for the U.S. House, progressives are supposed to take heart from the fact progressives sponsored by new organizations are losing in red districts? Assuming the progressives can even win the primary, if any? And, will progressives be running only for the very most down ticket seats, like city council. (They have to start somewhere, but I'm confused about exactly what the new organizations have in mind and how much they will be competing with Democratic Party center right candidates, if at all.) All of the above, I think, (a) underscores my recent essay urging caution and (b) brings back to my mind Jon Ossoff's loss in Georgia's red Sixth District, which deserves its own essay. (So, I'll post one in a day or two.)
Meanwhile, just for fun, Devil or Angel by the Clovers: Rock and roll music, a backbeat, you can't lose it--recorded perfectly from start to finish without stopping, and no autotune or mixing. And a few others that seemed relevant.
[video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3NgHVcnjVg]
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThHnba2Z19A]
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6XiO0o2R7M]
Cover that I prefer to the original-a rare occurrence for me. Still, the original, posted below, gets props because it is the original and also good.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4W5xkZoVh0]
Original
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4huTptveEs]
Comments
I don't disagree with your premise.
I do, however, want to point out that Ali Dieng's victory was actually a big deal. His district runs reliably red and, despite Burlington's progressive "cred," we are still collectively blinded by our mostly white privilege. To win as a progressive New American in the New North End was anything but a given.
Thanks. As popular as Bernie is in Vermont, where he gets
a huge percentage of the vote whenever he runs for Senate, including from registered Republicans, his endorsement should mean more in Vermont than anywhere else, especially in the city where he and his wife live and know most of the people (I assume), and especially for as down ticket from POTUS as city council member. Hence my comment about packing it in if his candidate lost that election.
By "collectively blinded by our white privilege," do you mean Vermonters discriminate by race, despite their liberal reputation?
Aso, can you clarify, please, what you mean by his district in the context or a city council seat? Are you referring to a federal Congressional District or the district within the city of Burlington.
Candidly, although I am more politically plugged in than many for state and federal office, I often know little to nothing about city council members who have managed to stay out of major scandals. I vote strictly by Party or address. If Bernie had endorsed one of our candidates for city council, though, I would at least remember the person's name and most likely vote for that person. I'm guessing I'm not unusual in that respect.
ETA: Looks as though he did not have that much trouble winning which seems to prove my point about the magic of Bernie's endorsement:
https://vtdigger.org/2017/06/28/dieng-wins-highly-contested-burlington-c...
Sure thing!
I meant city district, which may not be the correct terminology. That area of Burlington is fairly "cut off" in the sense that it's not near the interstate, and you have to travel all the way back through town to get anywhere. It's been a conservative enclave for whatever reason -- maybe partially due to this isolation.
Dieng's only real challenger was Republican Vince Dober, who had previously held that seat. Many of us assumed Dober would sweep the floor with Dieng, but not so. It's hard to say whether Bernie's endorsement made the difference -- Bernie lives in the New North End as well, so everyone there knows him beyond just his name. I'm sure it helped. But Dieng was a retail campaigner, too, and did the hard work of knocking on doors. I'd say it was probably a little of both.
Here are some good local articles for additional context:
Seven Days - Ali Dieng Wins Ward 7 City Council Seat
VTDigger - Dieng Wins Highly Contested Burlington City Council Seat
(Seven Days also has "related links" to previous stories for even more background, if you like).
Thanks!
I got trapped in the airport in Burlington once. I was there for a business meeting and I desperately needed to get home (related to my son), but the plane was delayed for a long time and we never found out why. And, that's all I know first hand about Burlington.
I forgot to respond to your other question
Re: white privilege.
I can't really speak for the entirety of Vermont, but we white people in Burlington like to think of ourselves as supremely culturally competent and non-discriminatory. (Actually, this applies to straight Burlingtonians as well, re: LGBTQ* residents).
Sure, there's acceptance and tolerance on the surface -- certainly way more so than in many other parts of the country -- but if you really listen to those with different backgrounds, their lived experience tells a more nuanced story of microaggressions and a true lack of understanding of "privilege" among their fellow residents. Lots of people here who are not overtly racist -- and who would call others out for overt racism -- are unable to see how they benefit from being white. As a result, their daily words and actions often undermine true progress toward equality (if that makes any sense?).
