By Josh Sager
In order to be successful in the
long term, the progressive movement must promote ideas and ideological position
rather than simply politicians. If the progressive movement focuses on policies
rather than politicians, then there is a greater chance that progressive
policies will be enacted. Progressive policies can be pushed by any progressive
politician and are not dependent upon the success of a single political race.
This focus on policies over
politicians has three key components:
- The progressive movement’s focus should be on getting progressive policies passed over keeping individual politicians in office; if an individual politician must take a short term loss in order to achieve a substantial progressive policy win, then the policy should take priority over keeping the politician in office.
- Once elected, all progressive politicians must be held to their support of progressive policies. Allowing elected politicians to ignore their promises creates a situation where many supposedly progressive politicians are elected, yet few progressive policies are advanced.
- The partisan affiliation of a politician should never overshadow the policies which they support; if we say that something is immoral and wrong when the opposition does it, then we must not tolerate it when our own allies act similarly.
The purpose of getting a politician
elected is not simply to win an election, but to have some say in the national/state
policy. In any situation where an individual politician must risk their position
in order to pass a significant progressive policy, the progressive movement
should prioritize the policy over the individual. For example: during the 2009
healthcare fight, the Democratic Party should have put much more pressure on
the Blue Dog/southern Democrats in order to force them to support single payer
healthcare. While these politicians may have lost their next election due to
this support, the passage of such a significant piece of progressive
legislation would be well worth the sacrifice and would endure far longer than
the short term loss of the politicians. Every progressive politician to be
elected should be made to understand that their position is not an end unto
itself, but rather a way of facilitating the passage of progressive policies.
Promoting individual politicians
is ultimately irrelevant when these politicians abandon progressive policies once
in office. If progressives are more attached to individual politicians than
policy positions, then these politicians are able to get away with not
supporting progressive policies. An individual politician is often not totally reliable
and is far less stable than a policy position. Politicians can often be
compelled to compromise their ideology’s policies in order to serve political
games; individual politicians can also be ignored, suffer scandals, have their
character impugned, or lose office. A policy isn’t tied to a human, can be
supported by many politicians, and will often outlast an individual’s political
career.
Once elected into office,
progressive politicians should be held to their support of progressive
policies. If a supposedly progressive politician does not act like a progressive
once in office, they should lose the support of the progressive movement and be
challenged during the next possible primary. When a politician claims to be a
progressive, yet doesn’t support progressive policies, there is no reason why
the progressive movement should consider them an ally, or support them (ex.
Blue Dog Democrats).
The current Democratic Party’s acceptance
of President Obama’s drone campaign has illustrated exactly why a focus on policy
rather than politicians is necessary. When President Bush was utilizing drones,
and sometimes killing civilians, the Democratic Party was visibly outraged. One
would think that, given this outrage, the Democratic president Obama would immediately
begin fixing the flaws in this program which his party was outraged over when
Bush ran it. Unfortunately, this is not the case, as the Obama administration’s
drone program is far more egregious than Bush’s, and has expanded upon the
worst aspects of the Bush drone program—more civilians have been killed, more
drones have been sent into Yemen and Pakistan, and the USA has begun using “signature
strikes” to kill unknown people based upon patterns of behavior. If the drone
program of Bush’s administration is immoral and needs to be protested by
progressives, then Obama’s program is just that much worse. The fact that many
Democrats have been silent about the Obama drone program demonstrates just how
party affiliation can eclipse policy.
In a world where Democrats and
progressives focused upon policy, rather than supporting individual
politicians, Obama would never have dared continue the abuses of the Bush
administration. Upon attempting to continue many of the Bush era policies (ex.
drone strikes, tax cuts, austerity, etc.), he would have lost the support of
his base and would likely have faced a significant primary effort during the 2012
election. In this world, the progressive movement would be able to ensure that
every politician who claims to be a progressive acted like one, even when no
election was imminent.
The conservative movement has
been utilizing this tactic for decades and has been very successful—the promotion
of tax cuts and “trickle-down” economics are two examples of conservative
policy goals which have received particular focus. Conservative politicians are
held to the conservative movement’s ideological goals, or are immediately jettisoned
(ex. pro-choice Republicans are largely extinct). While an extreme party line
is ultimately destructive, as it stifles all compromise, the progressive
movement should adopt a less extreme version of it in order to facilitate
policy wins. Progressive politicians should be allowed some autonomy of beliefs,
but should be expected to conform to a majority of the progressive platform.
No comments:
Post a Comment