Early ChriKwaNukah Present: Progressive Power

Given the decisive victory achieved by the Democrats in the recent midterm elections, one might expect that a left-leaning individual such as myself would be pleased with the result. Moreover, given my energies expended working for the Democratic Party in Baltimore City, one might additionally assume that I was a faithful member of the donkey establishment. The former is somewhat true, while the latter is rather distant from the truth. On the one hand, I am undoubtedly giddy that the elephant no longer snubs his fat trunk at the masses of Americans upon whom he's consistently stomped. On the other, what assurances do I have that the Dems won't continue to cook up the same ole can of rancid pork and beans? Therefore, I hereby declare my support for an imaginary third party that has not yet come to fruition. Since I am somewhat of a pessimist regarding the political future of these divided states, I anxiously watch the entrenched two-party system, as it continues to erode the basic principles of open, accountable, and democratic government. Hence my tardy midterm vote for the rebirthed Progressive Party of America.

I have generally advocated voting Green to show support for various candidates - in order to build awareness about the party. But such a strategy is not viable if such a vote cast will come at the expense of handing the election to a horrific right-leaning candidate. The solution to this problem is ranked-choice voting (also known as prference or instant run-off voting), which has already been instituted in Australia and San Francisco.

There is undeniable difficulty inherent in third party action in the US, due to a robust yet diseased two-party tradition that has served America as a relatively stable outfit. Nonetheless, it is time for a drastic change. Political realignment is the best course currently, not merely for Progressives such as myself, but also for the median voter, who is poised to benefit from the injection of a higher dose of honesty in the political discourse of our day.
My dream would be to promote the emergence of a Progressive Party that would fill the void that has existed on the left for quite some time. Since the nation drifted rightward in the aftermath of all those lib movements, civil rights, student protests, and social upheaval, the political center in America has been rather to the right. As the perceived excesses of the Warren court were undone by subsequent judicial activism from the right, by legislative destruction of regulatory and social welfare provisions, and by a rash of executives committed to neoliberal ideology, the spectrum shifted. It is now time to reverse the rightward drift of the political standard. Rise up, barons of leftist ilk! Reclaim thine positions and reload your civic weaponry.

In such a scenario envisaged above, the current Democratic Party would continue its rightward migration and would become a truly centrist electoral behemoth. Renaming itself as the Liberal Democratic Party in the true sense of the term "liberal," this machine would promote the efficiency of corporate power, relatively small government, fiscal conservatism, and diplomatic prudence in the international arena. This party would inevitably receive upwards of 50% of the national vote total, as McCain-type libertarians, Arnoldesque Machiavellians, and Lieberman lovermen would flock to the erstwhile Democratic Party, which would still indeed be the proud home of the Clintons and many others.

On the right, the Christian Nationalist Patriotic Front would emerge with the support of approximately 30% of the national vote. As the unabashed tent for religiously reverent folks, cultural moralists, and admittedly chauvinistic souls, this camp could strive to represent candidly its egotistical yearnings. With most of the business types having vacated the party, this front could focus on the cultural and racial issues that the moderate Republicans never stomached. It has yet to be determined whether the isolationist or the aggressively neoconservative elements would win out, but it is likely that, without corporate support, the neoconservative comrades would be discredited. Even so, the paleocon base would abandon any allegiance to unrealistic international ambitions regarding the promotion of political buzzwords such as "freedom" and "democracy" in certain occupied countries but would also realize that their imperial goals propel America to similar ideological ends as the neocons.

The Progressive Party, which I wholeheartedly embrace, would base its platform upon much of what the current Green Party stands for but would create a broader set of goals. Public campaign financing, re-urbanization of America (i.e. an urban Marshall plan), universal healthcare, green energy, internationalist foreign policy orientation, increase in corporate taxation, and the reversal of massive socioeconomic disparities would be the tenets of this energized movement to incorporate the populist roots of fin-de-siecle progressivism, fulfill the needs of people excluded from the neoliberalist-dominated mainstream, and uplift Americans who had previously been deceived by cultural facades that masked ulterior economic motives. Progressives of the world, UNITE!

Sell-outs or Pragmatists?

This entry is in response to a dialogue that's been ongoing chez mikelwin's blog. I thought a full entry would be entirely necessary to address a range of issues that were evoked in the largely three-way discussion that was conducted.

The first important point that I wish to cover is that political/ideological orientation is mostly a function of an individual's psychological inclinations. Those who advocate a pragmatic, centrist approach to politics with a focus on certain interest groups tend to endorse such a strategy because this is where they feel most comfortable and this is where they have found it most convenient to contribute. I am no exception. I will be forward about my biases towards certain ideas and against others based on how I fit into this vast world and how I feel I am most capable of "making waves." In this above-mentioned discussion, the pragmatist-idealist and moderate lefty-extreme lefty distinctions were drawn up to identify where the participating individuals stood along these simplified ideological spectrums.

