dagblog - Comments for "What's Your Plan Progressives?"

I said progressives did

PeraclesPlease — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 19:48:37 +0000

In reply to I thought progressives did

I said progressives did better than Blue Dogs. And I said Republicans put in $15 million towards defeating Russ Feingold. Think whatever you think.

I thought progressives did

brewmn — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 18:35:32 +0000

In reply to Johnson "loaned" himself $9

I thought progressives did great in 2010, per your earlier comment. And Russ was the Progressives' progressive. So, how could he lose?

I wrote "no one thing to be

AmericanDreamer — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 17:03:19 +0000

In reply to You wrote : no one "thing to

I wrote "no one thing to be done" because in what I have seen as your writings, I have interpreted them as advocating work within the Democratic party at the grassroots, local level as not just a set of activities you do, but as, in your view, superior to or preferred to, say, working with an independent, nonpartisan group such as LWV, or working at grassroots activism independent of a political party. When I don't agree with that, and now know that neither do you. I didn't know, for example, that you have worked with LWV, which doesn't have a substantive political agenda as part of its purpose but still helps to inform voters.

So thank you for clearing that up.

"Things never work according to plan" when it comes to political activism I wrote because I think it's true even at micro levels one can personally directly influence (adjustments are almost required to any plan of action) and more so at increasingly macro levels. If one is the leader of some effort of more than one, it doesn't necessarily need to be written out or shared in all its details but of course in order to get somewhere you have to know where you are trying to go and how you intend to get there. In terms of a grand, macro plan for how progressives can get much more influence in this country, I don't know of anyone here who has any authority to do more than offer their ideas on what that might look like and/or participate in putting their or someone else's plan or parts of it into effect.

I think on the GOP side, someone like Karl Rove has had his fingers in many pots, connections to people and organizations working different aspects of what together has functioned like a grand plan for Right influence, even if no one ever decreed it or put it down on paper anywhere and even if not everyone working in effect to advance it even had any idea what it was in any of its particulars. Worker bees tend to hope "whoever is in charge of this operation" knows what they are doing and decide to pitch in.

I think the best thing for progressives to do is feel free to offer their thinking on what needs to be done here and elsewhere if they want to, and pick an organization or several or an activity or several activities that make sense to them in terms of their progressive commitments to try to strengthen progressive influence, and do what they can on that. I don't think waiting until someone decrees some grand plan is helpful--it is passive and just results in inaction, paralysis even.

There may be much higher profile people who have followings and influence and access to resources I don't have access to, who could help initiate or support pieces of what would amount to a fairly comprehensive progressive resurgence strategy. I could say that a group such as Media Matters, for example, is that--a piece, a necessary one, of what a large macro strategy for what would need to be done to bring about a progressive resurgence if someone were to put it down on paper.

Don't you need some plan to get involved to have the influence in the system you want.

On a specific activity or initiative one has assumed lead responsibility for carrying out, yes, of course one has to have a "plan" in mind. You're talking about the micro level. My comments were about the macro level--at the level of whether some larger, comprehensive strategy for a progressive resurgence could draw support and investment of time and energy and effort. Like I said, I certainly cannot make macro things of this sort happen in any way, only offer thinking or support and get involved to help carry out pieces of it if it makes sense to me. I think choices and actions one makes that are not informed by some sort of a personal progressive vision or set of values or guideposts at least, can get off track or wind up in less productive or promising uses of a person's time. At least I feel a need to have some sort of "where is this going?" notion in my head in making decisions about where I put my own limited time.

No biggie, but mostly I try

tmccarthy0 — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 16:36:59 +0000

In reply to I was reacting to the history

No biggie, but mostly I try to tell people what Dems are doing. I hope that it influences some people in that we are not the total failures people say we are. Mostly I realize it pisses people off that I have chosen a team and I defend that team to end. It's just my nature, if we are passing the ball to the quarter back, I try not to tackle him myself and kick him in the balls before he tries to make a touchdown.

Oh snap sports analogy! Woohoo am I ready for some football.

And thank you my ride was excellent. 47.5 miles. I will be ready for August 20th.

You wrote : no one "thing to

tmccarthy0 — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 16:32:42 +0000

In reply to There is no one answer, or

You wrote :

no one "thing to be done"?

Is that part in quotes because you are quoting me or emphasizing that in your response, because of course there is nowhere I've written "thing to be done". I am suggesting their are ways to gain influence in a system that people want to have influence over, what is the plan for gaining that influence, whether it is over Democrats, Republicans or in general the American public. In order to do this don't you have to find a way for gaining credibility among the population in order to influence policies.

