I don't know Chris Bowers, personally (unlike some on this blog). But,
saying that Chris Bowers is an "advocate for left/right coalitions" is just false, as it was mentioned in
a diary on the rec list, earlier this evening. In my (albeit)
admittedly limited knowledge of Bowers' most recently-stated issues positions, what I
do know is that equivocating the fact(s) that Bowers happens to have opposed the FISA Bill, or, the reality that he's opposed to Ben Bernanke's reappointment does
not make him
"an advocate of left/right coalitions," as it
was stated by the author of that diary, linked above. Or, did I miss something somewhere which tells us that if one supports an audit of the Federal Reserve, they're no longer a supporter of the current administration? Does one have to be a "
pawn for the Fed" to be an Obama supporter? Is
that the new rule du jour?
Or, is this all a case of many people just misunderstanding what practical progressive political thinking is all about?
In any event, kindly leave Chris Bowers (Open Left) out of this progressive-flogging-gone-wild/Jane Hamsher dust-up. First of all, Bowers (like the majority of progressive Democrats) does
not deserve the criticism. Secondly, the guy's brilliant, IMHO. Thirdly, he's about as politically practical of a person as there is when it comes to progressive thought. And, fourth, including him in this crap is just plain erroneous.
Bowers practically wrote the damn book on practical progressive politics: "Eight Rules for Progressive Realpolitik."
Eight Rules for Progressive Realpolitik
Chris Bowers
MyDD
November 28, 2006
1. The Democratic Party is the primary vessel of the progressive coalition. It is impossible to enact real change without an electoral apparatus within your movement. In a two-party system, it is thus necessary to adopt one of the two parties as the electoral vessel of your coalition.
2. Within the coalition, intra-party democracy must always be adhered to. All party nominees must be determined by an elective primary open to all registered members of the party in the relevant district. The winner of the primary must always be supported by all members of the party apparatus, and all rank and file members should vote for the nominee (especially those who voted in the primary).
3. Party elections should be fair and open to all members of the party, and no one should ever be forced or muscled off of a ballot for a party office or nomination for public office.
4. There are no litmus tests to join the coalition. No one has to read or sign off on any document stating support for a particular policy. If someone wants to join, registering as a Democrat should be the only requirement.
5. Under no circumstances should any member of the party apparatus support any member of any opposing coalition, (in other words, any other political party).
6. Outside of issues relating to corruption, Democrats must never criticize each other in the same manner that Republicans criticize Democrats.
7. No Democrat should ever publicly call any Democrat unelectable, or publicly rank candidates based on perceived electability.
8. Don't expect the party to change on it's own. Be prepared and willing to change it yourself.
Elaborating on this very matter, more than three years later, Bowers posted this, just earlier today (via Alternet.org): "3 Reasons Why Progressives Are So Frustrated."
3 Reasons Why Progressives Are So Frustrated
Posted by Chris Bowers, Open Left at 2:32 PM on December 23, 2009.
If I may be so bold, I believe I can sum up, in three main points why progressives are so frustrated right now:
1. They are on the short-end of a left-progressive vs. Third Way ideological divide with the leadership of the American center-left coalition;
2. In attempts to not be on the short-end of #1, and persuade the coalition rank and file to join them, they face a massive organizational deficit against the coalition leadership;
3. Finally, if progressives look to split with the coalition in response to #1 and #2, more often than not they just end up getting squashed for it.
--SNIP--
...the Obama administration has chosen the strategy of deploying regulated and subsidized private sector entities to achieve progressive policy results. This approach was a hallmark of the so-called Clintonian, "New Democrat" movement, and the broader international movement sometimes referred to as "the Third Way," which often defended the use of private means for public ends.
This "Third Way" philosophy is different from conservatism, which largely rejects the public ends in and of themselves, and left-progressivism, which views the private sector as unable to achieve--and in fact part of the problem in achieving--these public ends. Six months ago, I depicted the Third Way philosophy as the "crime and reward theory of government":
The philosophy is summed up as follows:
The flaw in progressive legislative proposals is that they don't give enough money to the corporations that caused the problem(s) which overall legislative effort is supposedly trying to solve.
It applies in all major cases. Check it out:
1. The way to lower health care costs is to give companies that have increased health care costs even more money...
--SNIP--
2. The way to fix climate change is to give the companies that are the main cause of climate change even more money...
--SNIP--
3. The way to fix the financial crisis is to give the financial institutions that caused the financial crisis even more money...
And, his conclusion...
The choices in this environment are to lash out and hurt the coalition's leadership for the sake of revenge, give up altogether, and keep struggling through a long slog to try and make whatever gains you can. I go with the latter, because I want to keep fighting over the long haul, which makes splitting with the coalition or just giving up not real options.
In short, Bowers' sentiments are the exact OPPOSITE of the statement made in the diary that was on this blog's rec list, just a short while ago.
Again, I strongly recommend a read of his entire Alternet/Open Left post to get a true understanding of his positions on these matters. They closely mirror my own sentiments.
I'm a practical progressive, and I happen to be an Obama supporter, too. Clearly, some people have a problem with that. But, frankly, it's their problem, not mine.