It breaks your heart. It is designed to break your heart. The game begins in the spring, when everything else begins again, and it blossoms in the summer, filling the afternoons and evenings, and then as soon as the chill rains come, it stops and leaves you to face the fall alone. You count on it, rely on it to buffer the passage of time, to keep the memory of sunshine and high skies alive, and then just when the days are all twilight, when you need it most, it stops. Today, October 2, a Sunday of rain and broken branches and leaf-clogged drains and slick streets, it stopped, and summer was gone.- B. Giamatti
I have stated on more than one occasion that I am not a "progressive".
I am a liberal. I'm a Democrat and I'm a liberal. Nothing more, nothing less.
To my way of thinking, people who call themselves "progressives" are painfully earnest people who, to paraphrase the words of Ani DiFranco, "can't order lunch without it being political". People like that make me itch if not recoil in horror (in a roundabout way, that was my point here). I don't sit around flipping through copies of Democracy Today anxiously taking surveys to find out whether I'm a "classical liberal" or a "Jacksonian" or an "Anarcho-syndicalist" (which would look pretty cool on a business card when you think about it). Trust me: life is too short for navel-gazing
In light of all of all of this, I suggest that you go read Lance Mannion, who boils Our Stupid Democratic Season down to this:
Concerned readers sometimes write in to ask, "Lance, how can you be a Democrat! Don't they break your heart every single day of the week?"
Some of them.
But this is something I learned growing up listening to Pop Mannion and Uncle Bill. You're a Democrat because you want to see certain things get done and unfortunately you need politicians to get them done and politicians are just people, often significantly flawed people. Saints become nurses and doctors and teachers and missionaries. They don't go into politics. This is what I've learned on the blogosphere. The difference between Democrats and a lot of self-styled Progressives is Democrats want certain things to get done; Progressives want a lot of the same things to get done but they want a certain type of person to be the one to get them done.
I'll tell you, that kind of person doesn't usually go into politics, and when they do they don't often get very far.
I'm not bragging when I tell you this, though. Pop Mannion is that kind of person, as close as you can get anyway, and I'll tell you this too. If you'd voted for him for town supervisor, the odds are he'd have broken your heart at least a half dozen times during both of this long tenures in the job. You know why? Because he's still just a human being. He couldn't do everything he wanted to. He couldn't please everybody he needed to please. He couldn't be everything to everybody and whenever he had to choose what he could be to whom he broke a lot of people's hearts.
In the end, what there was was what he'd gotten done, which was considerable, considering. And that's what he'd tell you to look at. The point wasn't who was supervisor. The point was what got done.
The point isn't Obama. The point isn't Clinton. The point is what is the next Democratic President going to get done, and neither one is going to get everything they want done. Either one is going to have to make choices that are going to break hearts.
Go read the whole thing.
Login Here
Share This
Spotlight


Support this site!
Keep
up with news
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About TBogg
Advanced search
RSS/XML Feed
I want to believe this. I really do. With all my heart, I want to accept a pragmatic, realistic view of The Way Things Work. It would make my life a lot easier to get through, make each one of life’s disappointments that much easier to take.
But I can’t. Or, if you prefer, I won’t. I’m not wired that way.
My cynicism came not from being a clear-eyed realist, but from being a frequently-thwarted optimist. And despite living amidst conclusive proof that human beings have to be the dumbest fucking beings in all of existence to consider themselves sentient, I cling to that little grain of optimism that’s still inside me.
So, like it is with my beloved SF Giants: I may not really expect to see them to win every game, but every loss hurts, every loss makes me mad, every loss make me want to find a way for them to not lose ever again. Even though I know in my heart, there’s no real point.
And tomorrow, we all get up and do it again.
Well,
I read mannion’s post a bit differently, captphealy, its that our hearts get broken *if we let the romance go to our heads.* I see this all the time on Kos, the things they excoriate HRC and Bill for–not being good family people?–uh, eventually, michelle and obama are going to dissapoint them on that one. Playing politics to get something done? Its inevitable.
I don’t agree that this is the main difference between progessives and democrats though. Funny though tbogg is I don’t think he’s right about that. Progressives actually want things that democrats may not want. That is why the democratic voter spectrum shades right into the reagan dem spectrum. But the progressive end never gets that far right.
In any event “we get up and do it again” is the refrain of our house, too, captphealy.
aimai
I think the whole progressive/liberal thing is one of branding identity - generationally speaking, post-boomers have not seen a whole lot of positives being produced under the “liberal” banner, only vilification by the right. When “liberal” things have been achieved, they were never called as such (more often “bipartisan” or “common sense solutions” or whatever) and thus did not promote the “liberal” brand.