Plus, we're still a predominantly white city (in a predominantly white) state. The fact that we have a robust refugee resettlement program gives some people a false sense of righteousness: "See! We welcome so many different people here and love to eat their 'ethnic' food! We're enlightened!" (They say, while not understanding how referring to said food as 'ethnic' is exactly the kind of blindness I mean.) Did you ever see that YouTube video "What Kind of Asian are You?" It's like that.
Video here.
(Edited to add last paragraph).
Yes, it makes sense, but I am not sure that being
unaware that one benefits from being white equates to voting against a person of color.
I don't recall anyone even mentioning white privilege in 2008. So, I'd wager more people were unaware of their privilege in 2009 than they are today. Yet millions of white people voted for a person of color.
Yes.
But I would also venture to say that some not insignificant percentage of those millions of people who voted for Obama truly believe in their own enlightenment -- when in fact, during the course of their day-to-day lives, they help perpetuate systemic racism by virtue of not educating themselves about privilege.
(I realize my original comment wasn't necessarily directly connected to Dieng's election -- but it's a related tangent, anyway).
My prior post said much the same about 2008 voters and white
privilege.
I understand the meaning of white privilege. However, I did not realize that your mentioning it was not relevant to the topic we were discussing. Therefore, I thought you had mentioned it because you felt it had cost Bernie's endorsee votes. Hence, I asked if you were saying Burlington voters had discriminated against him, which is all I could make of it.
I also understand first hand that liberals, despite lack of specific awareness of white privilege, might decide to vote for a liberal because of policy, and also be especially happy to give that liberal a watershed victory. With Obama I did not decide to support him because he was African American. However, after having decided for other reasons, I was thrilled that "my" candidate might be the first African American President (as far as we know, anyway).
At the time, I had never heard the term white privilege. However, I knew very, very well about its mirror image--members of various groups of people being disadvantaged because of how they were born (gender, race, whatever) or for other reasons. So, I knew to aspire to, and work for, equal human rights for all humans. I also knew that I didn't want to treated unfairly for any reason and felt bad anyone was.
I don't need to consider or label myself shelter privileged or food privileged to do the right thing about people who are homeless or hungry. You see a problem and try to help, to do the decent thing and end bad things. That's what I think liberals do, whether or not they have a very specific kind of thought or not.
Yes, yes, running candidates in Red states and districts
This reminds me very much like running of the bulls in Pamplona. Sometimes the bulls win. Most of the time their ears and their nuts are on a trophy wall. I'm certain the bulls don't feel alienated by this ritual. In fact, they are expected to make a good showing before they are castrated and skewered.
LOL, AE. Are you trying to tell us something?
Two Words
Bleach Bit.
Prof: Nancy! I’m going to Greece!
Nancy: And swim the English Channel?
Prof: No. No. To ancient Greece where burning Sapho stood beside the wine dark sea. Wa de do da! Nancy, I’ve invented a time machine!
Firesign Theater
Stop the War!
Did the Obama administration even tighten up the regs
after Hillary's emails hit the fan?
It became a meme
Well, as long as memes protect classified info, I'm good.
obama won indiana in 2008, 49.85%-48.82%
no time to comment further, but thought i'd get that minor correction out there. (as it happens, i decided that indiana was the nearest place where my efforts were most likely to contribute to an electoral swing, so i went down there the weekend before the election and canvassed right through to the polls closing.)
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
Not sure what you are correcting? The essay says Obama
won Indiana in 2008, and gives no percentages at all.
Do you mean supplementing, rather than correcting?
the essay says Obama "almost carried" Indiana ...
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
THANKS. I checked after your first post and still did not see
"almost." When drafting initially, I must have revised that sentence, but not cleaned it up correctly. My apologies.
Ugh. Time for another eye exam. I've now fixed it. Finally. Thanks again.
nae probs
what happens in the physiological interval between sensation and perception is not entirely cryptic (after 75 years of extensive scientific inquiry), but it's still a realm of considerable mist and mystery, and we know that mistakes get made in there.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
Thanks, Untimely Ripped.
