"Progressive" and other political labels

[Voronwë the Faithful]

[Note: I moved this discussion from the Same-sex marriage thread, where I was responding to a post the administration recognizing same-sex marriage in an immigration context - VtF]

I agree. I think it is very telling that the only place that I saw it reported was on a right-leaning site, criticizing the move. It is the type of somewhat behind the scenes move that the administration does a lot of, and gets little credit for from the so-called "base". I am beginning to think that Republicans have a better idea of who the president is than Democrats do. Which is a bad sign.

[nerdanel]

Actually, I saw the immigration news reported on a left-leaning site. And many of us did cheer it. Of course, we would have cheered it even more if it had been done in early 2009 -- as we had every right to expect given the promises the administration had made.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

And that sums up the so-called "progressive" response to this president in a nutshell. This is a president who inherited to difficult wars, the worst economy in generations, the most difficult partisan political climate in memory, and yet has achieved more progressive goals than any president since at least FDR. Yet the response is always "too little" or "too late".

Oh well.

[River]

I suppose it was also rather unforgivable that he let himself be distracted by things like that disaster in the Gulf last year and the Arab Spring this year...

[nerdanel]

And that sums up the so-called "progressive" response to this president in a nutshell. This is a president who inherited to difficult wars, the worst economy in generations, the most difficult partisan political climate in memory, and yet has achieved more progressive goals than any president since at least FDR. Yet the response is always "too little" or "too late".

Oh well.

...and this sums up the apologist, defensive response to progressives: how dare you expect the President to have taken simple (stroke of pen) executive actions that would have realized his campaign promises to key constituencies. How outrageous, that a hated, persecuted minority community and its allies, who rallied behind this President and supported him disproportionately with their dollars, should be angry that this President utterly ignored virtually all his key promises to them until he realized that it was politically untenable to go on ignoring them. Yet the response is always, "How unreasonable that you are angry that the President continued to implement hateful, bigoted Bush-era policies for years, and in many cases continued to defend those policies in court" - policies that ripped apart bi-national same-sex couples, persecuted gay Americans attempting to serve this country in the military, and denied equality to same-sex couples. What I find most frustrating is the failure of Obama apologists to recognize the legitimacy of the frustrations of the groups whose needs were ignored, or still worse, trampled upon during the first half of Obama's term.

The message to disfavored minorities is clear: "Accept whatever rights are thrown your way, whenever you can get them, and don't you dare complain if your issues have been backbenched." In this case, "Don't you know, the straight folks are busy. Sure, they still have time to deport you, discharge you, and defend their non-recognition of your marriages* - but they're WAY too busy to grant you any rights."

*...ALL things that the Executive Branch had plenty of time to do under Obama, 2009-2010 (or '11, in certain cases).

[nerdanel]

Also, a question for Voronwë in particular:

Imagine instead that the Obama administration had, pursuant to existing hypothetical law, (1) systemically discharged people discovered to have African ancestry from the military; (2) argued against the federal government's recognition of black people's marriages; and (3) commenced deportation proceedings against black immigrants who married American citizens, on the grounds that those marriages were invalid and that Americans could not sponsor their black immigrant partners for citizenship. It is safe to say that the black community would be outraged if Obama had continued these practices for two years. Would you give them the same response? Essentially, "Well, he was busy, and you're not giving him enough credit."

[Voronwë the Faithful]

It's very easy to say "oh, he could have just done these things with a stroke of a pen" but it simply is not that simple. If there is one thing that I have noticed about the Obama administration, it is a focus on the task at hand. First was the necessity of passing a stimulus package to try to reverse the economic free-fall, next was the health care reform, and after that was financial reform. Anything that interfered with those goals got put on the backburner. And believe me, signing those executive orders would have interfered with those goals. In an ideal world, the president could just wave his hand, and the birds would sing, and rainbows would spring from the heavens, and every bad thing that had ever happened would be immediately reversed and remedied. But this is not an ideal world, and we have to take politics for what they are.

