Trying to Make Progress on Redefining ‘Progressive.’ And ‘Establishment.’
A progressive is someone who makes progress. That’s what I intend to do.
— Hillary Clinton, during last night’s debate.
Clinton also thinks a “conservative” is someone who conserves. Which, she says, also is what she intends to do.
First, though, she intends to redefine the entire Oxford English Dictionary. Progressive, and presumably then, conservative don’t describe ideology. Ronald Reagan and the Koch brothers were and are extremely progressive. So are the five Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices. And loooads of state legislators and governors. At least since 2010.
Also, being a member of the political and economic establishment is entirely based on gender. Literally. Entirely. No exceptions. You cannot, by definition of the word “establishment,” be an establishment figure unless you are a male. This is not the result of gender discrimination; it is the result of the definition of the word “establishment.”
At least if you’re playing Oxford English Dictionary editor and you confuse women with Pavlov’s dogs.
Anyway, it looks like there will be more Dem debates now. So don’t invest in a new copy of a dictionary until all of them are over. In fact, I think you should wait until after the Democratic Convention. Why throw good money after bad? You’ve already wasted money on the edition you have right now.
Enough please. What you are posting is mostly noise. Back off a bit.
Nonsense, run. This is not noise. This is music. Mozart. A sonata. In G flat (or something; I know nothing about music composition).
Okay, maybe rap music. But it’s still REALLY GOOD.
OK, now that statement is just simply childish. Really, she wants to talk that far down to the people?
At this point, I don’t know who she is listening to, but statements like this are simply putting her in the Fox News intellectual level. A purely republican MO toward getting elected.
She has to know this is condescension toward those who would vote for a democratic candidate…no?
I don’t care about labels. I don’t vote for labels. Just tell me what you are going to do, and how your going to accomplish it.
But, there is no question that Clinton is to the right of Sanders. Ned of discussion!
HRC and Krugman think progressive and liberal can coexist with billionaires running the US. They can believe that.
Jerry Critter, what “they” say “they” are planning to do is not material, what they believe is.
From what I see Bernie believe the government is of for and by the people. He quoted Lincoln at Gettysburg this PM.
HRC I don’t know.
I don’t disagree with you, Ilsm, but the only was to see what they believe is to examine what the say they will do and what they have done…perhaps not in that order.
“Just tell me what you are going to do, and how your going to accomplish it.”
No Jerry. The question should be just tell me what you’ve done in some detail so that I can assess your value to the people as a member of the governing class. What a candidate says they will do is almost irrelevant because they can say anything and do none of what they’ve promised.
Jack — See my comment just above yours.
If there is some commonality in the various definitions of “liberal” it is “maximizing individual freedom”. This can take both right and left forms of “laissez faire” and FDR’s Four Freedoms which are all “freedom FROM”
On the other hand the commonality in “progressive” is solidarity and joint action.
These distinctions are masked in U.S. politics and discourse but as often in my experience can be better seen in our older and smaller brother Britain in the contrast between the Liberal Party and its successors and the Labour Party, itself riven by a division between ‘liberal’ New Labour of the Blairite variety and Old Labour as seen in new leader Jeremy Corbyn.
Seen through British eyes Hilary would be on the left of the Liberal Democratic Party and firmly centrist in Labour.
But you would have to be daft to try to grab the label “Progressive” for the DLC/New Labour folks that gave us Bill Clinton and Tony Blair. They and Hilary can be as authentically ‘liberal’ as they want on issues of social liberalism but they are all fundamentally committed to the core principles of classical liberalism defined as “freedom to and “freedom from”. As opposed to “progressives” who are more committed to “greatest good for greatest number”.
Solidarity and progress and greatest good can imply giving some shit up. And not entirely by choice. Liberalism not so much. Which may explain why Hilary is so intent on preventing tax increases on the “middle class” where Bernie is more comfortable with “joint sacrifice”.