I don’t have much confidence that Obama will call his policies either liberal or progressive, so not much help in that quarter when it comes to growing the brand.
Mannion is exactly right. Semantics aside, what we are talking about here is power, not religion, not baseball, not the romance of Camelot. The last 30 years has seen the systematic eradication of what little power the middle and working classes had accrued beyond voting, and the latter has been weakened by an all-out assault of corporate media propaganda and the undermining of elections and voter rights bordering on criminality. As a result, the center has shifted so far to the right that even liberal Democrats have internalized many of the tropes of one-party Republicanism. We don’t need charisma, progressivism, liberalism, paragons of virtue or family wonderfulness, except to the extent that any or all of those things will result in getting back even a little of the power the vast majority of Americans have lost to Gooper control and gloves-off capitalism.
As long as it takes millions of dollars to win elections, and the wealthy and corporate constituencies of wealthy corporate candidates (supported by a wealthy corporate media) have such undue influence on politicians of all stripes, then this will always be an uphill battle. Reaquiring even a modicum of power is not only going to take persuasion, compromise, concession, and all those things that break the hearts of people who shouldn’t be so naive, but it’s going to take a fiercely aggressive base that keeps the pressure on. That means we have to open our mouths and our wallets when necessary, and most of all, fucking VOTE.
I’m a cynical pessimist and my expectations are always low, so my heart never gets broken by mere politicians.
Hi Tbogg. I’m very glad to see your position being stated anywhere and let me elaborate a bit on it: We should call ourselves liberal because it is a good word that has been hijacked. The solution to that is to reclaim it, not abandon it for another word. “Progressive” will just be the next target and in 20 years we’ll be looking for yet another synonym. We need to stick with liberal, be prepared to explain why that is a good thing and persuade our countrymen that America will be a better place when liberal principles are ascendant. We’ve shrunk from that duty for too long; we need to make a stand on that word and forcefully defend it. It’s time to hit back, brother.
How very timely: a good friend has started inundating me with his “they’re all crooks, vote for Nader!” missives, and I’ve been at a loss as to how I explain to him that his is a fundamentally flawed approach to changing the way things work (I sent him Tbogg’s wonderful rant about Happy Gumdrop Fairy-Tale Land, but it didn’t go over very well). And while I look at Hillary and cringe and Obama and wonder if he’s really got what it’ll take, I know one of them will be the one to at least start us down the road to undoing what has been done to us over the past eight years… No utopia, just a change of course.
And yet, the pinko-liberal within me wants so much more than “well, at least they’re democrats and don’t kill little kids for sport.” To paraphrase Groucho Marx: “anyone who wants to rule badly enough to run for office should not be allowed to do so.” By the time they’re close enough to wielding power even the most idealistic politician appears to have been immersed in the world of power for so long that it has invariably corrupted them; they compromise, they sell out, they break promises — but that’s the game as it’s played, and the rest of us learn to deal or remain in delusional denial that a different set of players could somehow change the rules.
I went back to calling myself a liberal when I heard George Clooney say the following:
“The difference between a liberal and a conservative is that a liberal does not have to put the word ‘compassionate’ in front of his name to prove that he gives a shit”
As a Cubs fan (by marriage), I can relate. I think I’d define ‘progressive’ as ‘a political operative that believes cutting off their nose to spite their face is a great moral victory’. I’ve disliked Hillary for lo these many years (I met her in 1977), but I will cheerfully pull that level for her if she gets the nom. Eyes on the prize, folks, eyes on the prize.
FDR called himself a Liberal because Woodrow Wilson trashed the Progressive Brand.
Today’s Progressives call themselves that because the Right Wing GOP and the Media Whores that love them trashed the Liberal Brand — enabled by feckless Democrats that were more interested in power and privilege and fund raising and perks and continuing resolutions, than they were in defending the Liberal Brand.
I call myself a two fisted Liberal. One of my old jokes is that if I ever met Rush Limbaugh in a dark alley, the only question would be whether his face or my fists would get out of traction first. Since Bush and Cheney and Rove and Rush stole the election and trashed the country, my mood is decidedly more sour; I would be far less charitable in a dark alley today.
The good news is that despite all of the institutional advantages the GOP enjoys with their control of the government and an obsequious and servile Media, the Republican Brand is in tatters, and two thirds of the American People agree with the Democrats.
The bad news is that there are still not enough two fisted Liberals and Progressives in the Democratic Party power structure — but the times they are a changin’.
