[Peace-discuss] Fwd: Defining "Progressive" and Spotting the Impostors

[David Johnson via Peace-discuss]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Defining "Progressive" and Spotting the Impostors
Date: 	Fri, 25 Jul 2014 16:19:09 +0000
From: 	David Sladky <tanstl at hotmail.com>



http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/07/25/defining-progressive-and-spotting-the-impostors/

The Political Charlatans of the Left
*Defining "Progressive" and Spotting the Impostors*
by ANDREW TILLETT-SAKS

     "The framework of thought is consciously manipulated by an 
effective choice and reshaping of terminology so as to make it difficult 
to understand what’s happening in the world, to prevent people from 
perceiving reality, because if they perceived it they might not like it 
and act to change it."

     – Noam Chomsky

This election season, millions of Americans will use the terms 
Progressive or Liberal. I will have no idea what any of them mean.

George Orwell wrote, "The words democracy, socialism, freedom, 
patriotic, realistic, justice, have each of them several different 
meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another."  Were Orwell 
writing in 2014, he would include Liberal and Progressive as well. In 
the regular frenzy for votes, politicians with wide-ranging politics 
will fly both banners. Despite no common definition or clear 
understanding of what the terms imply, millions of well-intentioned 
voters will follow the labels and deliver their votes.

The lack of clear language on the American Left prevents coherent 
thought and action. Because the Left cannot clearly define what it means 
to be Progressive or Liberal, it cannot effectively identify its friends 
nor its enemies. Wolves in sheep’s clothing reside in elected offices 
nationwide. Well-intentioned, egalitarian voters elect self-proclaimed 
Progressives and Liberals who proceed to desecrate workers and equality 
in return.

Modern Americans use Progressive and Liberal with a wide range of 
meanings, many of them contradictory.

The public brands politicians far apart on the ideological spectrum, 
from Joe Lieberman to Bernie Sanders, as Liberal. Starkly contrasting 
intellectuals, from Paul Krugman to Noam Chomsky, also commonly receive 
the label.

Progressive is no different. Political groups and ideas as different as 
Bill Clinton’s Reaganesque New Democrats and Michael Harrington’s 
Democratic Socialists of America self-identify as Progressive. 
Competition is fierce amongst all varieties of Democrats to self-brand 
as Progressive—every last candidate in the 2008 Democratic Party 
presidential primaries, from Dennis Kucinich to Barack Obama to Hilary 
Clinton to Bill Richardson, self-identified as a Progressive in campaign 
literature.

Progressive and Liberal are consistently used to distance oneself from 
Conservative, making it clear what the terms are not. What they are, 
however, is indiscernible based on their rainbow of representatives.

The most defining trait of the 21st century politician is the extent to 
which they believe free market capitalism should be regulated. The 
Conservative Right attacks the very existence of government in advocacy 
of laissez faire capitalism, while the Left ostensibly promotes 
regulation of the market’s excesses and non-market social welfare programs.

Despite this being the key dividing line in American politics and 
central to most hot-button political issues, the primary labels of the 
American Left have no fixed meaning on the matter. Liberal and 
Progressive refer to politicians and intellectuals all over the map on 
regulating free market capitalism. It is impossible to predict where a 
modern Liberal or Progressive will fall on bellwether economic issues 
such as trade unions, social welfare programs, progressive taxation, 
public schools, etc. Oft-described Liberal and Progressive Bill Clinton 
deconstructed social welfare programs and championed NAFTA, while 
similarly described Barack Obama completely abandoned his pre-election 
promise to trade unions to pass the Employee Free Choice Act and has 
pushed vigorously for passage of the newest free trade agreement, the 
Trans-Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement. Yet Vermont Senator 
Bernie Sanders, also frequently referred to as Progressive and Liberal, 
relentlessly fights free trade agreements and refers to himself as a 
socialist economically! There exists no label on the mainstream Left 
that indicates support for restraining free market capitalism; its 
champions and opponents alike populate the ranks of our Progressives and 
Liberals.

There is a disastrous consequence to the mainstream Left’s lack of 
descriptive precision: elected officials routinely attacking the very 
Leftists and workers who voted them into power. The traditional, 
racism-fueled American political conundrum involves workers supporting 
conservative politicians explicitly against their own interests. Our 
loose terminology creates a different conundrum, politicians who win 
election based on ostensibly anti-corporate, pro-equality platforms only 
to betray their working class and Leftist supporters.  Electoral 
politics for Democratic voters today is generally a game of 
bait-and-switch: Leftist rhetorical bait followed by conservative 
economic policy.

The effectiveness of this bait-and-switch has fostered the rise of a new 
class of pseudo-Left, neoliberal charlatans nationwide. Waves of these 
charlatan politicians continue to ascend, effectively dominating the 
Democratic Party.  The Charlatans generally support liberal social 
issues, such as formal civil rights (i.e. marriage equality), basic 
women’s rights (i.e. the right to have an abortion), and racial 
‘diversity’ (i.e. formal equality and ‘color-blindness’). However, they 
break from traditional Leftist economic positions. The Charlatans often 
scapegoat and battle worker unions, lead the charge in ‘reforming’ and 
‘marketizing’ (privatizing) the public school system, and generally 
advocate supply-side, trickle-down economics in the name of ‘job 
creation’ and a better ‘business climate’.

