Reported for the Flatiron Hot! News by Eric Shapiro
With Bernie Sanders poised to throw his hat in the ring (assuming he owns one!) and Elizabeth Warren already actively campaigning in Iowa, it seems that two of the nation’s most high-profile political figures are on a collision course. The two liberal progressives, putative allies in the Senate who are reportedly friendly but not overly close, have been checking in with each other in the Trump era until now. It remains to be seen whether they can maintain an amicable relationship and avoid negative attacks as the first Democratic presidential debate and the Iowa caucuses approach.
Politically, it is inevitable that they will clash, respectfully or otherwise, as they are competing for many of the same voters. Setting aside the practical wisdom of whether two progressive candidates sharing the same lane can and should run for the Democratic nomination (it seems like that ship has already sailed, with the myriad Dem candidates entering the race), perhaps the more interesting question is whether, ideologically, politicians in the mold of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren can co-exist on the left.
It is perhaps inevitable that supporters of the two candidates will answer in the negative; after all, regardless of how the Senator from Vermont and the Senator from Massachusetts feel about each other personally, they represent threats to each other politically. However, long after the 2020 presidential campaign is over (hopefully with one of the two emerging victorious over both their corporate Democratic competitors and Donald Trump), the left will have to grapple with the question of whether the democratic socialist Bernie Sanders and the “capitalist-to-her bones” Elizabeth Warren and those like them are natural allies, enemies, or something in between.
While the mainstream media has largely glossed over the substantive ideological differences between Sanders and Warren , they in fact stem from distinct, but overlapping, ideological strands of the American left. It is impossible to discuss progressivism in the present without briefly discussing the term’s historical origins and subsequent role in history. It is also important to note that despite Bernie Sanders’ embrace of “progressivism,” the term initially referred to left-leaning capitalists who consciously sought to reform government in part to prevent leftists (including communists, anarchists and, yes, socialists) from disrupting the social and political order of the time.
Warren v. Sanders
Accordingly, over the course of the 20th and early 21st centuries, “leftists” (a term I will use here to describe those who subscribed to anti-capitalist, Marxist ideologies) and progressive reformers enjoyed something of a love-hate relationship. During the progressive era, they were decidedly antagonistic. In many cases, progressive presidents of both parties like Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, antecedents to Elizabeth Warren on economic policy and regulation of corporations and industry, ruthlessly suppressed radicals such as democratic socialist icon Eugene V. Debs, for whom Bernie Sanders has expressed great admiration.
In the 1930s, however, social democrats and progressives of all stripes worked together in the Roosevelt administration to craft New Deal programs like the Tennessee Valley Authority and Social Security. However, following President Franklin Roosevelt’s death in the final days of World War II, traditional mainstream liberals and progressives clashed over how to contend with the Soviet Union. Henry Wallace, FDR’s vice president in his third term until thrown over for Harry Truman at the start of his fourth and final term, advocated an accommodationist approach. He and his progressive fellow travelers clashed mightily with President Truman and his assertive cold war containment policies and the implementation of the Marshall Plan.
Although the New Deal consensus lasted through the 1960s, when it came to economic policy, FDR’s heirs in the New Deal tradition in the Cold War era, began to prefer the term “liberal” to describe themselves; They condemned Wallace and his “progressives” as leftist and naive sympathizers and apologists for their connections to Soviet communism and their excuses for Maoist China and Ho Chi Minh’s North Vietnam, among others, mocking them for considering those communist tyrants as well-meaning “agrarian reformers”.
Much like the progressives of the early 20th century who sought to neutralize revolutionary ideologies by reforming government and industry, the liberals of the Cold War saw themselves as a bulwark against communism and other forms of radicalism. Their standard bearer was Arthur Schlesinger, with his concept of the “vital center”. With the discrediting of Soviet communism in the 1950s, the intensification of the Cold War and the rise of the New Left in the 1960s, debates on the left increasingly began to center around foreign policy. The Civil Rights movement also, justifiably, dominated the conversation.
The emergence of neoliberalism in the 1970s and 1980s shifted the Overton Window sharply to the right and led the Democratic Party to embrace third way politics of privatization, deregulation and neoliberal economics. Suffice to say, the distinctions between “leftists” and “progressives” became less practical and more theoretical, as adherents of both ideological persuasions found themselves without much influence over public policy.
