I’D LIKE TO WRITE TODAY ABOUT the very definition of the words “liberal,” “progressive” and “left.” There are lots of people who would describe themselves as one or more of these, and people can, obviously, define themselves however they want; but I think a better definition of “liberal” or “progressive” might help progressives to focus our efforts, and thus tell our story more clearly.
More specifically, I would like to define what I mean by “left” or “progressive.” What do we progressives stand for? Or, much better put: Whom do we stand with?
The left in the United States has deep roots in our history, but there has been one animating principle motivating it. I define progressives as:
“Those who stand with the weak in our society, and defend them from the strong.”
There has been a streak of progressivism, thus defined, throughout American history. Abolitionists stood with fellow Americans who were held as slaves in the southern United States, and against their power-sickened masters who presumed the right to enslave others on the basis of a separate ancestry. The Temperance movement stood with women who were impoverished by the inability of alcoholic men to earn steady, reliable wages to feed their families. I think it’s fair to say that having a heavy drinker in the family has always been harder on women, especially in terms of domestic violence, than it has been on men. Progressives and the labor movement stood with child workers and immigrants toiling in the Dickensian factories of the early Industrial Revolution, and against the “Malefactors of Great Wealth,” the railroad barons and industrialists who heartlessly exploited them. And the New-Dealers stood with millions of frightened Americans in the Great Depression who were “one-third of a nation ill-housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished …” and against the do-nothing Republicans who wanted to “let the market provide” for these impoverished citizens (sound familiar?).
These are just a few examples. Who I stand with:
• The millions of my fellow citizens who, to be blunt, live in neighborhoods where the possibility of being murdered is an ever-present reality.
• The millions of my fellow citizens who are one paycheck away from homelessness, one illness away from bankruptcy.
• The millions of my fellow citizens who are ruthlessly exploited by payday lenders, rent-to-own joints and more.
• The many millions of my fellow Americans who, in the last 30 years, have worked harder and more productively, and made their companies’ stockholders and executives richer while receiving not a “thank you” and a raise but cut benefits, stagnant wages, retaliation for trying to unionize their workplaces, and worse.
When are we progressives going to stand up and act to stop the economic destruction of the working and middle classes?
When are we going to yell and scream for passage of the Employee Free Choice Act?
When are we going to start demanding that we raise taxes on the rich to help feed and house and provide for the poor, the aged, the weak?
When are we going to insist on single-payer health care?
When are we going to demand that public housing be built that not just poor people but even middle-class folks would want to live in?
When will we speak to the true causes of the violence in our ghettos and realize that it is not “their” problem but “our” problem?
When will we call the grifters of Wall Street what they truly are — venal, corrupt criminals?
The surpassing greed and recklessness of the overclass very nearly destroyed the world economy in 2008. It is well past time to impose some clear restraints on their power.
The kind of unrestricted capitalism that has been allowed to flourish the last 40 years poses a clear and present danger to our society.
U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., has been one of the few voices in government who actually addresses the powers that be in a way that causes them discomfort. Her growing popularity is an encouraging sign that Democrats may be rediscovering their most successful historical mission, which was always more about economic fairness than the culture wars. (I also have a special place in my heart for her because she, like me, started out her voting life as a Republican.)
Heed her words:
“I hear all this, ‘Oh this is class warfare’ — no! There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there — good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory … Now look. You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea — God bless! Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay it forward for the next kid who comes along.”
Matt Talbot is a writer and poet, as well as an old Benicia hand. He works for a tech start-up in San Francisco.
Sharing is caring!
I like it! Thanks, Matt. Count me in. I could tell you our life stories, but will not parrot them out for right-wingers to trash too often, wrestling like pigs in mud. Count on it, some of us rebuilding the American Middle Class, by not financially supporting its adversaries. The hills and valleys are alive with 10,000 New Noahs building new Arks of Enthusiasm, not the complacent and complicit status quo of the greedy, slothful, or mentally, morally, and non-science mediocre. Peter Bray, Benicia, CA
Matt just what is it as you say that keeps them and apparently you in that situation? That may well be the problem. Not addressing the problem. Letting tresident Obama take of it for them. You would think that in this wonderful country these folks that you describe wounld want out and move on. All along telling the folks that remain in that situation just where have you been. Stand up and get on your own. The heck with government I can do it on my own. Many have. Matt just what is wrong with your group that is still in the same place as they were 40 years ago. It is verty simple. Relying on others to solve their problems. Thats a Memo.
Matt we ALL know who you stand with. But the question I have is why have they not got out of that situation? Matt if they did you would have no one to stand with except yourself. That would be very lonely. Matt your stand has not worked, got an other idea?
Heed her words
Matt, she was parroting FDR, they were not “her words” per se. But echoing the same failed thoughts of FDR.
I wonder why is that after over 80 years of predominantly Democrat control of both the elected government, as well as the unelected bureaucracy, that we have not achieved the results desired by the neo-progs?
One likely reason: if the poor were not there to be exploited where would the Democrats cull their votes and supporters from?
Truth is Democrats thrive on divisiveness, ending it would weaken their base.
That was my immediate thought. No one is forcing them to stay in that place or their circumstances. They have a choice to stay and a choice to do something different other than waiting for someone to come along and rescue them. You have to take care of yourself. Life is hard. It is even harder when you are stupid.
I’ll defer to your expertise on the latter point. But re: the “failed thoughts” of FDR — Dennis, like all little men of no achievement in this world, likes to take shots at great men. It’s OK, FDR’s legacy is quite beyond his reach. And he was as right then as he is now. Warren could not have picked a better man to “parrot.”
