By Eric Shapiro – Edited by the Flatiron Hot! News Editorial Staff
The New Dem Stars …
The term “political revolution,” while evocative and compelling as political rhetoric, can be misleading. It can give the impression that change in Washington comes quickly and solely from the ground up. While grassroots activism by progressives must be part of any effort to move the country left, it is crucial that we understand how the U.S. government typically functions.
Individuals like Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Elizabeth Warren; as well as movements like Occupy, Justice Democrats, Black Lives Matter and DSA, have quickly and effectively shifted the Overton Window left. However, they do not yet possess, even with recent successes in the midterms and 2017 elections, the institutional power to transform the Democratic Party, much less overhaul capitalism. To some progressives on Twitter, this is a cause for despair. Alas, the forces aligned against “political revolution” are formidable in both parties.
Moving the Overton Window
Examples are numerous in the mainstream media and among centrist liberals of attempts to quash the rebellion from the progressive left. But please allow me to humbly inject a note of cautious optimism informed by not-so-distant history and, perhaps, the broad outline of a path forward. When Barack Obama, hardly a leftist but nevertheless an astute student of history, commented that wielding political power in service of change is like handing off a baton or steering a large ship, he was on to something.
The key point to be taken is not that incrementalism is the way forward for progressives and the left. But rather, in conceptualizing and setting expectations for progress, we must be clearheaded about the enormous and often frustrating effort it takes to bring about fundamental structural change in the U.S. government, owing to the structure of the U.S. Constitutional system, with its multiple checks and balances, small state bias, electoral college imperfections, and gerrymandered legislatures that impede majoritarian rule in the short and medium term. In short, the challenge we face is partially enshrined in the Constitution by its framers, who feared that the passions of the masses would empower a demagogue in the legislature or factions in Congress to impose change too quickly.
This leads, understandably, to frustration and impatience on the part of progressives to overturn the economic “neoliberal” consensus in the centrist wing of the Democratic Party, even when the current trends are away from it, as the incumbent centrists use this bias against change in the machinery of politics and government to continue to cling to that philosophy.
Moving forward, it is useful to consider and learn from how this durable neoliberal consensus came to be and ironically, to emulate the tactics of those who made it a reality. Although neoliberalism is our ideological opposite, the goals of its architects and the combination of tactics and historical forces that enabled its rise are analogous to our movement (or rather, the patchwork of progressive/leftist movements) seeking to transform government today.
Should Dems be Dancing in the Streets?
While there are many historical analogies to today’s progressive insurgency, the conservative movement’s rise and subsequent takeover of the Republican Party may be the most apt. While its beginnings are subject to debate, most historians agree that Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater’s unsuccessful campaign for the presidency marked the moment where U.S. conservatism as it exists today emerged as a force to be reckoned with (although contemporary commentators did not see Goldwater’s electoral shellacking at the hands of Lyndon Johnson as a harbinger of the ideological realignment to come).
There are many fascinating and informative accounts of Barry Goldwater’s quixotic presidential campaign, but it will suffice to say that although he was not elected president in 1964, thanks in no small part to the efforts of the Republican Party’s then relatively moderate establishment who detested his brand of Sun Belt, libertarian conservatism, he struck a mighty blow against the bipartisan consensus of his day and jolted the all-important Overton Window to the right.
Like a certain Vermont socialist, Barry Goldwater lost the battle for the presidency but won the war for the ideological soul of his party. For those frustrated at the pace of progressive change in the wake of Sanders’ campaign and perhaps convinced due to recent setbacks that it is impossible for the Democratic Party to serve as a vehicle for said change, consider that it took the conservative movement many years and multiple election cycles, from Goldwater’s campaign in 1964, to Reagan’s abortive challenge to Gerald Ford, and then finally the Gipper’s 1980 triumph, to take over the Republican Party and make over the country in its ideological image.
