A Good Night for Progressives
Let's be clear-- this wasn't just a good night for Democrats. It was a good night for progressives, and no media spin that these new elected officials are "conservatives" changes who they are. The media is always marvelling that "new" Democrats are so much more conservative than "traditional" liberal Democrats of the past-- which would surprise all the folks firehosed in the streets of the South by many Democrats of a generation ago.
There are no doubt some conservatives among the new Democrats elected but as Rick Perlstein, Ezra Klein and Chris Bowers note, many were progressive and Netroots supported and almost all were tough on core economic justice issues.
Let's remember-- those massive Democratic majorities of a generation ago were fake. In 1981, Ronald Reagan was able to control the agenda in Congress because 67 Boll Weevil Democrats essentially caucused with the GOP. In 1993, the Democrats had a "majority" of 258 but Clinton was only able to pass his initial budget by one vote, so he had a de facto majority of 218 votes. I actually am more confident in the present 228-230 Dem majority we are getting this round to support progressive initiatives than those fake-larger majorities of the past.
And the ideological meaning of this election is nowhere clearer than in the state initiatives passed across the country. The obvious examples are passage of minimum wage initiatives in every state where they were proposed, passage of stem cell funding in Missouri, passage of ethics reforms in Montana, approval of early education funding in Arizona, a prescription drug program for the uninsured in Oregon, and a program for alternative energy reform in Washington State (the last one teetering on passage).
Add in the rejection of the rightwing ideological agenda-- while bans on gay marriage where passed, voters said No on the abortion ban in South Dakota and defeated parental notification in California, Ohio and Oregon. Voters rejected repeal of the state estate tax in Washington. The tax revolt died this year as across the country "Taxpayer Bill of Rights" -- which would have put a meat axe to state budgets -- were defeated at the polls or blocked earlier in the petition gathering process. While "eminent domain" was restricted in a number of states, the attempt by the rightwing to hitch those bills to a radical theory of "regulatory takings" was defeated in California, Washington and Idaho -- with only Arizona approving this deceptive rightwing gambit.
The signs of ideological collapse on the right are relatively clear as different coalition partners fight with each other -- and those fights between corporate interests, libertarian small government types and religious zealots are only likely to increase without as much access to power and the budget to bind their differences over with money.
So celebrate-- this was not a partisan victory but a real victory for progressive values across the country. There's still lots of work to be done, but it's a great first step.
Well, I hope so. Based on what I am hearing so far insider DC Dems think they won the victory and deserve the fruits; "loonie lefties" not invited.
sPh
November 8, 2006 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Insiders can claim whatever they want-- the important thing are grassroots activists recognizing the reality and framing that reality for folks we work with on the ground. Since that will define what issues we promote for the next two years to expand our strength then.
And the lesson from last night is when you stand up for the real concerns of working families, those families will stand with you. We need to build on these victories to stand up for health care for all, workers rights, a real program for energy independence, a trade policy that promote decent jobs and global equity, and reforms to replace special interest campaign money with public financing of elections.
Most of it won't pass over Senate filibusters and Presidential vetos, but we need a strong mobilization to force votes, put rightwing politicians on the record, and prepare for two years from now. And we need to promote those policies at the state level to demonstrate what progressives do when they have power-- and convince other voters to support us to gain similar policies at the federal level.
In many ways, this is what happened with the minimum wage, as states passed it and voters decided they wanted federal politicians who would pursue similar policies in Congress. That's the template for other issues as well.
November 8, 2006 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not trying to throw cold water on anyone's parade; I am happy about the results last night myself.
But I think it is important to recognize that longer-term it is very difficult to swim against the current, netroots or no. And the current, whether we like it or not, is defined by the traditional media and the noise machines. We fought very hard to be heard against that noise this time, and due to the situation it worked. Once. But I fully expect that closed-door meetings are being held today by the insiders of both Parties [1] to determine how best to regain control of the traditional media and the narrative.
When I see the 50 leading traditional media pundits fired and Digby next to Krugman on the NYT editorial page (as she should be given her record of predictions and quality of writing compared to who is there now), I will stop worrying.
sPh
[1] Lucky Lieberman - he will get to attend both meetings.
November 8, 2006 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
One note: here in Minnesota, Ellison replaces Sabo (both DFL). And for my money, Ellison is in the progressive mold and Sabo, well he was mostly invisible.