The trademark of the Charlatans is to drench everything they do, 
progressive or conservative, in traditional Leftist rhetoric. They stoke 
Leftist enthusiasm by breathlessly emphasizing liberal social issues, 
while quickly glossing over their conservative economic stances with 
cliché rhetoric. They attack public schools in the name of racial 
equality and poor, minority students.  They defend de facto racial 
inequality by celebrating token minority representatives amongst the 
rich and powerful—the act even works best when the Charlatan themselves 
is a racial minority, their mere presence projected as an inherently 
Progressive cause (see Barack Obama, Cory Booker, etc). They wage war on 
the last bastion of the American labor movement, public sector unions, 
in the name of improving the economy for the poor and unemployed. In 
sum, the Charlatans are masters of effecting inequality in the name of 
equality. Lost in the whirlwind of rhetoric, blinded by the shine of 
liberal social issues, most well-intentioned egalitarians take the bait.

Defining more clearly what it means to be a Progressive or Liberal—the 
two most popular labels of the mainstream American Left—would go a long 
way in stopping the Charlatan swindle. Wolves in sheep’s clothing can do 
no harm if they are spotted at the gates. As long as Leftists articulate 
mere vague notions of who they are and what they believe, a bit of 
euphemistic verbal gymnastics will permit politicians of different 
shapes to squeeze into the mold. If the Left speaks clearly and 
specifically about what it stands for, no amount of rhetorical flourish 
will stop those with contrasting politics from being sniffed out. If 
Leftists define themselves as believing in a robust public education 
system, no politician could gain their support without explicitly 
supporting full funding for our public schools. If Leftists define 
themselves as standing for democracy at work, no politician could gain 
their support without declaring support for public and private sector 
worker unions. And so on.

What exactly the definitions are for each term is less important than 
having any clear definitions and common understanding whatsoever. What 
it means to be a Progressive or a Liberal is arbitrary—at least I have 
no interest in debating the history or import of the labels themselves. 
The goal is to give them any common, fixed meaning and to stop the 
neo-liberal swindle.

In this spirit, I propose that Liberal be used only in its classic 
sense, referring only to those who believe in both social and economic 
liberalism. This implies support for civil rights and belief in the free 
market capitalist economy. Liberals shall be those who do not believe in 
perverting the free market. They oppose racist, sexist, and homophobic 
discrimination (which are all, in the end, extra-market forces). They 
also oppose trade unions, strong welfare programs, and progressive 
taxation (also extra-market forces). They preach equality of 
opportunity, not outcome. They speak a subtle variation of trickle-down 
economics, advocating improving the ‘business climate’ in the name of 
growing the economy for all. They advocate for competition in all 
aspects of society, from the labor market to schools to the healthcare 
industry.

Progressive should be used for those who believe that the free market 
must be profoundly restrained to alleviate inequality. Progressives 
should believe strongly in trade unions as a necessary counterbalance to 
corporate power.  They should advocate taxing the wealthy at much higher 
rates, nationalization of essential social needs such as education and 
healthcare, and strong public welfare programs to address poverty. 
Progressives believe more in equality of outcome than mere equality of 
opportunity. They do not seek to accommodate wealthy employers, but 
support more Keynesian direct worker assistance such as higher minimum 
wage requirement and increased unionization. Progressives do not focus 
on simply ‘growing the economy’ or ‘job creation’ with faith that this 
will trickle down to the working class. Instead, they inquire directly 
to the conditions of the poor and believe it is the role of government 
to step in with support.

With the terms fixed as such, no politician could claim either label nor 
win the support of proponents without living up the to clear criteria. 
Liberal and Progressive could no longer be used interchangeably or 
meaninglessly. Most tangibly, with clear lines drawn for those who do 
and do not believe in regulating the excesses of free market capitalism, 
the ascendant Charlatans could no longer use lofty, vague, and 
disingenuous rhetoric to win the support of Progressives who believe in 
regulating the ugly excesses of the free market. Genuine Progressives 
could more easily identify the Charlatans as the neoliberal corporate 
lackeys which they are, and seek sincerely Progressive alternatives.

Socialists will make the noteworthy quibbles that they already possess a 
perfectly lucid label for the Left (Socialist) and that neither 
Progressives nor Liberals represent a genuine anti-capitalist Left. They 
may very well be correct on both accounts, but there is utility 
nonetheless for Progressives and Socialists alike who are engaged in 
real political struggle in encouraging a more coherent Progressive movement.

The political crisis of treacherous, charlatan politicians on the Left 
is obviously the result of much more than imprecise language. Lack of 
organizational unity, more than anything, causes the crisis. This 
disorganization is likely the root of the confused language as well. 
Yet, as Orwell stated in his call for clear political language seventy 
years ago, "an effect can become a cause, reinforcing the original cause 
and producing the same effect in an intensified form, and so on 
indefinitely." Those who consider themselves Progressives should demand 
clarity whenever and wherever either term is used. Until we think and 
speak more clearly, the Charlatans will continue to deceive, Liberals 
will continue to co-opt Progressives, and a society based on Progressive 
values will become further and further from reality.

Andrew Tillett-Saks is an organizer with UNITE HERE Local 217. He can be 
reached at:  atillett-saks at unitehere.org. Twitter: @AndrewTSaks.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20140725/873fe659/attachment-0001.html>