You see this everywhere and falling along the same lines. For example modern liberals like Matt Y are all in for “incentives” but are leery of progressive “regulations”.
Which is not to say that you can’t achieve freedom through Progressivism or progress through Liberalism, I would argue that the New Deal was precisely that kind of compromise. But still at deep, deep foundational base there is a tension between ‘freedom’ and ‘solidarity’ and so between Liberal and Progressive. And it is not necessarily a knock on Hilary to say she is a better liberal than progressive.
Can not we say that free trade is a myth and capitalism with out regulation usually cause great harm to the nation and its’ populist.
“Can not we say that Sartre and Kierkegaard are overrated and that Camus is Da Bomb!”
Sure we can say anything. And even mean it. But positing grand claims is lazy. And this even though I agree with you. In what way is free trade a myth and how much regulation is necessary to control capitalism? Those are interesting questions that would require a certain amount of explication. Slogans are not argumentation.
Wake me up when she redefines “Corruption”. Oh wait….
Broadly there is justice.
Then justice in terms of the “Four Freedom”.
What defines progressive is how your define both freedom from fear and freedom from want.
Fear is limited to fear from ISIS or Putin!! is not “freedom from fear” which includes gay and womens’ rights. HRC is progressive in this regard.
Freedom from want is the most abused. Here HRC is different than Bernie.
What is needed is to make the US work for the many.
There are now a slew of commentaries saying virtually the same thing I said in this post. Three from the Washington Post are:
Interestingly, all are by women.
And there is this, in the NYT, also by a woman, at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/06/opinion/the-sincerest-form-of-flattery.html?_r=0:
“In April, leading Mr. Sanders by more than 50 points nationally, Mrs. Clinton traversed Iowa in her “Scooby bus,” speaking to handfuls of people at highly orchestrated round tables, favoring everybody-wins subjects like help for small business. In July, she opened up on Republicans, without mentioning her Democratic opponents. In September, Mrs. Clinton told a gathering in Ohio that she was “kind of moderate and center.” A month later, after poll numbers showed that Mr. Sanders was gaining on her in Iowa, she drew criticism for newly portraying herself as a “progressive.”
“Now locked in a tighter race, Mrs. Clinton is holding big rallies too, and she increasingly channels the Bern. As both Democratic candidates made closing arguments at rallies in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, before the caucuses, it was remarkable how Mrs. Clinton’s talking points, style, even hand gestures resembled Mr. Sanders’s. In a fiery speech in a high school gym, she used clipped-cadence flourishes like, “Here’s what I want ya to know, guys,” to raise topics her rival holds dear: income inequality, poverty, the Koch brothers, taxing millionaires. “We’re going where the money is, the money is where the wealthy are, we’re gonna change the tax code and make them pay for all of the benefits they’ve got here in America!” she shouted.”
This is serious stuff, Bill. It’s important. It’s definitely not noise.
This is all electioneering and noise. The atmosphere in Congress will remain the same no matter which Dem President will be in office. This is noise Bev drowning out reality.
Yeah, Daniel. SO MUCH of what she says is just dismayingly childish and baldly silly. That’s ABSOLUTELY her modus operandi with these soundbite slogans. It really, really concerns me and certainly will if she wins the nomination.
Bev, with all due respect you worry about soundbite slogans when a lot of your posts are basically the same exact thing.
Anyone truly interested in not falling into a GOP abyss in 2017 has to be careful with this rhetoric. If Sanders is the nominee, he will need HRC supporters and vice versa.
Sanders moving the discussion further left is the best part of this entire process so far, let’s not lose that with soundbite slogans.
Dean Baker gives the math in terms of the nomination here:
“In this respect, it is important recognize how much the nomination process is stacked towards Clinton. It is not just a question of her having the vigorous support of a former Democratic president and largely controlling the Democratic National Committee. She is also likely to have the overwhelming support of the super-delegates (Democratic members of Congress, state office holders, and other prominent Democrats).
