I was reading some of the comments in diary where two people were debating the progressive bona fides of Daily Kos. One of the commentators suggested that perhaps someone should write a diary about it and ask what the community thought, so I decided to give it a shot and see what happens. Hopefully it will be an interested discussion...
I'm going to try to keep the definitions broad enough so people can add their own understanding about the subject and see if we get to some kind of general understanding.
As I understand it the foremost mission of Daily Kos is to help elect more and better Democrats... in cities, states, and at the national level.
Aside from that crucial mission, people here also engage in all kinds of not only political activities, but also social justice activism. People do volunteer work, participate in protests against corruptions and injustices (i.e., Moral Mondays, Sing-Alongs, OWS a couple of years ago, etc.); there is also the yearly Netroot Nations event, and many other activities.
I for one am registered Democrat. I've voted in every elections for over 25 years, including mid-term local elections. I always vote straight party line Democratic on everything. For the 2008 election, I actually attended a one-day "ObamaCamp" in San Francisco and participated in some campaigning activities.
I also consider myself a progressive. But for the sake of clarity, let me try to define what I understand to be a progressive, and how it fits with the site's mission of electing more and better Democrats.
If you do a little research you will find that progressives basically focus on social justice and stamping out corruption (mainly government corruption).
In my case, I have a definitive focus of interest: As a progressive, I mainly focus on root-level causes of political and social dysfunction. In a nutshell, to me that means how powerful interests (the super-rich, corporations) influence our political system (the "money in politics" issue).
Specifically I want to know the exact causes of political corruption. By now we all know the basics: The rich and powerful give money to politicians in the form of campaign contributions; they also promise them lucrative careers (jobs) after leaving public office (which gives the politicians incentives to act on behalf of the interests of those powerful people/corporations while they are in office).
This situation then creates a sort of symbiotic relationship between politicians (with their power to legislate) and moneyed interests (with the power to influence the legislators). Often times (if not always) this results in a situation where legislators basically enact laws and regulations that end up benefiting the moneyed elite at the expense of the citizenry (and the environment).
This is actually pretty typical throughout history (in every era)... Now, if the situation is unchecked (because of a weakened or ineffective progressive movement), then inequality and oppression can get to be extreme.
So here's how I see it... A strong, organized, united and strategic progressive movement could be capable of unearthing and exposing government corruption, cronyism, and malfeasance.
This kind of focus (like a laser beam) on the corruption then puts pressure on bad/corrupt politicians and that then sets the stage to hopefully help in electing BETTER Democrats.
Now, and this is kind of sensitive, a dichotomy I've seen is that there is a kind of tug of war between those who see themselves as more centrist/pragmatic and focus most of their efforts on electing MORE Democrats, versus those who see themselves as progressives and focus most of their efforts on electing BETTER Democrats, along with the other things progressives do when it comes to social justice and anti-corruption activism.
Now, here's where I see a conflict. The faction that focuses straight up on electing MORE Democrats tend to align themselves with the interests of the Party establishment, and of course, that's normal.
The hard part for progressives is that in any "establishment" institution there is going to be a higher incidence of corruption (money in politics, access, special favors, and that sort of things), and since progressives tend to focus a great deal of their efforts in shinning a light on that corruption, then the establishment may become hostile to progressives.
That hostility then can translate into attempts to try to marginalize or render progressives ineffective, or thwart attempts at organizing strong and cohesive progressive movements.
Hopefully I described these dynamics accurately but I'm sincerely very interested in learning about others' opinions. I'm fully aware that there may be those who claim that this dichotomy I describe here doesn't exist, or maybe they see it differently. That's fine... I'm sure their opinions will inform the discussion.
Hopefully we'll have an interested (and respectful) debate.
Thanks for reading.
P.S. I welcome spirited debate about this topic, and I'm especially interested in hearing from people who do not agree with my position. However, I will not engage in discussion with people who write personal insults, or engage in disruptive behavior. I ask other serious people to do the same. To learn more about this subject, please visit the following links: New Community Guidelines / The 15 Rules of Web Disruption / Thirteen Rules for Truth Suppression / Disinformation: How It Works.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Market For The People |Ray Pensador | Email List | Twitter | Facebook