Daily Kos

Modernism versus Progressivism

Thu Jan 29, 2004 at 01:48:37 PM PDT

Wherein Radical Middle attempts to explain the Dean/Trippi breakdown in terms of a hip postmodern melding of political and art theory...
Trippi is a Modernist, and Dean is a Progressive. In art theory (as interpreted by me), a Modernist is someone who sticks to a particular aesthetic to the exclusion of all others. For example, Picasso's Cubism was modernist; Pollack's Expressionism was modernist. These artists devoted themselves to a single idea. Trippi's Modernist aesthetic was the grassroots campaign, People Power rising up to take their country back from the Establishment. He formed the seeds of the idea in the 80s, and tried it for real with Jerry Brown in 1992. But it didn't really work until his 2003 perfect storm - the combination of an incredibly angry and motivated base, the Internet, and an ideal candidate.

Dean, on the other hand, is a Progressive. In my mind, progressives are scientific, engineering types. They're not devoted to ideology, except making life better for people through good government. Progressives try something, and if it doesn't work, they throw it out and try something else. Progressives are totally pragmatic. Look at Dean's history of dealing with health care in the early 90s for an example.

And here's the rub... Modernists want to conform to ideology, Progressives want results. As long as Trippi's Modernist approach was delivering results (i.e. turning Dean from asterisk to frontrunner in six months), Dean loved it. But when it stopped delivering results, Dean rejected it in favor of something more likely to work. Trippi, preferring his Modernist ideology over Dean's Progressive pragmatism, chose to leave rather than admit his ideology no longer worked.

This is my theory, which is mine. What do you think?

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 3 comments

Permalink | 3 comments