This state of affairs largely persisted throughout the presidencies of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, although the latter did attempt to and occasionally succeed in passing policies that incrementally expanded the welfare state and perhaps, arguably, set the stage for the revolution to come.
Politicians like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, along with grassroots movements like Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter re-injected what I will reductively call unapologetic “left-wing” policy and ideology back into the national conversation in the Obama years. Interestingly, these individuals and movements, as well as the writers who analyzed and chronicled them, often eschewed the term “liberal” in favor of “progressive,” no doubt on account of the Reagan era’s success at turning the term “liberal” into an epithet.
The reasons for this change in nomenclature are complex, but here it shall suffice to say that the emerging populist left and its champions sought to distance themselves from the connotations of the word “liberal,” which has come to describe not left-wing ideology but rather a tepid, corporatist centrism on economics and tolerant views on social issues. Although major publications still frequently refer to left-wing politicians and ideas as “liberal,” actual left-wingers clearly prefer the term “progressive.”
And so, it just so happens, do the very Third Way Democrats who discredited the term liberal in the first place. Hence, the centrist Hillary Clinton’s insistence on falsely calling her followers “pragmatic progressives” when they are not, in fact, progressive in any meaningful historical sense of the term. So here we are in 2019, and every Democrat left of what currently passes for the political center, which is in fact center-right, refers to themselves as a “progressive” to appeal to a party base that has fallen in love with the term.
Many articles have been written on why candidates like Hillary Clinton, Beto O’Rourke and Joe Biden are not progressives, so I won’t belabor that point. But what of the two major presidential candidates who can credibly claim the mantle of progressivism? Are both progressive? Is only one progressive?
According to the historical use of the term, Elizabeth Warren is clearly the best fit, as she is a self-avowed capitalist who believes in reforming markets and rooting out corruption, much like the progressives of the early 20th century. But terminology evolves, and clearly democratic socialists seek to redefine the term as their own. The question left-leaning Americans must ask themselves over the course of the 2020 presidential campaign and in the decades to come is whether there is enough room under the progressive umbrella for the ideologies of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. Are capitalist reformers and democratic socialists destined to fight a war for the soul of the American left? If we are concerned with the consequences of such a war for the American people, the answer should clearly be no.
NYC Theater News
Flatiron Hot! Pundit: Sanders vs. Warren – Who is the Real Progressive?
Reported for the Flatiron Hot! News by Eric Shapiro
With Bernie Sanders poised to throw his hat in the ring (assuming he owns one!) and Elizabeth Warren already actively campaigning in Iowa, it seems that two of the nation’s most high-profile political figures are on a collision course. The two liberal progressives, putative allies in the Senate who are reportedly friendly but not overly close, have been checking in with each other in the Trump era until now. It remains to be seen whether they can maintain an amicable relationship and avoid negative attacks as the first Democratic presidential debate and the Iowa caucuses approach.
Politically, it is inevitable that they will clash, respectfully or otherwise, as they are competing for many of the same voters. Setting aside the practical wisdom of whether two progressive candidates sharing the same lane can and should run for the Democratic nomination (it seems like that ship has already sailed, with the myriad Dem candidates entering the race), perhaps the more interesting question is whether, ideologically, politicians in the mold of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren can co-exist on the left.
It is perhaps inevitable that supporters of the two candidates will answer in the negative; after all, regardless of how the Senator from Vermont and the Senator from Massachusetts feel about each other personally, they represent threats to each other politically. However, long after the 2020 presidential campaign is over (hopefully with one of the two emerging victorious over both their corporate Democratic competitors and Donald Trump), the left will have to grapple with the question of whether the democratic socialist Bernie Sanders and the “capitalist-to-her bones” Elizabeth Warren and those like them are natural allies, enemies, or something in between.
While the mainstream media has largely glossed over the substantive ideological differences between Sanders and Warren , they in fact stem from distinct, but overlapping, ideological strands of the American left. It is impossible to discuss progressivism in the present without briefly discussing the term’s historical origins and subsequent role in history. It is also important to note that despite Bernie Sanders’ embrace of “progressivism,” the term initially referred to left-leaning capitalists who consciously sought to reform government in part to prevent leftists (including communists, anarchists and, yes, socialists) from disrupting the social and political order of the time.
