Progressives and Independents

I: Kicking the Left with Impunity

There was an interesting discussion at the Open Left blog today in the wake of Barack Obama picking conservative evangelical pastor Rick Warren to say the convocation at his Presidential inauguration:

[T]here are clear benefits for Democrats who are able to generate public, left-wing outrage against their actions…This is a widely held view, and is openly shared by Democrats as high ranking as Rahm Emanuel. As long as the generation of public, left-wing outrage toward their actions is understood to be politically beneficial to Democrats, then many Democrats will continue to undertake actions that have the direct or indirect goal of generating public, left-wing outrage at their actions. This is pretty straightforward. As long as the cost of annoying progressives is not only zero, but actually a net positive, then Democrats will continue to annoy progressives ad infinitum.

For a solution, the article argues:

Progressives must make the political cost of such actions unacceptable to the Democrats who are willing to undertake such actions for political benefit. At the congressional level, I accept kos's premise that the only means of holding Democrats accountable for angering progressives are primary challenges (sitting on your hands or supporting third-party candidates just doesn't work). Or, to be a bit more accurate, the only way for outsiders like us to engage in progressive accountability for Democrats in Congress is to spend actual resources attacking a member of Congress in his or her district.

The commenter “leftvet” observes:

The only accountability that works for politicians are political consequences. The left is currently unable to exact political consequences on any politician, so we are, of course, ignored or vilified. Chris has summed it up very well. Progressives have no real choice but to continue to support mainstream Democrats, no matter how many times they f**k us over, because there is no other electoral option available to us. The Dems know it, and continue to exploit that situation.

This conversation is fascinating to me on so many levels. As someone who self-identifies as a Progressive, it is truly maddening to witness case after case after case of Democrats kicking Progressive values and politics to the curb once they get elected even after they ran on the promise and symbolism of Progressive idealism. It is as if once elected, the best way to gain political credibility is to take gratuitous potshots at liberals and left-wingers who supported them in elections.

The discussion at Open Left, although it hits upon many of the right points, completely misses a very big point -- not everyone agrees the best strategy to enact a Progressive agenda is to elect Democrats into office. Many people who are potential supporters of any Progressive movement are NOT Democrats, have absolutely no intention of being Democrats, and do not have any particular loyalty to the Democratic Party given the party’s record on many issues Progressives care deeply about.

No one seems to be seriously talking about appealing to and bringing Independents into the fold -- and this comes at a time when satisfaction with government is at an all-time low and the number of people who are self-identifying politically as anything other than Democrats and Republicans is at an all-time high. I don’t claim to be an all-knowing political guru but I am tired of Progressives getting their asses kicked by Democrats in the process of playing by the rules of the game of American electoral politics.

Is the only viable goal for Progressive activism to elect Democrats into office (even if they are better Democrats)?

II: The Fight for Open Primaries

Here’s an idea: how about Leftist Progressive activists join Independents in efforts for radical structural reform? One effort they can join very easily right now is the effort by Independents for Open Primaries. A petition is circulating right now to ask President Barack Obama to:

• Initiate and support federal legislation to create open primaries for election to federal office in all 50 states that guarantees full access for independent voters;

• Establish a Presidential Task Force on Political and Electoral Reform that includes representatives of the broad movement of independent voters to consider sweeping nonpartisan reform of the electoral process and its administration;

• Use the bully pulpit to speak out on the importance of open primaries and the inclusion of independents in all aspects of the electoral and political process.

They are trying to reach 1,000 signatures by Inauguration. This is one way Progressives can get themselves introduced to the burgeoning movement among Independents who, increasingly, are becoming aware of their political potential. It is one way Progressives can form a bridge with Independents to join in an effort they care about (and which stands to benefit voters and political parties who seek a viable alternative to the Democrats).