The super-delegates are just under 15 percent of the total number of delegates. If Clinton wins this group by a margin of 80% to 20% (she has more than 95% of the super-delegates who have already made a commitment), then Sanders would have to capture more than 55 percent of the elected delegates to get the nomination. ”
Let’s keep our eye on the ball.
Yeah okay. I guess you mean the democracy ball? In that the candidate who has the most votes that are untainted by blatant manipulation by corrupt insiders gets the nomination?
I figured that was what you meant.
Been around for a long time. Used to be more of a factor. And it is beyond tiring to hear these conspiracy type thoughts.
You poor thing. Have you tried hot towels?
Maybe a cup of tea. Some of the herbal ones are so tasty and caffeine
So I guess you complained bitterly in 2008 when Clinton received the most popular votes in the primaries yet lost the nomination?
I guess we all have our burdens. I find myself exasperated by questions that presume facts not in evidence.
What facts are you talking about?
Baker’s statement? Popular vote in 2008?
Your comments about the 2008 Iowa caucuses result, EMichael, reminds me that, yes, it’s true that the results were released after the 2008 caucuses, presumably at Clinton’s request. But Sanders’ campaign’s request, and the Des Moines Register’s request, for release of last week’s results are being denied or ignored.
As for the obvious need for Sanders supporters to vote for Clinton in November if she’s the nominee, and vice versa, Clinton doesn’t endear herself to Sanders supporters by the stupidities she says about Sanders’ policy proposals and by her ridiculous claims that Sanders is sexist.
And … Krugman? Speaking of someone who keeps posting basically the exact same thing ….
Maybe this insight from her husband can help out. He even cites it as “One of Clinton’s Laws of Politics”(!)
“One of Clinton’s laws of politics is, if one candidate is trying to scare you, and the other one is trying to make you think, if one candidate’s appealing to your fears, and the other one’s appealing to your hopes. You better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope.” William Jefferson Clinton, 2004.
Has Madame Secretary seen this?
Love you baby, but you are getting silly.
Progress toward WHAT? That’s what I always wonder.
Warren towards the day everyone has a flying car.
No you fricking ninnie progressives have their eyes on the same prize they always have: the Four Freedoms of FDR:
Freedom of speech
Freedom of worship
Freedom from want
Freedom from fear
Conservatives only want these freedoms for themselves. Progressives want them for everybody. This isn’t hard.
Does one have to be a progressive to want the Rockwell’sFour Freedoms for anyone?
I would suggest that there is only one progressive that cares about our freedoms…..as he was the only one in senate to vote against Patriot Act, and that was Russ Feingold.
You and Bruce are much better schooled in the arcane points in the history than am I, but I can’t recall anyone who wasn’t a progressive, even if without the capital “P”, fighting for them. For sure, I can’t recall anyone calling themselves a conservative during my adult life, that did.
Nixon may have actually come close in some ways, at the presidential level, and a few members of congress from the 50s (as far back as my memory extends on such matters). But certainly no one today. If there are any examples you know of, please share, and that’s not sarcasm.
Freedom of speech
Freedom of worship
Do we not already have those first two?
Freedom from want
Freedom from fear
Like the woman in the UK too fat to work, and she WANTS the taxpayers to pay 15,000 pounds for her wedding?
What about the fear of failing? Shall we take away children’s fear of getting poor grades? Never fear, Johnny, you can get F’s in high school and the government will still pay for you to go to college! Never fear, Johnny, you can get poor grades in college and not fear having no education or job skills, the government will pay for everything!
You are going a bridge too far and I am not in the mood for your nonsense as you are in your typical conflating stance.
We’re now solidly into Establishment Backlash Stage 6 :
Issuance of grave and hysterical warnings about the pending apocalypse if the establishment candidate is rejected, as the possibility of losing becomes imminent (you are destined for decades, perhaps even generations, of powerlessness if you disobey our decrees about who to select).”