In the interim, they suffered several seemingly devastating blows. Richard Nixon left office in disgrace after Watergate and a new generation of reform-minded liberal Democrats swept into Congress. Even more dispiriting to conservatives, Republican Gerald Ford replaced Nixon and went on to defeat conservative movement champion Ronald Reagan in the 1976 primary. And then, to make matters worse, Ford lost the general election to Democrat Jimmy Carter. Only in 1980, due to a confluence of historical events and sheer, dogged determination, did Ronald Reagan finally win the presidency, at long last giving the conservative movement a chance to begin to impose its ideological vision on the country. Even then, however, victory was not complete. Democrats would control the Senate and/or the House for substantial stretches until the Gingrich era in the 90s, forcing Republicans to moderate their policy views to a degree even as they moved the country inexorably to the right.
So what is the significance of this little history lesson to today’s left? Despite repeatedly losing battles, the conservative movement refused to give up because it pursued its ideological agenda with single-minded determination, refining its tactics over time to achieve the ultimate goal of advancing conservatism, making “liberal” a dirty word and imposing much of its policy vision on America for decades to come. By the time a Democrat won back the presidency in 1992 after 3 consecutive Republican administrations, the new Conservative consensus was firmly entrenched. Despite sporadic attempts to implement liberal policies, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were constrained and had to work within the confines of the conservative constraints successfully imposed, psychologically as much as institutionally, by the successive waves of conservative victories over time. So, the “bad guys” won but, critically, it took them decades!
The progressive left’s attempt to similarly take over the Democratic Party is in its infancy. And yet, in the wake of Sanders’ primary defeat and the failure of several progressives to attain leadership positions, there are already cries on the left for a “DemExit”. Cynicism about the Democratic Party leadership, while understandable given recent history, should not lead to defeatism. Imagine if movement conservatives had given up on taking over the GOP after Goldwater or any number of subsequent defeats. Rather than dwelling on the setbacks that are inevitable for movements that take on the establishment, the modern left would do well to focus on the fights to come.
Of course, given the looming threat of catastrophic climate change, a stacked revanchist and reactionary judicial branch, and the potential loss of abortion and other individual liberties long taken for granted by liberals and progressives, it can seem difficult, even complacent, to take the long view. But the long view need not be so long at all.
Yes, the progressive left may not yet have attained the institutional power to translate its vision into a reality, but it has done a great deal in a very short period of time to chip away at the neoliberal consensus and move the Overton Window left. A mere two years ago, single-payer healthcare was seen as a pipe dream. Now it is polling well across multiple demographics and centrist Democrats, as well as Liberals and Progressives with presidential ambitions, are all falling over themselves to embrace it lest they be outflanked from the left in 2020. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and an unapologetically progressive crop of new House members are proposing and popularizing a bold agenda that consists of a Green New Deal, free college, raising the minimum wage and abolishing ICE. Sanders, our resident Democratic Socialist, is currently the most popular politician in America.
Yes, it is deeply frustrating that much of the Democratic Party establishment, including some of its rising stars, seem willing to settle for half-measures when it comes to the small matter of ensuring the future of the planet. But the fact remains that given the winner-take-all nature of a structurally ingrained two-party system, the only way to implement substantive environmental policy on a federal level is to work within the Democratic Party. Taking over the Democratic Party and passing a bold progressive policy should be easier for us than it was for the conservative movement.
From its inception, our conservative Republican opponents relied on bigotry and religious dogma to manipulate a substantial, but shrinking, percentage of the population to vote against their economic interests in their years of success. On the other hand, strip away words like “liberal,” “progressive” and “socialist,” and a majority of Americans across racial, geographic and cultural demographics support now more then ever a leftist populist economic agenda according to many persuasive polls, with confirming proof in many recent state and national elections. Liberals and progressives have every reason to be optimistic – as much, if not more, than the Republicans did in the 60s and 70s, when their ascendance seemed fleeting, as well.
Of course, the main obstacle to making this agenda a reality is the fake populist Donald Trump and his “Trumpified”, decaying, bastardized GOP, which in its own way has betrayed many of the Conservative movement’s most important principals. The Democratic establishment, while not monolithic, is also dedicated to preserving its power and defending its narrow conception of what is possible. Progressives and leftist Democrats have every reason to be hopeful – as long as they learn the lessons of history and don’t self-destruct by bolting from the Democratic Party. They, of all people, should learn the lesson of the Conservative movement – good things come to those who wait!
