Ross Perot in 1992, John McCain in 2000, Howard Dean in 2004. There is a thread running through the late 20th and early 21st Century telling American politics and the two existing parties they are not serving all the people. The people are searching for something else. When they think they see it, they will cross political party lines and dedicate countless hours of effort and dollars of campaign contributions to move it forward. That none of these candidates have yet succeeded does not mean the search is over, or the desire is not there, under the surface, among Republicans, Democrats, Independents and non-voters. Having been active in two of the three campaigns mentioned above, I think I can define it below.
democratic
- representing or appealing to or adapted for the benefit of the people at large
- characterized by the principle of political or social equality for all
- pertaining to a form or style of leadership based on equality, shared power, group decision making, and the greatest good for the greatest number
progressive
- a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties
- a person who actively favors or strives for progress toward better conditions, as in society
- promoting or favoring progress toward better conditions or new policies, ideas, or methods
Much of the discussion among those who opposed President Bush's reelection will take place within the context of the Democratic Party, and within the political context of "left" (liberal) and "right" (conservative). People are familiar with those terms, even if I the back of their heads they keep telling themselves, "but I don't fit along that line anywhere." Most of us don't, particularly when the contemporary American definitions of left and right are self contradictory. The right is pro-life, but favors the death penalty. The left favors freedom of speech, but often also anti hate-speech codes.
The Libertarians, understanding the weakness of the one dimensional political graph, propose one of two dimensions: left/right and libertarian/authoritarian (
http://www.politicalcompass.org/ if you're interested).
I believe there is another axis which runs throughout American history, back to the first settlers, through the revolution, the 20th Century and to today. On the "up" end are the forces of progressivism: change, reform and improvement, and on the "down", the forces of regressivism: stasis, retrenchment and standing pat. Through our political history, each party has had its time as progressives, and its time as regressives. The Republicans were founded as a progressive party, and the great progressive, Theodore Roosevelt, was a proud Republican. Democrats as well have had their regressive times (from the mid to late 19th Century was a bad time) but moved forward to bring us Social Security and the rest of the New Deal, and support the rights of African Americans and Women in the late 20th Century.
Likewise, religion has been used both for progressive and regressive purposes. Let those of us who criticize the politics emanating from the pulpits of the southern evangelical churches today, not forget that 50 years ago, it was the black churches and the synagogues which rang with the words of equal rights for all. It is not a coincidence Martin Luther King was a Reverend.
So, as we go forward, let us go forward as democratic Progressives, democratic in the sense of leadership based on equality, shared power, group decision making, and the greatest good for the greatest number, and progressive favoring a political philosophy of progress, reform and the civil liberties guaranteed by our Constitution.
Getting from here to there
If democratic Progressivism is our movement, how should we move?
There are, as I see it, three options (in no particular order):
- Take over the Democratic Party
- Take over another existing party
- Create a new political party
Each has its strengths and weaknesses, and careful consideration should be made before we choose a path. None will be easy, none will be quick, but each can succeed because each has succeeded in the past:
- The DLC effectively took over the Democratic Party in recent years, before that in 1972 the liberal wing of the party did the same from the old guard
- Pat Buchanan's followers took over the Reform Party from the Perotists
- The Republicans began as a 3rd Party offshoot of anti-slavery Whigs
The obvious strengths of each path:
- If we succeed, we have an automatic ballot line, a base, and a long history, and many (but not all) of those we hope to attract to our cause are currently "Democrats"
- Some party structure exists which we can adopt, including ballot lines in some states. If we choose the right party, many of its members may come along
- We waste no time fighting to take over an existing party from an establishment or change its structure and can begin immediately to build our party in all 50 states and begin running candidates in the 2006 midterms.
A moment of thought will bring forward the obvious challenges of each path:
- The "establishment Democrats" will fight back against a democratic Progressive takeover, and we will expend much time and effort simply to gain control, and possibly alienate some who we want to join us
- Again, there is an existing establishment, albeit a smaller and less powerful one, which will divide our efforts
- No third party has become one of the "top two" since the Republicans. We'll need to establish ourselves in all 50 states and get on the ballots in all 50 states without the advantages the two party duopoly gives itself
Of course, before choosing a path and in planning to move down the path we choose, we must look beyond the obvious strengths and challenges to full understanding of the strengths and challenges of each path, and determine ways to meet those challenges.
Return to Ripon
So let us "Return to Ripon", where a small group of dissatisfied Whigs, Free Soilers and independents came together and created something that reflected an underlying need in the America of the mid 19th-Century. That was 1854. By 1856 they had nominated a Presidential Candidate and by 1860 elected a President.
Whether our path passes through the Democrats, some other existing party or by following the model of 1854 and beginning anew, we must start today. We must redefine the playing field from left and right to up and down, progressives and regressives. We must welcome unsatisfied Democrats, McCain reform Republicans, members of third parties and independents to join us on the basis of our democratic Progressive values. We must seek out like minded candidates, in office and out, at the local, state and national levels, to join us in this effort.