Is it at all possible that we could see the demise of BOTH major parties in one election?
Marko, thanks for the URL which has another article which would seem to indicate Clinton’s team seems to be made up of those who lobbied against Obama care and the Dodd Frank banking reform. Which Clinton has stated were Obama’s reforms she supported.
Thanks , Beene , I missed that.
Hillary will say whatever it takes to get elected. Once in office , she’s not likely to turn her back on her old buddies , and they’re hardly what you’d call “progressive”.
If she does win , she’s probably a lock to win this award , just like Obama :
Here is how I see it. First of all, the left has forgotten it’s core principles over the years in pursuit of power and due to pressure by the right to follow them stage right. Secondly, the right has stepped to the right every time we try to meet them in the middle which moves us to the right every single time. Given this reality, Bernie is a key actor in what I believe will become a more proud and liberal left and his contribution to this election cycle is very important. Hillary is about power and ego, nothing else. Yes she cares deeply about issues but she is not a change agent, she is a tinkerer, a female version of her husband. So labels and what they mean are important. Who gets to define what a liberal or progressive is? We do. A progressive must stand for core principles or it means nothing except as a derogatory slur bandied about by right wingers. Bernie knows that he will not get everything he wants but if he gets half of it, that means the ball is moving left not right. HIllary is happy to take a far right position and move it slightly left which makes her complicit in the rightward agenda of the entire GOP. The way forward is to force the right to move towards us, not the other way around.
One day people, when they are talking about negotiations and/or compromises, will stop reciting the incredibly false idea that the initial asking price of either side determines the final compromise price in any way, shape or form.
Life does not work that way, it has never worked that way.
EMichael…I don’t know exactly what you meant here but if you are making the claim that the opening bid does not affect the buying price you are sadly mistaken. I negotiate for a living, deals worth millions. Believe me, if you give away money with an opening bid you will never get it back.
I have done a little bit of negotiation myself. The opening bid is worthless unless there is a chance that the buyer will pay it.
The idea that it is effective to say “I’ve already come down 20%! I cannot go farther”:, is worthless unless you are dealing with imbeciles and/or have them up against the wall.
If your opening bid is so far out of the realm of possibility that it will be considered a joke then yes, you will have to resubmit it. But you will never know that unless you make a bid. In the case of politics today, the right wing has never failed to make an outrageous first bid. The left has shied away from this strategy over and over again which means only the left opens with a bid that is already compromised. I am sorry but your strategy is one that will always result in sub-optimum results, your strategy will always leave money on the table. The key it to keep the bidding open and keep talking and presenting value. In a closed bid, price wins, nothing else matters. In an open process which is what politics is, your opening bid is key.
We disagree. Depends on who holds the cards.
If anyone thinks Bernie’s plan for single payer(which I would love to have) will be negotiated down to something above the status quo (public option?), I’ve got a bridge in Lake Havasu to sell them.
Course, the same think holds for HRC’s plan to strengthen the ACA. that ain’t happening either.
And no one on the right is going to move one inch farther left because of the opening bid.
I can tell you this, if you do not believe no one else will either. I am reminded of the civil rights movement when hundreds of students decided to form a group with the intent purpose of going to libraries, diners, theaters and so on and sitting down in the whites only sections. At first, everyone was appalled, it was outrageous, it was completely off the charts. Each time it happened, they got beat or pushed or threatened but each and every time they did it, it started to reveal the ugly truth and shame the leaders one at a time. What Bernie is saying about single payer is not some revolutionary idea, it is simply adding one insurer to the list, a government backed insurance agency similar to Medicare where the costs to administer it are in the 2-4% range and costs are managed. If it is not proposed now then when? If it is denied today, then maybe the next time it will make some progress. This is how you affect true change not by giving up and saying “it’s too hard or no one will buy it or it won’t happen”. Believe me, the right wing never makes this mistake, they keep going further and further right and we follow them like lap dogs.