Unfortunately, I'm living proof that all kinds of mistakes get made all the time
I could indeed use new specs--it's been maybe ten years?-- but my eyes are not bad enough to miss an entire word.
So we've lost 2 out of 3.
Don't incumbents win 9 pit of 10 usually? And that's in 2 person races, what about when Corruptocrats split the vote?
On to Biden since 1973
Thanks. I am not sure what you mean about incumbents.
I hope I didn't mislead by mentioning Shaheen. Our Revolution did not endorse only incumbents.
@HenryAWallace
actually I assumed that Our Revolution endorsed mainly challengers. This would mean that their endorseees had to fight against the Dem establishment in the primary, then fight an entrenched incumbent without party support. Against those odds 1 out of 3 is pretty good, in fact remarkable.
On to Biden since 1973
I don't know how many were challengers or incumbent
conservadems like Shaheen. I also don't know how many were liberals that I might have wanted to win, as opposed to conservadems like Shaheen.
I don't think anyone can decide what impact the Revolution had without a solid analysis of each candidate and election. I endorsed Obama in 2008 and he won hugely in 2008. I spoke against him in 2012; and, in 2012, he lost several states he had carried in 2008. Because correlation does not equal causation, my taking a victory lap either time would have been silly at best and dishonest at worst.
Shaheen's victory is most certainly hers and that of the DNC, the DCCC, the New Hampshire Democratic Party and Shaheen's supporters, as it was the first time she won. This time, she also had on her side the incumbent advantage and the anti-Trump bump.
Not only was Shaheen and incumbent, but she had spent a long and successful (obviously) time in New Hampshire state politics. How much the "Revolution" may have added to that is questionable without a closer look. Same for any other incumbent. Even with challengers, you'd have to look at the rest of the facts.
Besides, for me personally, using The Revolution to re-elect an incumbent Conservadem that the establishment is also backing is goes in the loss column for the cause. It's no revolution of any kind and certainly not a liberal one. I was offended when a Revolution email frantically asked for money to support that. I would have donated to a liberal seeking to defeat her, though. Too bad they asked me for the opposite of what I wanted and the opposite of what I thought they represented.
The point of all these
new progressive groups is to "run everywhere." Run in every district, run for dog catcher. Just run. Becuz it has been the attitude of the -ahem- "Democratic Party" for decades now that Libruls can't win in those districts. Well... it could be argued,as I do, that if you don't run you can't win. Too, ain't nobody expecting Berniecrats to win every race they run. You can't win without name recognition, and many of those districts haven't seen a Dem on the ballot in their lifetime. Howard Dean said we should run everywhere, set up his Fifty State Strategy. Berniecrats just expanding that to 435 districts, soon thousands of precincts. Just copying what Repubs do. Repubs kick our ass by running everywhere. Berniecrats simply following in their footsteps.
the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.
Baggers run everywhere.
You're right, Wink:
After the Tea Party got rolling, they made an effort to run someone in every election. It didn't matter how small or insignificant the position was, and they really didn't care if there were any doctrinal issues involved. Dog Catcher? No problem. School Board? You bet. Cemetery Board? They control it now. Baggers are now well ensconced in every position you can imagine from sea to shining sea.
We've all heard how the Democrats have lost over 1,000 legislative seats nationally in the past eight years. I'd hate to see the numbers if all local, city and town, and county positions were able to be tallied. Actually, I guess I would like to see them. I wouldn't be surprised at the results, though. Maybe if some folks saw those numbers they might get a clue. Or not...
I'm not sure.
First, I am not at all sure Wink is right about these particular groups. (Please see my reply to Wink about that.) Second, I don't know if Wink is right about why Republicans have done so historically well since 2010.
I think Wink and you are right that we should run liberal populists everywhere humanly possible. However, I think it may matter more what people run on and whether they keep their promises. Obama ran on lowering the cost of health care via a strong public option and no individual mandate; ending the Bush tax cuts; raising taxes on incomes over $250,000; and getting out of Iraq; closing Gitmo, "fixing" his FISA vote, etc. none of which he did.