Book Review: In the Balance of Power

In the Balance of Power: Independent Black Politics and Third Party Movements in the United States by Omar Ali

In the Balance of Power was a fascinating book. It is, on one level, an historical account of African-American participation in the American political process, written from the vantage point of African-Americans’ history as independents -- outsiders to the political system dominated traditionally by two major parties. It starts from slavery in the 1770s, to the Civil War and Reconstruction, to the major hallmarks of U.S. history as it relates to African-Americans’ historical struggle for equality: the collapse of reconstruction, Jim Crow and segregation, the Civil Rights movement, the social and cultural upheavals of the sixties and seventies, through the present-day Independent movement of the Ross Perot era and the various organizations that were offshoots of that effort. It culminates in Barack Obama’s historic, insurgent candidacy and win over Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Party’s nomination for President in the 2008 Presidential elections.

If one reads the book as a chronological history of African-American political participation, one can still come out with a rewarding experience and perspective. I derived an appreciation for the role of third parties and independent movements in pushing the envelope of political discourse to make certain things we take for granted a reality – the eight-hour workday and civil rights, for example, or womens’ suffrage.

I found myself constantly bowled over by one unexpected historical insight after another on the political activity of African Americans. More than just being passive, oppressed subjects as traditional historical accounts have tended to portray them, African-Americans have a rich history of organized, anti-Establishment political activity dating back to the days of slavery and through modern times.

For most Americans, their familiarity with African-American political activity begins with the Civil Rights Movement, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks, etc. But African-Americans, historically, have been active participants in the country’s democratic political institutions even at points when they were most marginalized.

As early as the 1700s all the way to the 1900s and beyond, African Americans were forming political parties, having political conventions, running for office, running sophisticated political campaigns and forging alliances with other insurgent political movements and political parties. Most amazingly, there were actual instances of these efforts winning and African-American candidates taking office as early as the 1800s on the local level and even at the state level.

Most telling were the risks and opposition that these efforts faced which can run along the lines of unfair practices to keep them out of participating in electoral politics, restrictions to ballot access, disenfranchisement of their voting rights, to the more crude threats of lynchings, harassment, death threats, and organized mob violence. Most interestingly, much of this opposition was state-sanctioned and came from the highest levels of the major parties at the time.

I also found insightful the later accounts of African-American political participation in the post-segregation era. Martin Luther King Jr. warned of the perils of over-reliance and dependency on one major political party (in this case, the Democrats) and to pin all of one’s hopes and political efforts in that arena. Ali describes a disconnect between younger generations who do not necessarily have a loyalty to nor a perception of the Democratic Party as being the best vehicle for African-American political expression and the old guard of the Civil Rights era who are overwhelmingly loyal to the Democrats.

This disconnect touches upon my own thoughts and interests as an Independent that I have written about frequently. I do not consider myself a Democrat -- I will support Democratic candidates and politics. But I have found that my brand of Progressive politics plays only a marginal role, at best, in the Democratic Party. Moreover, as a Progressive, I do not see myself in any capacity supporting Republicans. Where does that leave me politically but supporting marginal third parties or not voting at all?

This dilemma mirrors the options Ali laid out (p. 151) on the options to African-American political empowerment in the post-Civil Rights era as they evaluate the role of political participation in their community and the Democratic Party:

1) Instigating Black-led reform of the Democratic Party
2) Forming a Black political party
3) Practicing political eclecticism and putting support on whoever can be most helpful to you at the time
4) Charting a course that is most beneficial to the black community and the Republican Party
5) Following the fusion populist approach: building a base for independent politics among African-Americans and creating coalitions with white independents

In the Balance of Power deserves to have a wide readership. As an academic study and as a work of political analysis the book is an example of top-notch scholarship. More than a scholarly work, the subject matter is timely and relevant to current events as:

Increasingly less tied to the Democratic Party, black voters have been looking for new electoral options in the face of bipartisan failures at home and abroad. Sixty-six percent of all Americans believe that “the nation is on the wrong track;” 89 percent disapprove of the job being done by Congress; 71 percent disapprove of the job being done by the president. Among African-Americans, the feeling and experience are even stronger. Whether people are concerned about the failure of our public schools, our health care system, or the war in Iraq, there is widespread recognition that the two-party establishment is either unwilling or unable to address the current state of affairs in a developmental or democratic manner (Ali, p. 2).

The Liberal Arts Dude gives In the Balance of Power five stars out of five.