Nice direction change.
And a proposal today means absolutely nothing to some acceptance down the road. Meanwhile, I hate to differ, but thinking Sanders’ plan will match Medicare’s admin costs is silly. Lot less procedures covered, lot more movements and growth in the pool of insured. Though not to say there is not a great deal of savings in admin costs.
Actually, I am of the opinion that Sanders’ release of his plan actually will hurt the chances of single payer down the road. It was amateurish at best, and simply allowed way too many easy attacks on it due to its math. He would get(and so would single payer) get absolutely skewered in a debate with the Gop nominee.
I mean seriously, how is it possible to release a plan that claims savings in drug costs that exceeds the amount of money the US spends on drugs? That was simply brutal, and an amateurish mistake.
Sander’s released his medicare for all with extended benefits on this past Sunday.
Sorry did not keep the URL.
by the Sanders campaign. It would provide comprehensive care to all Americans, covering doctors’ visits, hospital stays, long-term and hospice care, vision, dental, mental health and prescription drugs.
To pay for it, Sanders is calling for a new 2.2% income tax on all Americans and a 6.2% levy on employers. But he would also hike taxes on the wealthy.
However, Sanders’ campaign argues that average Americans and businesses would save money by scrapping their private insurance premiums, which now cost families an average of $4,955 and employers nearly $12,600 a year per employee.
Instead, a family of four making $50,000 would pay $466 in new taxes, while employers would pay $3,100, Sanders’ campaign said.
Also, Americans would no longer have co-pays or deductibles under the Medicare-for-all plan. Individuals now pay an average of $1,312 a year in deductibles, while families must shell out $2,012
It is the same s a few weeks ago. Lots of summary and no detail.
A plan set up during a campaign is merely a position statement. The details emerge once you get the staffers involved and the CBO. Whether or not Bernies existing plan comes to fruition is immaterial to the core debate which is that if we want universal health care for all, we will have to marshall all the resources at hand and it may take years but if that is the goal, it can be done. It has been done all across the globe at a fraction of the cost we pay today. By throwing it out today because the numbers don’t add up, you accept its defeat before it even gets to first base. This is exactly what my original post inferred which you seemed to think was a misdirection. All big changes happen in increments and are led by big ideas trying to make big changes. In a democracy like ours, a republic if you will, nothing happens overnight without pain and struggle. Bernie is moving the goal posts, Hillary is merely trying to paint them a different color.
Wooley, I’m in agreement with you’re original argument.
Wooley, I can’t believe you really think that by “demanding” single payer, Bernie is going to get “half of it” (whatever that means). The reality, of course, is that he is going to get absolutely none of it. He’s got no leverage even if he were to win the presidency. The results of gerrymandering are not going to be changed by this election or the next if then.
After last night this is going to get hella ugly. The Clintons tried the 2008 playbook again (attack opponents supporters, initially via surrogates then full on) and of course failed miserably.
The broad demographics of Bernie’s win mean the electability argument is over. His rumored massive fundraising haul this morning means the uncompetitive on a mass scale argument is over.
But hey maybe Geithner and his pals are worried enough to double down on her pitiful scam. Anything’s possible.
“The broad demographics of Bernie’s win”
What? There are no broad demographics in NH.
” By throwing it out today because the numbers don’t add up, you accept its defeat before it even gets to first base.”
I am not throwing it out, what I am saying is that showing incredible incompetence in this release is a negative towards moving towards that goal.
He beat her in the cities. He beat her among women. He beat her in the rural areas. He beat her in the state capital and did very well along the Massachusetts border.
Madame Secretary held on to her key demo people making >$200K who think they are “getting ahead in today’s economy”. So that’s working out all right for her.
You seem a bit shrill this morning Michael.
