Skip to main content

View Diary: Progressive vs. Populist (24 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  This statement is clearly false... (5+ / 0-)

    Progressivism, though a worthy and noble cause, has no history, no easily identifiable face, not today.

    The progressive movement in the United States radically transformed American society from 1912-1920.  

    It was so powerful that both Republicans (Teddy Roosevelt) and Democrats (Woodrow Wilson) fought to integrate the movement into their party platforms.

    We still live in a society that is touched in every way by the progressive movement--Civil rights, Women's right to vote, party primaries, direct electino of senators, government responsibility to keep our food safe, etc.  

    Populism can either be on the side of progressive movements, or it can do really nasty shit like demand Indian Removal, wars with Spain, or draconian immigration policies.

    Member of the "Fellows of the Ass Society." Dedicated to reminding people that most knowledge still comes from books. Not Wikipedia.

    by David Kroning on Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 10:30:49 AM PST

    •  I agree Dave and stated so, my question is (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      crystalboy

      how can we redefine populism in a progressive system to diminish the GOP's ability to mislead their base, as well as to benefit the progressive cause on an individual basis.

      Here is the part in this diary that states what you perhaps inadvertently overlooked.

      If you want to revive the BullMoose party I would stand behind that,

      F#@k this Congress and the limos they rode in on!

      by MinistryOfTruth on Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 10:34:25 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  This isn't possible... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        crystalboy, HKPhooey, MinistryOfTruth

        There is not an ounce of progressivism in the Republican party any longer.  It's pure dogmatism.

        Member of the "Fellows of the Ass Society." Dedicated to reminding people that most knowledge still comes from books. Not Wikipedia.

        by David Kroning on Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 10:38:27 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  agreed again. We should take this card out of (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cjallen, crystalboy, David Kroning

          their deck and fully support meaningful and positive populist agendas that follow a progressive formula.

          But how do we do this? It seems to me the status quo of the dem establishment does not really want this, yet it is for this exact reason that the dems have won in landslide two cycles running.

          If we don't act now the right will get back in power sooner rather than later. If/when that happens it will be a disaster.

          F#@k this Congress and the limos they rode in on!

          by MinistryOfTruth on Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 10:42:05 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  A. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Jim W, MinistryOfTruth

            EFCA, and the unions need to spend more resources on organizing.

            B. We need to run populists mostly in the Midwest and South, but also in the Southwest, where many Hispanic Americans are economically populist.  In the northern half of the country, Democrats are mostly supported by whites.  In the Sun Belt, it's blacks and Hispanics who are much of the backbone of the party.  Both of those groups tend to be more religious than white Democrats, but also tend to be strongly economically populist.

            C. We need to invest in state legislatures and local government.  There are 8 or more state legislative districts in my state in which if we had supported strong populist Democrats, I believe we would have won, rather than lost.  Electing populists at the lower level helps us brand the party, make change at the state level, and provides a bench for higher office.

            Having populists in state and local government helps us shape the local economy to our liking.  Places which are dependent on extractive industries (oil, coal, agriculture) tend to support Republicans, while places with heavy industry and service economies tend to support Democrats.  Why?  People in places with a higher standard of living tend to support Democrats, even if poorer people are in every case more likely to support Democrats.  With control of both the federal government and local government, we have a much better chance to influence a local area, for example by subsidizing research at Southern universities, or the movement of heavy industry there, in an attempt to raise the standard of living.

            And by investing in, in particular, state legislatures in Texas, Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Missouri, Michigan, Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and the Dakotas, we will pretty much rely on electing populists in many of those places, and greatly increase our capabilities in those states.

            -5.38, -5.90 Deus mihi iustitiam dabit.

            by cjallen on Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 11:35:04 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site