The Care and Feeding of Progressives (updated x2)

Update x2: Bob Kinzel sees Mark Johnson’s Martha Abbott and raises him one Anthony Pollina on VPR’s Vermont Edition tomorrow (Friday). The focus looks to be on the “three criteria” rather than the failing grade collectively and unceremoniously handed out to Susan Bartlett and Doug Racine. It’ll be interesting to see if he stays on that message.

Update: Mark Johnson asked all the right questions during his interview with Progressive Party Chair Martha Abbott. From Abbott’s tone, I’d say the collective what-were-they-thinking vibe that their action seems to have elicited from the political classes has reached her ear, as she sounds very much like she’s in damage control mode, waxing victimized by the Dems only briefly a couple times. She does a pretty good job, too, all things considered. Some questions still to ask, but I recommend listening to the full interview. It’s not too long (there are ads, though). Podcast widget is below.


Well, nobody’s ever accused the Progressive Party of finesse.

As more news of the Progressive “review” (thumbs down) of candidates Doug Racine and Susan Bartlett, and associated electoral ultimatum (yet again) to the dreaded Democrats comes clearer, it’s looking even more unpleasant than I’d feared. In fact, it is being received as a full-on smackdown.

There’s no question of the immediate effects of the Progressives’ self-defeatingly premature rejection of Susan Bartlett and Doug Racine, and the accompanying ultimatum. First, they have, ironically empowered primary candidate Deb Markowitz. Rejecting Racine and Bartlett out of hand so quickly gives the whole affair a weird air. What looked like an exercise in bridge-building now, in hindsight, looks like Racine and Bartlett bending over with a “kick me” sign and the Progs happily taking advantage. At a glance, the Progressives would seem to have made Markowitz’s point for her – that Progs will be Progs and its not worth approaching them (maybe its even a little degrading). Fairly or no, it seems as though Racine and Bartlett thought they were walking into a diplomatic summit, while their hosts saw it more akin to a voluntary courtroom appearance.

Bartlett and Racine can still get a lot of mileage on the “at least we tried” argument if they play it right, but Progressives as a collective institution have, for now, removed themselves as a factor in the Democratic primary.

Which gets to the self-defeating angle. Why? Why now? Even if this was to be the Progs’ ultimate response, why not stretch it out a few months and use the attention and deference to build credibility and influence? If nothing else, it would’ve made their ultimate smackdown that much more effective when it did come. Instead, such impatience and rhetorically inartful dismissals of  the very Dems who showed them the respect they were looking for simply add another bit of evidence to the persistent narrative that the Progs only exist to knock down and belittle Dems whenever possible, however possible, and as often as possible.

As I’ve said on many occasions, I do think there’s truth to the idea that some Progressives get more fired up about Dem-bashing than anything or any issue, even to the point of cutting off their noses to spite their collective face at times. But I think it would be a mistake to assume that’s all that’s going on here, and a bigger mistake still to dismiss the Progressives or count them out of any hope of coalition-building after this ultimatum. That would still be cutting off our Democratic noses to spite our collective face (more after the flip).

Collectively, the Progressives behave very impulsively. Oh, I’m sure the denials will be forthcoming in the comments and will be sincere, but the history of collective Progressive political action is replete with impulsive action – even when, shall we say, that impulsive action is sometimes… er… chronologically deferred… meaning that an impulsive response is no less an impulsive response if you can make yourself hold off acting on it for a bit.

So my point is that this diss of Bartlett and Racine and the accompanying ultimatum strike me as typically impulsive. And although both Bartlett and Racine can’t afford not to back way off after being so roundly dismissed, all the campaigns should keep the back doors to discussion open, even while not making the mistake of being so trusting publicly. Rank and file, too, should double up on efforts to build bridges even as this institutional door has so roundly been closed. Believe it or not, there is still light shining through the cracks of the door we just saw slammed.

Very simply, when Progressives take a two-by-four to your head, it doesn’t mean the same thing as when anybody else does. That’s because, while you and I may see a two-by-four as a two-by-four, Progs sometimes think of it as a telephone. It just might not be as bad as it all sounds. It may be frustrating to put up with what sounds like a potentially abusive dynamic, but sometimes its simply practical. We in the rank and file – all of us, Dems and Progs alike – need to be smart enough to tell when our dear leaders are simply acting out in this way.