November 8, 2006 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, beltway pundits or DLC can't spin louder than the people who voted yesterday.
Remember the day after the 2004 defeat? It was all about NASCAR Dads, couldn't survive as a party without them, they said. Well, I figure it was football Dads in Ohio, hockey Dads in the Great Lakes and Northeast and basketball Dads in big city USA, and yes, soccer moms, who won us this Congress.
November 8, 2006 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
The important thing to remember here is that the definitions being used for "progressive" and "conservative" by these pundits concern themselves exclusively with the social issues. These pundits never think of minimum wage, health care, etc. when they are talking about progressive/conservative splits.
I noticed this immediately when one of the pundits on MSNBC started talking about the "conservative" nature of the Democratic vote. I started to tune him out, but then he went into deeper detail, talking about the Kentucky voters who were angry that "everything is going to the rich, jobs leaving the country, etc." He then contrasted this to Clintonism, liberal on the social issues, foisting NAFTA on the base vote.
They want to call that "conservative", I don't care. But it's important to let the DLC spinners know that that "conservatism" opposes both the economic and social bases of Clinton-style DLC-ism. They don't get to wear that hat, and we can't let them get away with trying to harness this "conservatism" to free-trade economic policy.
There's more to progressivism than the social issues. That's sixties/seventies style "progressivism" that was built on a base of widespread middle-class prosperity. That is now gone, and we can't pretend that this didn't happen. This will inevitably change the look of progressivism.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again - one of the best things you can do to advance a woman's right to choose or gay rights is to also be strongly in support of economic liberalism. Democrats have to give non-social-liberals a reason to support them outside of social liberalism. Tying social liberalism to economic conservatism is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
November 8, 2006 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like approval of torture? Continuation of the occupation of Iraq? What?
Joshing you, Nathan, but it surely is not clear to Howard Dean, for one, what the voters wanted when he said Democrats would not "cut and run."
No one I know can figure out what a progressive might be except likely a liberal ashamed of his leanings, which probably aren't all that liberal in the first place.
When Mike Arcuri, the Democrat who was elected in NY-24 as a pickup, said he favored torture he nearly lost my vote though I had even sent him a coupla bucks. Didn't impress me a whole lot that he is really tall and has good looks. Might have impressed my wife but considering she picked me, her taste in these matters is most dubious.
Funny though, Arcuri went down the list of a whole bunch of "liberal" stuff that he claims he favors and stressed universal health insurance. That last is a grabber for me and anybody that does that in my Republican area has my somewhat reluctant support even though he favors torture and repeal of the Constitution.
What's a progressive?
Best, Terry
November 8, 2006 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe you could define "economic liberalism". I don't know any liberal/progressive/Democrat who hasn't accepted that globalization is here to stay and that responsible free markets really are the best economic systems. However, the opposite of responsible free markets are Bush style free markets, which screw the citizen and the consumer in favor of the unregulated corrupt transnational company.
"...it was not always a given that the United States and America would have a close relationship." GWB, 6/29/06
November 8, 2006 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
The elections were a victory for Democrats, but I, even as a self-proclaimed liberal, am unsure of the leadership. I don't think we will be able to either push for what we believe in (besides a minimum wage increase). This is particularly true for health insurance for all. Our side is just as sold out to the corporate interests. That being said, the leadership, particularly Sen. Schumer, are too caught up in xenophobia to accept the growth of China without destroying the pro-free trade agenda we should be pursuing. The pro-free trade agenda is in Doha, not CAFTA or NAFTA or unilateral tariff lifting or other bilateral trade agreements. We need to engage China in trade and competition, while discussing the non-market aspects of China's economy (not to mention their flagrant violations of human rights, although we don't have much of a high ground since we ditched habeas corpus). This is the only way to integrate China into the international economy, which is essential in order to provide our economy with the strength it needs. If we engage them, we will be able to negotiate better conditions for Chinese workers, which will spillover across Asia and also provide our workers as the efficient, productive force they are. And, it will secure our place as the high-productivity nation, which is far superior to xenophobia and China bashing.
November 9, 2006 12:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
You sure you have ever even met a liberal?
There is a better chance there are angels, vampires and sasquatches than free markets. Blind faith in international free markets is the mark of conservatives, not liberals.
Best, Terry
November 9, 2006 3:44 AM | Reply | Permalink