NYC Theater News
Flatiron Hot! Pundit: No “DemExit” – Lessons the Progressive Left Can Learn from the Conservative Movement
By Eric Shapiro – Edited by the Flatiron Hot! News Editorial Staff
The New Dem Stars …
The term “political revolution,” while evocative and compelling as political rhetoric, can be misleading. It can give the impression that change in Washington comes quickly and solely from the ground up. While grassroots activism by progressives must be part of any effort to move the country left, it is crucial that we understand how the U.S. government typically functions.
Individuals like Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Elizabeth Warren; as well as movements like Occupy, Justice Democrats, Black Lives Matter and DSA, have quickly and effectively shifted the Overton Window left. However, they do not yet possess, even with recent successes in the midterms and 2017 elections, the institutional power to transform the Democratic Party, much less overhaul capitalism. To some progressives on Twitter, this is a cause for despair. Alas, the forces aligned against “political revolution” are formidable in both parties.
Moving the Overton Window
Examples are numerous in the mainstream media and among centrist liberals of attempts to quash the rebellion from the progressive left. But please allow me to humbly inject a note of cautious optimism informed by not-so-distant history and, perhaps, the broad outline of a path forward. When Barack Obama, hardly a leftist but nevertheless an astute student of history, commented that wielding political power in service of change is like handing off a baton or steering a large ship, he was on to something.
The key point to be taken is not that incrementalism is the way forward for progressives and the left. But rather, in conceptualizing and setting expectations for progress, we must be clearheaded about the enormous and often frustrating effort it takes to bring about fundamental structural change in the U.S. government, owing to the structure of the U.S. Constitutional system, with its multiple checks and balances, small state bias, electoral college imperfections, and gerrymandered legislatures that impede majoritarian rule in the short and medium term. In short, the challenge we face is partially enshrined in the Constitution by its framers, who feared that the passions of the masses would empower a demagogue in the legislature or factions in Congress to impose change too quickly.
This leads, understandably, to frustration and impatience on the part of progressives to overturn the economic “neoliberal” consensus in the centrist wing of the Democratic Party, even when the current trends are away from it, as the incumbent centrists use this bias against change in the machinery of politics and government to continue to cling to that philosophy.
Moving forward, it is useful to consider and learn from how this durable neoliberal consensus came to be and ironically, to emulate the tactics of those who made it a reality. Although neoliberalism is our ideological opposite, the goals of its architects and the combination of tactics and historical forces that enabled its rise are analogous to our movement (or rather, the patchwork of progressive/leftist movements) seeking to transform government today.
Should Dems be Dancing in the Streets?
While there are many historical analogies to today’s progressive insurgency, the conservative movement’s rise and subsequent takeover of the Republican Party may be the most apt. While its beginnings are subject to debate, most historians agree that Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater’s unsuccessful campaign for the presidency marked the moment where U.S. conservatism as it exists today emerged as a force to be reckoned with (although contemporary commentators did not see Goldwater’s electoral shellacking at the hands of Lyndon Johnson as a harbinger of the ideological realignment to come).
There are many fascinating and informative accounts of Barry Goldwater’s quixotic presidential campaign, but it will suffice to say that although he was not elected president in 1964, thanks in no small part to the efforts of the Republican Party’s then relatively moderate establishment who detested his brand of Sun Belt, libertarian conservatism, he struck a mighty blow against the bipartisan consensus of his day and jolted the all-important Overton Window to the right.
Like a certain Vermont socialist, Barry Goldwater lost the battle for the presidency but won the war for the ideological soul of his party. For those frustrated at the pace of progressive change in the wake of Sanders’ campaign and perhaps convinced due to recent setbacks that it is impossible for the Democratic Party to serve as a vehicle for said change, consider that it took the conservative movement many years and multiple election cycles, from Goldwater’s campaign in 1964, to Reagan’s abortive challenge to Gerald Ford, and then finally the Gipper’s 1980 triumph, to take over the Republican Party and make over the country in its ideological image.