Yes. The demographics of other states will be different. Yes. It will be more complicated when he is competing in states with closed primaries.
But many minority voters are likely to remember how team Clinton treated Obama in 2008. Senator Sanders may even choose to remind them. Maybe Rev. Sharpton will help him. We shall see.
I am not shrill at all. And I much prefer Sanders to HRC, but this kind of blind attention to facts is driving me nuts.
Straight up, NE means nothing. It has never meant anything. And talking about Wide demographics is a state that is 91% white is absurd.
Let’s move on and deal with the real primaries instead of making conclusions based on states that do not matter.
oops,, NH, not NE.
The only conclusions I’ve drawn from these two primaries is that a lot of the very early CW on Bernie was simply WRONG.
A competitive campaign organization CAN be created without the conventional bundlers and pacs. It CAN find support outside the presumed DFHs so routinely ridiculed by the punditry and DLC legacy “establishment” poobahs.
I further concluded after seeing how much Bernie accomplished with the little I was sending him every month he deserved a raise. He’s doing a heck of a job imo.
I agree, Sanders has done a great job moving the discussion to the left. And in terms of grassroots we saw Obama do the same thing in 08 to a large extent.
Now comes the test. And Sanders cannot afford another gaffe like his healthcare plan release.
Ahem. I wouldn’t have given Senator Sanders a raise for moving the discussion. He’s moving voters. He has the resources and organization to keep doing that.
He is (so far) passing that test. Let’s see how embracing Bogama’s legacy works out for Madame Secretary works out in the next few weeks. It may not have the same resonance once she gets outside the hotel ballroom fundraisers.
Cross posted from NC.
February 10, 2016 at 7:33 am
With the election results, the people have spoken – the nincompoops! “Thank you, all, very, very much. My goodness. I don’t know what we’d have done tonight if we actually won. I use “we” as I am the only truly schizophrenic candidate – but as we say, several for the price of one!
Actually, my result of 67th place far exceeded expectations of the incompetent right wing liberal media – why exceeding the expectations of such incompetents means I deserve votes is anybody’s guess. And here’s what we’re going to do. Now, we take this campaign to the entire country. Why we’re going to states where there are not elections probably explains our dismal placing. We’re going to fight for every vote in every state – which seems kinda violent in the states where there are not elections. We’re going to fight for real solutions that make a real difference in people’s lives – why we haven’t done that in the previous 20 years of government service, and/or have been so incompetent or ineffective would seem to be a good reason not for more of the same. But hey, you drink a lot and have hangovers, and you keep doing that!
You know, when I started this campaign last spring, I knew we were facing profound challenges as a country. The way too many things were going just wasn’t right. And I thought, Godd*mn democrats. And than I thought, I can’t say that – how in the hell would I get elected???????????
Now, people — people have every right to be angry. But they’re also hungry. They’re hungry for solutions. They’re hungry for doritos too! That is why I would immediately implement a doritors for all program upon my swearing in. Of course, if I’m elected I won’t actually be able to get you doritos, but is sure sounds good.
What are we going to do? And that is — that is the fight we’re taking to the country. What is the best way to change people’s lives so we can all grow together? Who is the best change-maker? And here’s what I promise. Here’s what I promise: I will work harder than anyone to actually make the changes that make your lives better! Because I have been really, really, really lazy for the last 20 years. But I am going to get off my Fat as* and do something. What I have no idea, but I promise something.
“In this campaign, you’ve heard a lot about Washington and about Wall Street. Now, Senator Sanders and I both want to get secret, unaccountable money out of politics and into my bank account. Now, too much of this money goes to people who are not nearly as deserving of it as me…..
And with this strong unexpected victory, we go on to South Carolina, where this will be the beginning of a great groundswell of victory. Onward, upward, downward, and backward, but always twirling, ever twirling to victory!
I hope I’m not breaking copyright…
Bernie’s financiers stepped up last night:
1/3 of a Soros!