The second and perhaps most relevant line of argument I seek to mention revolves around the potential for extreme or revolutionary change. While it is indeed highly unlikely that individuals can effect significant political/economic changes single-handedly, our system does allow for radical advances to be achieved in the artistic and scientific domains. Our political and economic superstructures are certainly stable, and there is little to no hope for a drastic revolution of the people, barring unforseen biological or social catastrophes. However, the most sweeping changes to how we operate and how we view our existences arise from art and science. These fields provide the tools for contemporary revolutionaries to alter their universes through biotech, music, physics, literature, etc. In sum, the world of ideas shifts drastically and fundamentally alongside the political and economic spheres, which of course in turn must make rather significant accomondations to the technological and theoretical changes that occur in the cultural and scientific realms. Merely focusing on the political and economic aspects of societal change understates the true power of conceptual advances in many different fields. Without a doubt, the success of many ideas depends on how they work into the existing social framework, but it's not healthy to focus too much on the concrete, material, and formal structures that govern our universe. The cultural, psychological, intellectual, and social domains cannot be seen as the mumbo-jumbo playground for idealistic pseudo-philosopher-kings who alternate taking rides in their liberal limos and laying down their John Hancock on bi-montly donations to Greenpeace and Move-On.

The space for innovation in science and culture is indeed occupied by those people who have been granted the linguistic, sociocultural, and material tools to contribute to this domain. Cats who don't have enough bread to put on the kitchen table don't generally get involved with the techies and hipsters. Yet, the so-called struggle is fought by both Jesse Jackson in the street and Michael Eric Dyson in his ivory-tower (these two guys debated for hours about how they both managed to contribute to the struggle in opposite ways). Both avenues are necessary for the "revolution" to proceed. Either way, there is certainly a tremendous gulf between certain traditional Democratic groups. Grimy industrial labor and the so-called moneyed liberal Hollywood cabal don't always see eye-to-eye. Yet, let's not fall prey to these ridiculous, caricatured portraits of leftwing political life in America. There are loads of poor Americans who harbor "extreme" notions vis-a-vis universal healthcare, the environment, corporate welfare, American imperial power, racial equality, etc. Moreover, there is no shortage of "corporate" or intellectual centrists who exist somewhere near the center and support Democratic politicians.

The rightwing also faces divisions that are often a function of class, but moreso reflect spiritual convictions than economic disparities. Obviously, there's no point in saying that people of a certain economic background don't occupy a particular ideological position. There are rich and poor on both sides of the aisle. However, I do agree with certain materialist declarations. I do think both parties need to focus a bit more on concrete, economic results of the industrial meltdown. So many parts of this country have been left to rot due to formidable, international economic forces that are far beyond any individual's control. Blacks and labor have suffered disproportionately in this paradigm shift. That does not mean that they should be shortchanged in our corrupt election financing system. The system can indeed always be made fairer, more open, more tolerant.

I'm not going to pretend that I'm immune from the limo liberal characterization. I fall square into the stratum of hypereducated, affluent, Volvo-driving society that has been blamed for the failure of liberal politics. I also actually believe in the value of culture (dirty fucking proletariat culture, middle-of-the-road mainstream rag, and elitist hipster bullshit). I don't think it's particularly sophisticated or intelligent to exclude any of these dimensions from the politico-culture wars. I'm sick of people talking smack about treehuggers and their irrational fears of environmental catastrophe. Godamn, this earth is getting ravaged. And, I've also had enough about how the working-class should just suck it up and deal with corporate culture and economic change. Forreal, the flight of industrial jobs to other countries has absolutely wrecked huge areas of this country, both urban and rural. Everyone tries to fit in somehow to this whole notion of identity politics and figure out what to be victimized for. The religious right fancies itself as the victim of a vast leftist protocol to eliminate Jesus and the white man from the discourse. I contend that the turn towards spiritual politics is a direct result of the industrial decline and the drop off in material wellbeing for so many blue-collar families.

I have a few specific answers to big political problems. However, I don't have a coherent ideology about how to fix the world. I don't believe the world is to be fixed. The world is, the world was, and the world will be. Fixing it is a matter of perspective and is relative to one's position and relation to everything else that is either broken or functional. I certainly can't create huge political or economic solutions to the world's problems. I just try to suggest that the material realm is supremely important but also that it's not important at all. That's the ultimate truth about our universe, and it's also not the ultimate truth. I enjoy talking shit about other peoples' ideologies, but I'm fully aware that whatever system I appear to endorse is full of contradictions, hypocrisies, and hyperboles. And, I try not to fall into the extreme subjectivity of the solipsistic trap. Also, I'm not into dissing hippies (make love not war!) and hipsters (even though I can't be one cuz I'm a lumberjack).

However, I don't see the need to "burn off this youthful angst," well at least not quite yet. I hope I'm aware of this decision if this is ultimately the one I make. I'm thoroughly and profoundly aware that I live in a bubble and that I'm entirely spoiled and unprepared to deal with the material demands of this world. The privilege that I've been born into is something from which I've beneifited, but it is also something for which I feel almost insurmountable guilt. It's abundantly clear that this affluent youth culture is sustained by people who use their material advantage to condemn the possibility of possessing such material advantage in the first place. This is a curious phenom, and it's not something that can be denied.

Nonetheless, I try to be pragmatic when I think that suits my situation, but I think I'm inclined to dream, idealize, and theorize because it's comforting to think that things COULD be different. I don't think anyone has to choose whether to be a exclusively a "sell-out" or a dreamer. Everyone has to be a little bit of a "sell-out" to get his piece of the pie. But, I'm going to retain my dreams about all these multitudinous cultures I'm surrounded by, all this damned socio-economic injustice, and all my peoples that are just tryin' to do the damn thing.