As for your hypothetical question, if someone asked a question like that in a deposition to one of my questions, I would object that it was an incomplete hypothetical, and instruct my client not to answer. It almost seems silly to point out that any advances in the civil rights movement took a lot of time to develop. Two years is not a long period of time in the broad scheme of things. Yes, it would be nicer if things could happen faster, but unfortunately nothing exists in a vacuum.

Edited to add: And so-called "progressive" African-American leaders like Cornell West and Harry Belafonte are as angry at Obama as any other "progressives" for failing to pursue policies that benefit African-Americans specifically.

[yovargas]

Also, a question for Voronwë in particular:

Imagine instead that the Obama administration had, pursuant to existing hypothetical law, (1) systemically discharged people discovered to have African ancestry from the military; (2) argued against the federal government's recognition of black people's marriages; and (3) commenced deportation proceedings against black immigrants who married American citizens, on the grounds that those marriages were invalid and that Americans could not sponsor their black immigrant partners for citizenship. It is safe to say that the black community would be outraged if Obama had continued these practices for two years. Would you give them the same response? Essentially, "Well, he was busy, and you're not giving him enough credit."

Depends - does your hypothetical take place in 1950, 1970, or 2000?

[nerdanel]

Depends - does your hypothetical take place in 1950, 1970, or 2000?

In any of the above. That is my point. These laws - whether directed against blacks, gays, or any other group - are hair-raisingly, noxiously bigoted and offensive human rights violations. Right-minded people of conscience were morally obliged to refuse to condone them (let alone enforce them) in each year you list: 1950, 1970, and 2000.

And this is what Voronwë's attempt to treat this like a deposition (?) rather than a messageboard conversation wholly misses. The hypothetical is complete: hair-raising human rights violations must not be implemented by any administration, at any point in time, for any reason, regardless of the political consequences. This is still more true when the president in question is elected on a platform that includes specific pledges not to continue with the rights-violations in question, reflecting at least some degree of democratic approval of the pledges. Is that "impractical"? No. It isn't. As Obama's more recent actions well-illustrate. On the other hand, the the weakness of your argument, V, is illustrated by the fact that ... if Obama had not yet taken the steps that he now has, in 2011, you would likely still be making the argument that he'd legitimately had too much else to occupy him, and that the "political consequences" of acting in a manner respectful of gay people's constitutional rights were too high. (And even if you would not specifically so argue, many of Obama's defenders would.)

Incidentally, V, I find your insistence on placing "progressives" in quotation marks to have a rather disparaging flair to it. As a progressive (no quotation marks included), I'd be happier without the quotation marks.

[vison]

The word "progressive" (sorry for the quotation marks, nerdanel) just has this 1930s ring to it. I find it odd, too, that it is meant as an "insult" by so many people. Surely a person should be proud to be "progressive". What's the alternative? "Regressive"?

I would think that Americans, of all people, would think that beng progressive is what America is all about.

[nerdanel]

The word "progressive" (sorry for the quotation marks, nerdanel) just has this 1930s ring to it. I find it odd, too, that it is meant as an "insult" by so many people. Surely a person should be proud to be "progressive". What's the alternative? "Regressive"?

I would think that Americans, of all people, would think that beng progressive is what America is all about.

I do think that. I am proud to be a progressive American and to live in an area which emphasises that aspect of our national heritage. What I meant is that to put quotation marks around something - as V did, not as you did - often has a disparaging ring (independent of the words surrounded by the quotation marks). I wasn't saying that the word progressive itself was an insult.

[yovargas]

Depends - does your hypothetical take place in 1950, 1970, or 2000?

In any of the above. That is my point. These laws - whether directed against blacks, gays, or any other group - are hair-raisingly, noxiously bigoted and offensive human rights violations. Right-minded people of conscience were morally obliged to refuse to condone them (let alone enforce them) in each year you list: 1950, 1970, and 2000.

