Paul Krugman: "Progressives, to Arms!" A Call for More...Partisanship?

by Damozel | Is more partisanship just what this country needs?  Paul Krugman thinks that progressives need to "take on the movement than brought Bush to power." (Slate via Memeorandum)  Though in a way I think this is what we do here at BN-Politics every day, I have never thought of myself as a progressive.  I have a progressive agenda, all right, but I don't believe that the way to make lasting changes is to shove it down other people's throats.  At the same time, my goal is certainly to do all I can to promote what I'd call progressive values.  Which makes me....I don't know what it makes me, even when I read Krugman's definition of these labels.

Everyone seems to have their own definitions; mine involves the distinction between values and action. If you think every American should be guaranteed health insurance, you're a liberal; if you're trying to make universal health care happen, you're a progressive.  (Slate)

Okay, well, I am trying to make universal health care happen, so let's say, for the sake of argument, that I am a progressive.  What, according to Paul Krugman, should this mean?

Krugman wants progressives to "forcefully make the case that progressive goals are right and conservative goals are wrong." (Slate)   (Man, I can just see the label-hating D Cupples' face when she reads this.)  This, Krugman acknowledges, will be "highly polarizing." (Slate) Instead of looking for bipartisanship, we should work to...what?  I don't even know what this means.  How, in a democracy, does partisanship translate into lasting reforms?  Haven't we seen that when a bare majority shoves its partisan objectives down the throats of a resistant minority, there is invariably a backlash? 

Krugman argues that the American electorate is philosophically becoming more liberal---a point which certainly defies conventional wisdom (Slate)

In a way, it's understandable that many political analysts are finding it hard to grasp how much things have changed. After all, not long ago it was conventional wisdom among the chattering classes that America had entered an era of long-term Republican—and conservative—dominance. I have a whole shelf of books with titles like One Party CountryBuilding Red America, all of them explaining why movement conservatism—the interlocking set of institutions, ranging from the Heritage Foundation to Fox News, that make up the modern American right—is invincible. and

And it's true that even now, polls suggest that Americans are about twice as likely to identify themselves as conservatives as they are to identify themselves as liberals.

But if you look at peoples' views on actual issues, as opposed to labels, the electorate's growing liberalism is unmistakable. Don't take my word for it; look at the massive report Pew released earlier this year on trends in "political attitudes and core values." Pew found "increased public support for the social safety net, signs of growing public concern about income inequality, and a diminished appetite for assertive national security policies." Meanwhile, nothing's the matter with Kansas: People are ever less inclined to support conservative views on moral values—and have become dramatically more liberal on racial issues. (Slate). 

Looking at these same facts, I see a backlash/rebound/reaction against a conservative platform that got pushed too far.  The fact that people who self-identify as "conservative" actually favor what Krugman considers a liberal set of objectives merely suggests to me that the labels aren't very meaningful. 

Americans tend to swing back to the middle no matter how far we are pushed.  Our leaders ask us to ignore common sense at their peril.  Even at our most irrational, most of us go on being able to tell a hawk from a hand-saw.  Bush and his cronies banked on being able to keep us whipped up to a permanent froth of fear, paranoia, and self-centeredness.  But as Americans, we tend to revert to the middle path as soon as any political heavy weather shows the slightest signs of abating. 

So, here's my worry: Democrats, with the encouragement of people in the news media who seek bipartisanship for its own sake, may fall into the trap of trying to be anti-Bushes—of trying to transcend partisanship, seeking some middle ground between the parties.

That middle ground doesn't exist—and if Democrats try to find it, they'll squander a huge opportunity. Right now, the stars are aligned for a major change in America's direction. If the Democrats play nice, that opportunity may soon be gone. (Slate)

So...what?  Democratic elected officials should just impose a progressive agenda on the American people, whether or not there is really public support for it?  Isn't that sort of kind of exactly the mistake that the Bush administration made----taking a reaction against Clinton for a massive realignmnet of public opinion and a mandate to push a neoconservative agenda? 

I would hate to see a Democratic administration make the same mistake or fail to take note of a strong desire on the part of a large segment of the American public to dial back the partisan nastiness.

MEMEORANDUM has other---and different--- blogger reactions here.

Comments

[Mark]

Excellent post, Damozel! I've got more on this at my blog on Krugman's article. But I think you hit the nail on the head here.