Let's take for example another organization I am familiar with, "The League of Women Voters", not only are we organized, we have meetings, make plans we do this on a local, regional and national level, with our dues and fund raisers we run voter registration events, we hire lobbyists, we have some credibility and have some influence in certain policies at all levels of government, micro to macro. Oh and we have excellent pot lucks, excellent, seriously.

Isn't it always a problem to have to say, there is no real plan nor will anyone step up to organize the group, use traditional methods and the new methods of communication to build credibility among voters. Isn't it a problem to say "I don't think any of us has any practical authority or ability to develop some sort of "master plan" and in any case things never work according to plan."

"Things never work according to plan" Is kind of a cop out really. What are the existing systems you plan to use? Are they existing political parties, dem's, greens, workers of the world? Don't you need some plan to get involved to have the influence in the system you want.

@Trope: Some of what

tmccarthy0 — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 16:14:34 +0000

In reply to I don't know if we want to

@Trope: Some of what conservatives did is and should be very instructive to others who want to be able to share in influencing what goals the federal government pursues. It isn't all about Atwater and Rove's ability to have two or three successful talking points and driving those points home every hour on the hour on GfOxP News and talk radio etc. These people successfully infiltrated government at all levels and this is why they seem to have undue influence on our politics.

To me it isn't about getting anyone to vote for the President either, that is a personal thing people do and they need to be able to express themselves in that way, especially when they feel as though one politician might or might not be responding to their personal or esoteric "plight". I think this is a fair reaction, but my question is how to Progressives build influence over policy, clearly many people are seeking more progressive policies, but they must have a plan to build credibility so they can earn the influence they so desire.

Yeah, I remember all that

brewmn — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 13:53:23 +0000

In reply to My point was not why Bush won

Yeah, I remember all that conservative opposition to Reagan raising taxes multiple times, and all that conservative opposition to Bush starting a massive war in the Middle East on the flimsiest of pretexts, and all that conservative opposition to Bush passing a huge, unfunded mandate in the form of Medicare Part D. I also remember all that conservative opposition to raising the debt ceiling under both of those insufficiently conservative presidents as well as the insufficiently conservative G.W. Bush.

Oh, wait a minute. No, I don't.

Me too. It's how it starts.

Ramona — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 12:45:08 +0000

In reply to I saw that John did that, I

Me too. It's how it starts.

I was reacting to the history

Michael Wolraich — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 11:56:27 +0000

In reply to Hey Genghis, But in actuality

I was reacting to the history of failed primary challenges and, I confess, to your past statements. I'm sorry if I misinterpreted. I hope that you had a nice ride.

There is no one answer, or

AmericanDreamer — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 11:43:33 +0000

In reply to Hey Genghis, But in actuality

There is no one answer, or "thing to be done" and none of us has the ability to do anything more than propose ideas on what might be done, and try to do them ourselves.

Some elements of a "strategy" (all I've got time to put up right now) needed are:

*a narrative/a message/one or more issues or 'buckets of issues' to talk about (backed up by a policy program, which is what I tried to lay out some thoughts on in re to brew's question of what unites--or might unite--wings of the party

*messengers, helpful if there are people who already can command media attention and credibility on a large scale, but each of us is our own messenger as well

*a strategy for attaining and building more influence. this can be discussed, certainly, in advance of some event that galvanizes more people to act (Rosa Parks). This includes but is hardly limited to specific events or activities, well-timed, that stand the best chance of creating a stir and attracting the attention of media and potential recruits. There certainly needs to be a grassroots strategy. As I wrote, I think there are different, potentially effective avenues. One is building influence at the local and state party levels. Another is contributing towards building a galvanizing progressive, but independent and nonpartisan, social movement. Both of these can work, may be necessary, and are by no means mutually exclusive. Different individuals can work different ends of this depending on preference and it's not time wasted.

*a strategy for combating the bad guys as well as promoting our own better ideas for the country. Media Matters has made some inroads on this. I think David Brock, having set his mind to "kill wingers" instead of "kill liberals" it, is doing a pretty good job of ruining Sarah Palin's chances for the presidency. Efforts like that are not pretty but they are not necessary, I believe.

The point is, there's more than plenty to do. I don't think any of us has any practical authority or ability to develop some sort of "master plan" and in any case things never work according to plan. The point is to start/build on what is already there, act, and move, and not let the absence of a master plan inhibit action. Many of us may need to have a vision, at least, of where we are trying to go, that can help guide and inform what we do. And some of us have the ability to influence the construction of micro, more local-level, or targeted plans. But that's different from a grand.plan.