In the interim, they suffered several seemingly devastating blows. Richard Nixon left office in disgrace after Watergate and a new generation of reform-minded liberal Democrats swept into Congress. Even more dispiriting to conservatives, Republican Gerald Ford replaced Nixon and went on to defeat conservative movement champion Ronald Reagan in the 1976 primary. And then, to make matters worse, Ford lost the general election to Democrat Jimmy Carter. Only in 1980, due to a confluence of historical events and sheer, dogged determination, did Ronald Reagan finally win the presidency, at long last giving the conservative movement a chance to begin to impose its ideological vision on the country. Even then, however, victory was not complete. Democrats would control the Senate and/or the House for substantial stretches until the Gingrich era in the 90s, forcing Republicans to moderate their policy views to a degree even as they moved the country inexorably to the right.
So what is the significance of this little history lesson to today’s left? Despite repeatedly losing battles, the conservative movement refused to give up because it pursued its ideological agenda with single-minded determination, refining its tactics over time to achieve the ultimate goal of advancing conservatism, making “liberal” a dirty word and imposing much of its policy vision on America for decades to come. By the time a Democrat won back the presidency in 1992 after 3 consecutive Republican administrations, the new Conservative consensus was firmly entrenched. Despite sporadic attempts to implement liberal policies, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were constrained and had to work within the confines of the conservative constraints successfully imposed, psychologically as much as institutionally, by the successive waves of conservative victories over time. So, the “bad guys” won but, critically, it took them decades!
The progressive left’s attempt to similarly take over the Democratic Party is in its infancy. And yet, in the wake of Sanders’ primary defeat and the failure of several progressives to attain leadership positions, there are already cries on the left for a “DemExit”. Cynicism about the Democratic Party leadership, while understandable given recent history, should not lead to defeatism. Imagine if movement conservatives had given up on taking over the GOP after Goldwater or any number of subsequent defeats. Rather than dwelling on the setbacks that are inevitable for movements that take on the establishment, the modern left would do well to focus on the fights to come.
Of course, given the looming threat of catastrophic climate change, a stacked revanchist and reactionary judicial branch, and the potential loss of abortion and other individual liberties long taken for granted by liberals and progressives, it can seem difficult, even complacent, to take the long view. But the long view need not be so long at all.
Yes, the progressive left may not yet have attained the institutional power to translate its vision into a reality, but it has done a great deal in a very short period of time to chip away at the neoliberal consensus and move the Overton Window left. A mere two years ago, single-payer healthcare was seen as a pipe dream. Now it is polling well across multiple demographics and centrist Democrats, as well as Liberals and Progressives with presidential ambitions, are all falling over themselves to embrace it lest they be outflanked from the left in 2020. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and an unapologetically progressive crop of new House members are proposing and popularizing a bold agenda that consists of a Green New Deal, free college, raising the minimum wage and abolishing ICE. Sanders, our resident Democratic Socialist, is currently the most popular politician in America.
Yes, it is deeply frustrating that much of the Democratic Party establishment, including some of its rising stars, seem willing to settle for half-measures when it comes to the small matter of ensuring the future of the planet. But the fact remains that given the winner-take-all nature of a structurally ingrained two-party system, the only way to implement substantive environmental policy on a federal level is to work within the Democratic Party. Taking over the Democratic Party and passing a bold progressive policy should be easier for us than it was for the conservative movement.
From its inception, our conservative Republican opponents relied on bigotry and religious dogma to manipulate a substantial, but shrinking, percentage of the population to vote against their economic interests in their years of success. On the other hand, strip away words like “liberal,” “progressive” and “socialist,” and a majority of Americans across racial, geographic and cultural demographics support now more then ever a leftist populist economic agenda according to many persuasive polls, with confirming proof in many recent state and national elections. Liberals and progressives have every reason to be optimistic – as much, if not more, than the Republicans did in the 60s and 70s, when their ascendance seemed fleeting, as well.
Of course, the main obstacle to making this agenda a reality is the fake populist Donald Trump and his “Trumpified”, decaying, bastardized GOP, which in its own way has betrayed many of the Conservative movement’s most important principals. The Democratic establishment, while not monolithic, is also dedicated to preserving its power and defending its narrow conception of what is possible. Progressives and leftist Democrats have every reason to be hopeful – as long as they learn the lessons of history and don’t self-destruct by bolting from the Democratic Party. They, of all people, should learn the lesson of the Conservative movement – good things come to those who wait!