Sorry Hank, I read the book when I was 20 years old. Your comments follow true to form:
RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
* RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.
However, you are overlooking this one:
* RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news.
You are old news Hank.
I frequently read Matt Talbot’s column and more often than not, find myself scratching my head. Along with the reflexive shaming and blaming of the right, there is also the call to solve complex sociological problems, but the solution to these problems always seem to rely on doubling down on strategies that are often the cause of the problem in the first place. I am reminded of this in one of the recurring themes in Mr. Talbot’s columns where he speaks wistfully of his childhood in Richmond and now laments the state of affairs there. The city of Richmond has espoused many of modern day liberalism’s (and Mr. Talbot’s) most cherished values; most notably, the arrogant belief in the state’s ability to engineer sociological and economic outcomes of others. Usually this tendency has a secondary and “unintended” effect in that it always seems to encompass disabling opposing groups of their economic or political freedoms. Often times, it is hard to tell which is the primary goal of modern day liberalism: is it actually helping the poor, or are the poor merely the vehicle from which larger political objectives are arrived at and political foes harmed. I don’t think this is the case with Mr. Talbot, I just think that his romanticism in this area is problematic.
With regard to Mr. Talbot’s Richmond, or Oakland, or Vallejo, or Chicago, or Detroit, or any other predominantly Black community that has had the misfortune of buying into the promises of liberal paternalism, the results are resolutely uniform; the social engineering by the left has left a wake of destruction that has been far worse than the problems it intended to resolve. No one wants poverty, but in creating a system that pays women to have children out of wedlock, we have created a catastrophe for the Black family and the nation. Prior to LBJ’s war on poverty, the out of wedlock birthrate for Blacks was approximately one in five. A half century into the radical experiment of the state trying to impose economic and sociological outcomes, the rate of children being born out of wedlock rose to over seven in ten. The evidence has been in for quite some time now; the quickest way to impoverish a family is to have it be run by a single parent, and the quickest way to ensure that a child does not have the benefit of a father is to pay the mother to avoid marriage. In return for this Faustian bargain, inter-generational dependence on the state occurs, but, fortunately, the liberal’s sense of moral righteousness remains unchallenged, and this, along with the desire for power over others, could very well be the driving force in much of the left’s workings.
The ills brought on by the welfare state social engineering experiment have been myriad. One of the more insidious results of these policies is that with the promise of a marriage to the state, at risk women have lost the impetus to find a mate that is hard working, ambitious and committed to the children he helps bring into the world. This unintended consequence of the War on Poverty, quickly, yet, certainly temporarily, deferred millions of years of evolution that lay forth the idea that mate selection is predicated on finding the individual most fit in a given environment. In temporarily eliminating this obstacle, the Black community’s fate can no longer be argued in terms of nature OR nurture, because now it is both. While it is clear that government dependence correlates strongly with violence prone and dysfunctional communities, i.e. nurture, is it also possible that these same government programs are changing the “nature” of the Black community in that an at risk women’s mate selection criteria has fundamentally changed from the past million years or so? What outcomes can be expected when a women surrenders to not only the promise of retirement at the age of 19, but having children with multiple individuals who are not successful themselves? Is there any prospect whatsoever of these males passing on successful traits to the children they “father.” Just thinking out loud here.
Many of the bloggers from the left in the Herald, and also the Herald’s featured cartoonist, Tom Luckovich, are quick to ascribe racism to others who do not buy into their vision of the state managed economy and populace. This is easy to understand as the impact of the word racist has an incredibly powerful impact on others precisely because this concept is so abhorrent to the few values we actually share. All too frequently, the use of this term is nothing more than a manipulative power play that garners immediate concession from one’s opponent. With this in mind though, isn’t it racist to espouse policies that clearly damage the black community – regardless of whether one fancies him(her)self as some champion of the civil rights movement? Isn’t an actual bad outcome worse than an accusation wantonly cast upon an enemy?
If we are honest about our abhorrence of racism, doesn’t this warrant a sober look at the impact of our ideals, however well intentioned Mr. Talbot? Liberals tend to portray themselves as open minded and enlightened, maybe now is actually an opportune time to live up to those self ascribed qualities…
As a representative of the “progressive” ideology in America, I wonder how Mr. Talbot reconciles his ideals with the outcomes his ideals have created in his home town? While there is an incredible amount of pressure to avert our eyes from the unintended consequences of the left’s ideological experiments on the black community, the violence and despair in these communities is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore or explain away as mere products of conservative racism or the effects of capitalism. Only our cultural sensitivity keeps a lot of us from laughing at the implausibility of these arguments.
While this reply was somewhat long winded, it arrives back at the question of whether it is wise to engage in sweeping human engineering experiments if we aren’t ready to address the consequences that stem from them. Whether it be addressing poverty or the economy, or the climate, shouldn’t we look at the lessons of Mr. Talbot’s Richmond before embarking on a journey of such import?
Excellent response Thomas and 100% accurate.
I agree with DDL on the responce by Thomas.
Posted this in another thread but it’s relevant here:
Well I do hope the very small minority of conservatives in Benicia recognize the reality that the country is becoming more progressive, and the knuckle draggers can do nothing about it.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/05/liberals-make-headway-american-politics
The progressives don’t care about the outcomes unless it has to do with them gaining and/or obtaining power. And we might also note that Mr. Talbot has left his home town. He chose to better his circumstances and surroundings. Good for him. More should do the same.
You first turkey. This is our town.
Is it really your town Hank? Is it okay if I live here too, pwetty, pwetty pweez? Glad to see you espousing tolerance and inclusion.
“Tolerance and inclusion” … Surprised you could even type those words, let alone understand them. But to answer your question, no, you have to leave too.