Warren v. Sanders
Accordingly, over the course of the 20th and early 21st centuries, “leftists” (a term I will use here to describe those who subscribed to anti-capitalist, Marxist ideologies) and progressive reformers enjoyed something of a love-hate relationship. During the progressive era, they were decidedly antagonistic. In many cases, progressive presidents of both parties like Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, antecedents to Elizabeth Warren on economic policy and regulation of corporations and industry, ruthlessly suppressed radicals such as democratic socialist icon Eugene V. Debs, for whom Bernie Sanders has expressed great admiration.
In the 1930s, however, social democrats and progressives of all stripes worked together in the Roosevelt administration to craft New Deal programs like the Tennessee Valley Authority and Social Security. However, following President Franklin Roosevelt’s death in the final days of World War II, traditional mainstream liberals and progressives clashed over how to contend with the Soviet Union. Henry Wallace, FDR’s vice president in his third term until thrown over for Harry Truman at the start of his fourth and final term, advocated an accommodationist approach. He and his progressive fellow travelers clashed mightily with President Truman and his assertive cold war containment policies and the implementation of the Marshall Plan.
Although the New Deal consensus lasted through the 1960s, when it came to economic policy, FDR’s heirs in the New Deal tradition in the Cold War era, began to prefer the term “liberal” to describe themselves; They condemned Wallace and his “progressives” as leftist and naive sympathizers and apologists for their connections to Soviet communism and their excuses for Maoist China and Ho Chi Minh’s North Vietnam, among others, mocking them for considering those communist tyrants as well-meaning “agrarian reformers”.
Much like the progressives of the early 20th century who sought to neutralize revolutionary ideologies by reforming government and industry, the liberals of the Cold War saw themselves as a bulwark against communism and other forms of radicalism. Their standard bearer was Arthur Schlesinger, with his concept of the “vital center”. With the discrediting of Soviet communism in the 1950s, the intensification of the Cold War and the rise of the New Left in the 1960s, debates on the left increasingly began to center around foreign policy. The Civil Rights movement also, justifiably, dominated the conversation.
The emergence of neoliberalism in the 1970s and 1980s shifted the Overton Window sharply to the right and led the Democratic Party to embrace third way politics of privatization, deregulation and neoliberal economics. Suffice to say, the distinctions between “leftists” and “progressives” became less practical and more theoretical, as adherents of both ideological persuasions found themselves without much influence over public policy.
This state of affairs largely persisted throughout the presidencies of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, although the latter did attempt to and occasionally succeed in passing policies that incrementally expanded the welfare state and perhaps, arguably, set the stage for the revolution to come.
Politicians like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, along with grassroots movements like Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter re-injected what I will reductively call unapologetic “left-wing” policy and ideology back into the national conversation in the Obama years. Interestingly, these individuals and movements, as well as the writers who analyzed and chronicled them, often eschewed the term “liberal” in favor of “progressive,” no doubt on account of the Reagan era’s success at turning the term “liberal” into an epithet.
The reasons for this change in nomenclature are complex, but here it shall suffice to say that the emerging populist left and its champions sought to distance themselves from the connotations of the word “liberal,” which has come to describe not left-wing ideology but rather a tepid, corporatist centrism on economics and tolerant views on social issues. Although major publications still frequently refer to left-wing politicians and ideas as “liberal,” actual left-wingers clearly prefer the term “progressive.”
And so, it just so happens, do the very Third Way Democrats who discredited the term liberal in the first place. Hence, the centrist Hillary Clinton’s insistence on falsely calling her followers “pragmatic progressives” when they are not, in fact, progressive in any meaningful historical sense of the term. So here we are in 2019, and every Democrat left of what currently passes for the political center, which is in fact center-right, refers to themselves as a “progressive” to appeal to a party base that has fallen in love with the term.
Many articles have been written on why candidates like Hillary Clinton, Beto O’Rourke and Joe Biden are not progressives, so I won’t belabor that point. But what of the two major presidential candidates who can credibly claim the mantle of progressivism? Are both progressive? Is only one progressive?
According to the historical use of the term, Elizabeth Warren is clearly the best fit, as she is a self-avowed capitalist who believes in reforming markets and rooting out corruption, much like the progressives of the early 20th century. But terminology evolves, and clearly democratic socialists seek to redefine the term as their own. The question left-leaning Americans must ask themselves over the course of the 2020 presidential campaign and in the decades to come is whether there is enough room under the progressive umbrella for the ideologies of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. Are capitalist reformers and democratic socialists destined to fight a war for the soul of the American left? If we are concerned with the consequences of such a war for the American people, the answer should clearly be no.