whyroots

 
 

The problem with a word like progress, and its derivatives, is that it's necessarily relative. While I believe in the significance of progressivism, I worry about the congratulatory, doe-eyed mood that's taken over the electorate. I worry that we'll settle and fall short of the most progressive progress possible.

The code word for progress in today's political lingua franca is, of course, change. It's been the theme of the past two years of presidential campaigning, as Barack Obama re-framed partisan politics into a choice between Washington-as-usual and Washington-as-it-could-be. After eight years of cronyism, bellicosity, and the debasement of civil liberties, Obama's resounding electoral success last week was as much a rejection of political sameness as it was a genuine confirmation of the need for change.

Yet despite messianic "Change Has Come" headlines, it is not enough to have voted in the first black president, or to be satisfied that Obama's White House will be more progressive than the one the neo-conservatives are about to vacate. (The former is, indeed, progress; the latter is simply obvious.) We can't accept the mainstream definition of progress as simply better-than-Bush. We need to demand that our elected officials seize this unique opportunity in American political discourse to progress significantly further to the left, and quit pandering to the center-right.

This is necessary because there's a stark difference between change we can believe in and change I believe will actually be enacted—

I believe in universal health care; but I believe what we'll get is an opt-in system that still panders to insurance companies' profit margins. I believe in energy independence; but I believe that we'll continue to heed inefficient, home-grown corn ethanol and so-called "clean coal" lobbies on our way there. I believe in the separation of church and state; but I believe that taxpayers' money will continue to be funneled to faith-based initiatives. The list goes on.

I harbor no illusions that all my progressive ideals will be met under an Obama presidency. He is, pundits' claims notwithstanding, decidedly not the herald of American progressivism (See: stances on death penalty, marriage equality, etc.), but he is the most liberal politician ever elected to the highest executive office. The political capital garnered by this election is an ideological mandate for progressivism that we've never had before. Gone is the need for Clintonian incrementalism—we can actually bet big.

The difference between progress I believe in and the progress I believe is most likely to actually occur under the forty-fourth presidency and one-hundred-eleventh Congress need not be so stark. More-than-better-than-Bush progress requires action: We must demand the most progress, not just enough progress.

-- Daniela Perdomo

 


Comments

Jose Perdomo

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 05:04:32

Looks nice and the conversation is intense Daniela - I read yours and Sarah's - I am glad you guys are grounded that one thing is saying change and another one is making it happen. Believe me that I have been in this type of situation many times in my career where change was needed (USA, Argentina, Brazil, and now Guatemala), expectations were high, delivering was a must (the house was in flames which is a great motivator), lots of risk all around and many just watching. Change is possible but you must go forward and organize-energize yourself, assessing the real world you are in, making hard choices, moving towards a vision you have developed jointly with the people that must execute..... wow it sounds so familiar. Change isn't impossible but it will need all the WILL of the leader to make it happen and the people to get involved (all).

your biggest fan

 

Currin Berdine

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 10:39:09

Yes, we have Obama in the motha fuckin HOUSE but what now? How will he be able to push all of the changes he promised in his campaign, even with a Democratic Senate? There are going to be a lot of obstacles in his way, and I don't think that any progressive measures will be fully by accepted by Congress until 2013. Unfortunately, his first term might be full of moderate (but liberal leaning) baby steps until his second term in office. Furthermore, he is going to have so much on his plate during this "smooth transition" from cleaning up Bush's bullshit, that'll probably take a year in itself.

So, yes, most likely we will be seeing center-left movement for a few years. But don't give up hope that the change will come.

 

Currin Berdine

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 10:40:09

A year to just clean up the bull shit, mind you, not including relocating it, getting the stink out of the Oval Office carpets, etc.

 

Nathan Huttner

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:12:45

But Currin, aren't baby-steps in the right direction by their definition progressive (i.e. progress towards a desirable end)? Sometimes I think incremental change gets labeled as no change at all, when pushing for more radical change would lead to stalemate.

 

Daniela Perdomo

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 15:52:12

Nathan,

I don't think there's any doubt that "incremental change" is better than "no change at all." The thing is: Democrats have long been defined as incrementalists. The Party is nearly apologetic in its successes. The GOP enjoys its successes fully. Consider, for example, the newspaper headlines of the end of the presidential campaign season that were something to the effect of: "With new success, Democrats worry about alienating GOP." When has the GOP ever worried about alienating the Dems with their successes? Never.

With this new progressive mandate handed to Obama and the Democratic Party, all I'm asking is that we actually push for the change we want from the beginning, instead of betting small, as we usually do. We may not get what we want -- let's call it X; but if we bet Y, somewhere between X and Z, what the other side wants, we'll only ever get Y at hte most. If we bet X, then we might stand a good chance of being somewhere between Y and X. As I said: "We must demand the most progress, not just enough progress."

 

Nathan Huttner

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:24:31

Daniela,

That approach makes sense in the abstract, but when it comes to the legislative process, Dems can't sit on X until Republicans concede and move toward their position. If Republicans can filibuster and delay, they can make the Dems look ineffectual and gain political points. In the end, I think X has to be not the most liberal thing you can do, but something like, "the most liberal thing that will get a filibuster-proof majority" -- something that looks a lot more incremental than radical. Democrats are just going to highly discount accomplishments -- an accomplishment today is worth way more than an accomplishment two years from now (for obvious reasons), so they want incremental change today, not radical change later.

 

Phil

Wed, 12 Nov 2008 17:59:24

"There's a stark difference between change we can believe in and change I believe will actually be enacted."

This is precisely the point that I have discussed ad nauseum with my colleagues this past week. Although Obama represents a paradigm shift within our political infrastructure through his demeanor, values and rhetoric, he still must work within a system that will likely resist many of the "liberal" promises he made to get elected. We've got no money, so universal health care may not be the first change he miraculously enacts once inaugurated.

I am by no means arguing that Obama's campaign was a ruse, but rather in agreement that we may not see everything become a utopian ideal right away. Change. Hope. Though glimmering words on their own, they are still cleverly executed rhetorical patterns that are the "yin" to the "yang" of terms like "homeland security" and "axis of evil." They invoke strong emotions, and thus get people to listen intently.

My ultimate hope is that Obama's "progressive" leadership will truly be beneficial to the people, that he will lead with his ear to the concerns of the people, as opposed to being labeled "progressive" simply by virtue of not being George Bush. He's already gotten more young people passionate about the development of this country than I can ever remember, and with citizens of all backgrounds feeling the financial heat at present, let's hope he lives up to his word.

 

Jonah Green

Thu, 13 Nov 2008 08:39:05

Aw man. I know we agreed not to get doe-eyed and lose perspective, but I want to. I said we should stay viglant, but I'm so, so tired. Can't we just take a four year vacation and not do a damn thing and just hang out on the front lawn of the white house? What I want to know is when will Barack Obama buy everyone in the country a puppy. WHEN??

 



Leave a Reply