Grunch,
People saying warren isn’t a progressive seems a bit extreme. Feels like it’s people just doing the “I’m so left my dog’s name is Karl Barx” thing, where their spectrum is if you aren’t with them on every single progressive issue you’re not progressive
The questions aren’t worded like a scale but I suspect many responded as if they are. In case you did, can you explain why you think Pete is more progressive than Liz Warren? I feel like that’s a pretty unique position to have. I would have guessed that you would rate them in the same bin. Genuine Q as well, I thought Warren was more progressive than Pete on several issues during the primary
I think a lot of the Obama vs Pete stuff is tough because it’s relative. If Obama ran in 2020 my guess is that his policies would be much further left than they were in 2008. Bernie pulled the party left significantly in the past 4 years.
It’s probably best to look at progressiveness on a relative scale, because what is progressive in 2020 is significantly different than what it was in the 1900s
I’m grunching a bit here, but really the thread is pointless because what it all hinges on is whether you think accomplishing progressive goals necessarily entails a revolution within the Democratic Party, or the establishment of a whole new party. If you don’t, then Warren is fine. If you do, then unfortunately it’s abundantly clear that Warren is not willing to be an outsider candidate in the way Bernie was. A progressive policy platform without a way to accomplish it is like declaring oneself “anti-fascist” but with the plan of surrendering as soon as the Wehrmacht appear on the horizon.
Warren talks a good progressive game but her change of tone in late 2019 when it became clear Bernie owned that wing of voters along with her refusal to drop-out and back Bernie when the primaries became a two person race show a complete lack of commitment to progressive ideals.
Its a pity because I felt she was incredibly eloquent at laying out the case for progressive policies when she was competing for progressive votes in the Summer of 2019.
I think she almost certainly by-and-large holds progressive beliefs but that’s of little consequence in the world of politics. I mean, I also have no doubt that Barack Obama didn’t personally have any problem with gay marriage before 2012.
I’m not even sure she’s wrong that the best way to accomplish some progressive change is within the system. I mean it seems hopeless but taking on the Democratic Party machine also seems hopeless, as we saw when Bernie got taken down on Super Tuesday. Trying to decide which of two hopeless things is less hopeless is not easy. The only way it’s easy is if Warren, even as a dictator, would not be progressive enough for you. If you’re a true socialist, then it’s easy; Warren is 100% hopeless whether she takes power or not.
I’m not thinking about it from the perspective of inside the system or outside the system (perhaps I should be).
I liken it to RBG not retiring when the Dems had 60 senators. I understand that when someone is that age and still working the thought of retirement is terrifying, but if her ideals regarding the USA were of true importance to her, she should have retired.
Same with Warren. I get wanting to maximize any equity you can at winning an election, and I understand her wanting to be on Biden’s good side (although I think its naive). At the same time, I think she set the progressive movement back tremendously.
If Warren had dropped out and endorsed and campaigned for Bernie we might be living in a totally different political universe–and that speaks to what she values.
Progressive and conservative are antonyms. This party name is Simpsons communist-nazi nonsense.
At its simplest progressives want change and conservatives want to preserve the status quo (maybe even go back to an earlier state).
Nobody seems to allow for the possibility that Warren thinks her progressive goals are most likely to be put into action inside the system. Whether she is right or wrong, this seems like a real possibility.
Goals and methods are not the same thing and all progressives don’t have to agree on the latter.
I’m not sure if there is agreement on what progressive goals are.
I believe in progress and sieves. How else do you separate water from stuff?
I suspect there is agreement on 90% of the goals with 10% being debatable.
M4A
Dramatic reduction in income inequality
Dismantling of systemic racism
Removal of cooperate money from politics
Access to healthcare for women
Dismantling the school to prison pipeline
Reduction in the military industrial complex
Legalization of drugs (not sure about this one)
Gender equality
Etc
Debate would arise over more “extreme” things like abolish the police or ending capitalism.
To be fair I would put the word capitalism in the same grouping as the word progressive. It has absolutely no agreed upon meaning for the same reasons. For some it’s a system of oppression based on increasing control of resources by a wealthy few, for others it’s just an economy that has markets as the primary building block they are constructed on.
I think there are a lot of words like this in political discourse that derive their rhetorical value from their lack of meaning. It’s a feature not a bug.
I think your last point is a really good one that doesn’t get brought up enough.
I mean look at that list you made. It’s what you think when you hear the word ‘progressive’. It’s not technically incorrect or anything, it’s just that it’s totally and completely subjective.
Honestly I don’t like these words. I think an awful lot of ‘disagreements’ happen because the two people talking have totally different definitions of the words they are arguing about. I’ve done it quite a few times on this board about ‘capitalism’ which is why I picked it as my equivalent to ‘progressive’.
When I say we should reform capitalism a lot of people interpret that as keeping things roughly the same. For me it just means preserving the market framework and fixing problems by changing the rules of those markets and how the proceeds get allocated. Well regulated markets with anti snowball mechanics would look absolutely nothing like the bad anti competitive joke our present economic system is.
I wish I could strongly agree/disagree with something. It seems much more fun than my pedestrian agree/disagree.
Also I appreciate the fact that Keeed’s second act of rebellion, after liking every post of triceratops in the containment thread, is to vote ‘strongly agree’ on polls. We need more real ideologists like that.
Totally agreed about who you work for and what you do changing you. I was a car salesman for a few years and it changed who I was as a person, then I worked in call centers and it changed who I was as a person, then I was a poker pro and that changed who I was as a person… and today I’m a freight broker and it changed who I am as a person and how I view the world. Everything we choose to spend a lot of time on and develop real expertise at is going to seep into who we are as people.
My worst nightmare is somehow taking a wrong turn and ending up this person.
That being said I think there’s an totally new channel to enter politics that is opening pretty wide in late 2020… crowd funding. Now it’s possible to do activism on behalf of normal people funded by normal people. It’s nowhere near as cushy as taking the plutocrats cash, but it’s viable and doesn’t involve selling the reason you wanted to get involved in the first place for the opportunity to dispense bandaids on gunshot wounds.
I see progressive as a relative term based on the current status-quo (or the overused ‘overton window’) in the US.
Yep, I think in current US politics it means supporting all 3 of M4A, GND, and BLM.