I will splatter one more comment.
I agree that Left Blogtopia has better things to do than put up arbitrary tests on who is more “progressive”. This complex ruined MLW.
I also agree with aimai in part. If you think of yourself as a progressive you think of yourself as part of social movements which want to think about the big picture and pull the greater discourse to the left. This kind of progressive, like Paul Rosenberg, can view electoral politics with some disinterest.
All I meant by that was that Paul Rosenberg does not have to be over the moon about a candidate. He explicitly said that every Democrat doesn’t have to be a “progressive” in order to accomplish progressive goals.
ckls:
That’s called politics, ckls. I think you might have just inadvertently proved TBogg’s and Mannion’s point.
I will call myself both and either, and I will vote for anyone who calls themselves anything as long as doing so means people are less likely to get killed in large numbers. How’s that for a broken heart and low expectations?
In the end, Obama is not my prospective BFF anymore than Hillary is, but voting for either makes a McCain presidency less likely and that’s all that matters to me. As much as I have respected Nader, voting for him does not do that, and I won’t do it. For as long as I’ve been politically aware, my heart’s been with the greater good, but my vote’s with the lesser evil. The lesser evil may not stop the war in Iraq, but the greater good will never even get the chance.
I know what the Naderites want, and I applaud them for wanting it. I understand the frustration of seeing a candidate with whom you agree shut out of the process. And I understand the logical appeal of “They can’t win because we say they can’t win and so we don’t vote for them”, God knows I understand it, with people taking those who-agrees-with-your-positions-more quizzes and laughing dismissively as the same can’t-win candidate comes up for a significant percentage of them, but the people who will die while we’re holding out for the candidate we want deserve better than thwarted idealism.
My favorite quote on the subject was from Rep. Barney Frank:
“The only time I was completely satisfied voting was when I voted for myself, the first time.”
But Helen’s George Clooney quote is a fine contender!
If Clinton steals the nomination, I won’t vote for Nader, because then my vote would only count once. I will vote for McCain to double my protest vote. The idea that I am supposed to accept whatever piece of crap is put on my plate because it is called “Democrat” on the menu just doesn’t work for me. Clinton is more of the same shit. Yes, you can argue that she is the “same shit lite”, but the same shit, nonetheless: Corporate lackey, pandering to the people (almost literally offering us a dollar for her vote with this gas tax bogusness). One real vote counted and she voted for the war. She just talked about “obliterating” another country. She will never get my vote and it is a bizarre and twisted world where someone like that is even being considered as a possible candidate for the “left”, “liberals”, “progressives” or whatever the fuck else you want to call Democrats. She should have resigned in disgrace two months after the war started.
Look around. The “Democrats” have had a majority in Congress for a chunk of time and they have done NOTHING to end the war. They have done NOTHING.
From captphealy @1:
clap!clap!clap!clap!clap!
From thingwarbler @6:
clap!clap!clap!clap!clap!
The last MN politician I actively worked for: Paul Wellstone.
99.5% of the current politicians do not care about people. They care about their own power. Period.
From dsidhe @13:
clap!clap!clap!clap!clap!
I dream of voting for someone that would commit themselves to the greater good - for all americans. My heart is broken every 2 or 4 years, when I end up voting for the greedy sell-out that will do the least damage.
The 75% pessimist in me wants to scream, “Fuck ‘em all!”
The 24% optimist in me says, “We’ll do better next time”.
The 1% realist in me puts the pieces of my broken heart back together, picks me up off the floor, & gets me to try again. And again…
“I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat.”
–Will Rogers
“The last MN politician I actively worked for: Paul Wellstone.
99.5% of the current politicians do not care about people. They care about their own power. Period.”
TheRealityBasedDave,
I was thinking about Paul Wellstone before I read your comment. He was indeed one in a million.
I think you miss the point.
Every primary season, pick out one POS Democrat and take a stick to that Democrat as an Example to Evildoers. Then vote for the Democrat over the Republican in the general. It’s slow and painful and ulcer-inducing, and it’s hard work, but progress will surely come out the other end at long last.
If you decline to get involved and take a stick to the Evildoers, and just automatically vote for the Democrat every election, don’t be surprised when the crooks and fanatics take over. Giving one POS Democrat a good pummeling is more effective than chasing ten POS Democrats around without laying a blow.
And that’s what it’s all about, Charlie Brown. Call it what you want.
I was thinking about Paul Wellstone… He was indeed one in a million.
And, like so many other One-in-A-Million politicians, Wellstone died too young. Funny how that happens…