Then, there was the anemic recovery, bank giveaways, more and more job-killing trade agreements and fast tracking TPP. All that may turn people off enough to vote the other way next time, 50 state strategy or no. Obama remained personally popular after 2008 because he has a lot of personal appeal. But, people were ticked about Obamacare and the lack of improvement in their lives. He had enormous coattails in 2008 and negative in 2012, to the point where the strategy of Democrats running for re-election was not to mention him and some Democrats running for the first time would not say whether they had voted for him in 2008.
Dean's 50 state strategy was 2006 and 2008. I think he was able to fund it because people were so up in arms about Bush by 2006. On the other hand, Democrats held one house of congress or other the other from FDR until the very first mid-term after New Democrat Bill Clinton got into office.
Voters are human and humans are complex. There is no one magic bullet that guarantees election victories time after time. However, make sure you spend fairly and wisely, and keep your campaign promise and you might have a better than average shot.
I hope these new groups run that kind of candidate, but I'd have to know much more before I can conclude anything much about them. And both past experience and what I do know about these groups raises questions that should,IMO, be answered before any liberal gets too excited about them.
MAYBE the point of all the groups is to run someone
everywhere/ However, I think that's far from clear from this article. To the contrary, the article seems to focus on state and local offices, devoting several paragraphs to a city council victory in Burlington, Vermont. Our Revolution does both. Not sure about the other groups, though.
Even more important to me, yet even less clear, is whether these candidates will in fact be liberal. Jean Shaheen, for example is no liberal. I'd donate to defeat her long before I'd donate to re-elect her.
Also not clear--whether these groups know what they are doing, or whether we'd be throwing money down a black hole, whether they are sheep dog groups for Democrats, and more. And, if you do want Berniecrats to win, why on earth are you competing with Bernie's group, instead of supporting it?
Those are the kinds of issues my two essays on this subject tried to make. Making a positive assumption as to every possible issue is exactly what both essays were trying to warn against. If you are not going to donate, volunteer or vote for any of the groups or candidates, or talk well of these groups to others, it may not matter. However, I've been trying to say, there are many questions, so look before you leap. It's not a controversial point.
I don't have a clue
about the origin - or intentions - of any of the "progressive" groups that have popped up after the DNC Primary last July. I personally belong to a local yokel pro-Bernie group that I KNOW is pro-Bernie becuz I know the people in the group. That's the Only group of these kind that I involve myself in. That said, my "support" of these other "progressive" groups is simply that they're doing something, running candidates. Something the -ahem- "Democratic Party" hasn't done and won't do. So... so, even if the candidates aren't as progressive as we'd like - or Blue Dog DINOs even - it's better than Not running a candidate in those slots. Others might disagree. Your mileage may vary.
But, I believe an energized party is better than the one we got. And, even if most of these new "progressive" groups aren't so much, it's better than the party we got, becuz the one we got is Totally unresponsive to the rank'n'file. Eventually these new groups shake out on ther own, gain bonafides or not. Hopefully most towns do what we've done in the 'cuse (Syracuse) and gather people you know who already have the bonafides, but for now, at least, activity is better than none, and the rest will take care of itself.
the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.
What if some of them are Democratic Party sponsored sheep dogs?
And what is the difference between the DCCC and DSCC running blue dogs and new group claiming to be progressive running blue dogs?
At what point does it become fraud on donors?
Buyer Beware? I guess
it pays to pay attention. I couldn't make heads nor tails out of the groups that formed from the aftermath of the fucking Bernie suffered, so I sidestepped them all. I still have no idea if there is a "legitimate" progressive group from that bunch, I'm happy with the group Syracuse For Sanders I'm a member.
the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.
Thanks, Wink. Buyer beware is exactly what I mean.
Progressive like disconnected or no longer in service
Exactly. And probably will never be resumed.
They'll resume just before the 2018 elections
but in name only, and then promptly retract it when they're over. They don't mind tossing us a progressive message from time to time, but policy? Never.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."