My point, then; to my fellow rank and file Dems, don’t give up the Progs yet. To rank and file Progs, don’t assume this rejection is gospel.

The dynamic this shows us, once again, is how the fractured left in this state so often mirrors itself. If the Democrats collectively have a problem with being too process-oriented, getting caught in the back and forth of negotiation and losing site of the big picture, the Progressives collectively are just as bad at being too goal-oriented, at times showing outright contempt for the process that makes up the straight line between the twin points of where-we-are and where-we-want-to-be.

39 thoughts on “The Care and Feeding of Progressives (updated x2)

  1. if the Dems really wanted to impress on folks how much they’re willing to take others’ considerations into mind they could simply pass an IRV bill and override Douglas’ veto.

    That would be a succinct statement for sure.

    But that won’t happen because the Democrats want the Progressives to be Democrats (which the Progressives don’t want to be).

    If the only leverage the Progressive Party has is to continue competing with Democratic pols … the Progressive Party should use that leverage.

    Lessee now, who was number 3 in the ’08 gubernatorial bid?

  2. …the Prog State Committee meeting with Bartlett, so I can’t speak to that, but I was at the Prog meeting Racine addressed, and was quite unimpressed.

    I think it might have been one of the first speeches he had done to a group (especially a group that wasn’t his base) during this election cycle, and he kind of droned on about some things that wern’t very interesting and then during Q&A the Progs asked several times in a variety of ways about his vision/plan for bringing health care reform to VT, but he just kept saying he didn’t have a plan if the Feds couldn’t make it happen for us. I certainly didn’t feel compelled to jump on his bandwagon.

    That being said, I’ve seen him speak twice since then (at a house party in Rutland and at DemocracyFest) and he did much, much better. So much better that I am now leaning towards supporting him.  

    I think maybe if he addressed the Progs again, and talked specificly about those 3 issues and his plan for implimenting them, the Progs reaction might change too.

  3. What a glorious day it would be to have a dem front runner put a P after their D. They can’t afford not to. I admire the progs for keeping the vital issues upfront and standing their ground. If the dems want to win then they absolutely have to give a coherent response to those three issues. Vermonters, I’m told, don’t appreciate political-speak.

  4. I did not hear the piece at the time, but upon reading Odums post you would have thought that Martha laid down the gauntlet and said “Racine and Bartlett stunk, odds are we can’t work together” and went on to indicate that now, the rest of us (Progressives) would be kinder and softer.

    That way…when folks like me and others say what many Progs have said for a long time “when Democrats (individually) take good positions on the issues then Progressives are more likely to get behind them and we can work to support them”, then he will sound like the great predictor.

    Come on now, I urge everyone to listen to the podcast and reread Odums comments.  He is picking a fight that is not there.  

    Certainly in this instance I now have a bone to pick with Odum. But when you look at the comments that Martha makes with respect to the issues and the two candidates (so far) she indicates that the current two did not clearly position themselves as of yet.  She adds that we are open to the discussion as their campaigns get more defined (which often happens as campaigns develop).

    Frankly…I would think that most folks who are “front pagers” on this website would agree with the positions that Martha put out there…close entergy nuclear, support workers, support universal public healthcare.

    She also did nothing to promote or demote Markowitz either.  From what I heard, we are open to any Dem (or R or I for that matter) for statewide office to come to the state committee and tell us their positions and why they would want our support.  

    So far, I can say that most Progressives I know are certainly more appreciative of Doug (first) and Susan having approached Martha to come speak.  Obviously if someone does not even want to come speak to a captive audience (Deb) while they are running for office, it does beg one to question whether that person really wants to win?  Or, whether some people think that one only has to have Democratic party faithful supporting and voting for them in order to win statewide…and if so…does that mean they will only work with those folks (and leave Indpendents, Progressives, others out of their thought process)?

    Anyway…please do listen, and thank you John for putting up the podcast.  It is very helpful to get a link to go listen to. People can then decide for themselves about the idea of cooperation or not based on first person listening rather than your “Progressives are at it again” spin.