My point being, yes, of course we should be angry whether 1950, 1970, or 2000. But from a practical standpoint the President in 1950, had he been able to give blacks more rights "with a stroke of a pen" could have very likely done more damage than good. Whether or not that's the case with gay rights today I can't say but I do think V-man's point that the high idealism needs to be tempered with pragmatism is entirely valid. And, dare I say it, if asked whether health care or gay equality is more important to the country, I'm voting for health care.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I really don't need to respond further when I have yov doing so better than I could anyway.

Regarding placing "progressive" in quotes, I apologize for that, but unfortunately I don't find much of the people who call themselves "progressive" to be very progressive. In my experience, progressives in America tend to be narrowly focused on their particular special interest, whether it be gay rights, or immigration, or labor, or environmentalism, and rarely look at the broader picture.

And yes, nel, I realize that you disagree.

[River]

Obama "closed" Gitmo with the stroke of a pen and we all know how that turned out: Congress refused to cooperate. The political will wasn't there to actually carry out the President's order without a bloody battle and he decided to spend his resources elsewhere. I think he learned a lesson from that.

I think it's also important to remember that Congresspeople can get really petty about their pet causes. If Obama makes too many strokes with his pen about gay rights, they in turn might refuse to approve a budget or make more attempts to obstruct the implementation of the START treaty or the DADT repeal.

Oh wait, that's already happening.

[nerdanel]

Beyond confirming V's sense that I strongly disagree with his characterization of American progressives as single-issue driven, I have nothing new to add, so I'll leave my points as they are, per - I just checked! - #4 of the Lasto guidelines.

[Alatar]

<osgiliation>It really bothers me when people label themselves as "progressives" as the inference is that those who disagree are either regressive or at best inert. Its like the whole "pro-life" and "pro-choice" thing. Bugs the hell out of me.</osgiliation>

[Primula Baggins]

I think it began as an American political phenomenon in the 1990s and 2000s, Alatar, when the word "liberal" was demonized out of all recognition and people gravitated toward "progressive." Which, predictably, is being demonized out of all recognition.

I don't think it's meant to be insulting to the entire universe. But in American politics there's a definite context for the political philosophy that it's possible to progress toward something new and better, rather than to believe that everything is perfect just as it is, or just as it was in 1950, or just as one's imagining of what "the Founding Fathers" intended would have made it if it hadn't been twisted out of recognition by Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

[nerdanel]

<osgiliation>It really bothers me when people label themselves as "progressives" as the inference is that those who disagree are either regressive or at best inert. Its like the whole "pro-life" and "pro-choice" thing. Bugs the hell out of me.</osgiliation>

I'm not at all attached to the label progressive. I'll happily go with liberal or any other term that communicates my stance on the issues most important to me. But at the same time, I won't apologize for using the word progressive routinely: many of my ideological opposites will tell you straightforwardly either that they do not want the current state of affairs to change, or that they want us to revert to how we did things at a previous point in American politics/history (e.g., to a more "moral," "nuclear family-oriented," etc. time that allegedly existed once before). So I would say that "inert" or "regressive" is not so much insulting as an accurate characterization of what many conservatives seem to be advocating.

[Alatar]

I find it telling that you put most of the other labels in quotes, but not progressives.

progressive
liberal
"moral"
"nuclear-family-oriented"
"inert"
"regressive"
conservative

[axordil]

<osgiliation>It really bothers me when people label themselves as "progressives" as the inference is that those who disagree are either regressive or at best inert. Its like the whole "pro-life" and "pro-choice" thing. Bugs the hell out of me.</osgiliation>

I wouldn't say it was an inference. I'd call it pretty blatant, and generally accurate, for the reasons Nel described. The current Right in the US wants to take us back to somewhere between 1890 and 1950, with a couple of hardcore fringes shooting for 1642.