     

  5. As . . . the Progressive “review” (thumbs down) of candidates Doug Racine and Susan Bartlett, and associated electoral ultimatum (yet again) to the dreaded Democrats comes clearer,. . . it is being received as a full-on smackdown

    I am reminded of my favorite Ben Franklin quote from the John Adams series based on historian David McCullough’s biography of the second president.

    Adams’ zeal for immediate action demonstrated heart-felt Yankee character, but his delivery managed to alienate a significant number of the founding fathers.  Adams tin ear led him, for instance, to insult the peace at all cost Quaker member of the Continental Congress, implying that the Pennsylvanian suffered from religiously based moral cowardice (a “snake on his belly”) Nice!

    Later, Benjamin Franklin explains to Adams how he is coming across to other members of the Congress.  Franklin says:

    It is perfectly acceptable to insult a man in private… but when you do so publicly, it tends to make them think you are serious.

    Bluntness, adamancy, stridency (three of my best friends) have their place.  Frequently they share the driver’s seat with me. HOWEVER, to be effective in affecting change, being publicly dismissive of your natural allies is typically self-defeating. No matter how good it feels, no matter how absolutely correct I am any of us are, it doesn’t advance the runner to publicly punish a candidate’s attempt at good behavior. Is this really the best story line the Progressives could deliver at this stage of the campaign? How comfortable will Susan Bartlett or Doug Racine feel about working with Martha Abbot when it comes to crunch time?

    Now is a really good time for us to be (pick all that apply) threatening, cajoling, insulting, giving resources generously, speaking frankly, pledging support and making demands of our chosen candidate(s). The same goes for those candidates toward whom we might not so easily gravitate. There are constructive ways to do this that advance our agenda. There are also ways to do it that make the threats and insults – or the pledges of support – more about us than about overhauling Montpelier.

    Rolling up the newspaper and whacking potential nominees on the nose (on the front page of the newspaper no less) after they’ve come to you to build a bridge is not the best way to keep the next Governor from shitting on carpet.

  6. This is really very simple math.  The Progressives need to step forth and say, “We want to work with everyone who wants to defeat Jim Douglas.  To this end we will unite with the Democrats and all independent thinkers to support the one candidate most likely to accomplish this goal. History is clear, it will take a unified candidate to win and we pledge to work to that end.”  

    By the same token the Democratic leadership has to make the same statement. It is time for both Ds and Ps to start acting like grown-ups and to put away their teenage thinking.

  7. The differences between the Ps and the majority of Ds in Vermont is not that deep.  However, continuing the rift between the two does absolutely nothing to unseat the current Governor.  You can hang (figuratively and literally) on prinicple, but in the end all politics is about compromise.  What we need is a candidate who understands political compromise and who is able to negotiate his/her way around both the Blue Dog Democrats and the Progressives.  This is the only winning combination at this point in time.  Plus the future holds little hope for any other combination of political wills.

  8. the meetings with Racine & Bartlett but I listened to Martha’s comments on the Mark Johnson show (thanks for the link)

    I cannot speak to how others received her comments but it is pretty clear she did not “roundly dismiss” the two candidates and that there was no “smackdown”

    as for “damage control”, I suspect Martha & Anthony appeared on those two shows because they were invited

    Odum is free to interpret these words and events; I just disagree  

  9. This is the one and only question. While all this bantering maybe be fun for the participants, it tends to confuse a host of readers.  We all need to get on message and stay there.  The election may be months away, but the campaign has already begun.  Ps and Ds need to have a good primary.  It appears that it needs to be under the D label as otherwise we lose all the Blue Dogs.  By-the-way, it is this group, Blue Dogs, who are the problem for the Democrats and not the Progressives.  However, both the Ds and the Ps need at least some of those blue votes to do anything.  So here’s an idea that is not new or novel, but neglected here for some time.  Let’s agree to have the primary fight for Governor in the D primary; and then let’s just agree to help the Ps support strong candidates for all the other statewide offices.  Defeating any of the current office holders who claim to be Democrats will be of little loss to the Democratic Party.  There are no true Democrats currently holding statewide office!

Comments are closed.