No Monopolies

Oh man Jeff, you are the last person I expected to hear a self destructive purity tantrum from. You and Capper are two of the people who helped motivate and inspire me to get into blogging. I have lost a lot of respect for you with this self pitying rant. I was being generous and charitable in my comments, but I don't have to be here because I know that you both stopped reading me. The thesis of this article on cognitive dissidence is that progressive media no longer exists because two writers in two publications failed to live up to your standards. Thus Jeff Simpson proclaims "the end of progressive media" without acknowledging that there exists a great deal of it even within The Nation and Mother Jones. Also anyone, even a nobody like me, can start their own blog or YouTube channel, etc to express and defend progressive ideas. Jeff, neither you nor I are the sole arbiters of what constitutes progressivism.

I know I am just too Niebuhrian in thinking about humility, tolerance, and pluralism when applying them to liberalism. But no one person should get to decide what liberalism or progressivism means. That is why we are the big tent party that can never get its act together, there are just too many issues and schools of thought to hammer out one distinctive definition. Instead we put together a loose, working definition subject to continuous updating, but no one owns progressivism. This primary season has been grueling, but the discussion has been vibrant and voters have gotten a clear choice.  It was grueling in 2008 and 2000 as well (though the real trouble in 2000 was in the general between Gore and Nader, at least this time the conflict is in the primary) but somehow most of us came together with some humility to accept differences and be the pluralist party of tolerance. Will the wounds of this primary fight heal in time to defeat the biggest, boldest monster ever to head a major party ticket? Is the bad blood between the supporters of these two eminently qualified, capable, and experienced candidates (Hillary and Bernie) going to cause a permanent schism as Jeff really seems to want?

It is a real problem in American politics that the perceived party of liberalism (Democrats) has been forced into the role of conservatism and trying to conserve the New Deal programs of government. While the perceived party of conservatism (Republicans) is utterly reactionary while trying to present itself as a force for reform that will bring back the good old days. The latter is utter bullshit of course, and just about every problem in the country can be laid at the feet of the Republican Party, and the hateful media and regressive business interests that support it. I am the first to admit that being forced in this position has caused some real schizophrenic tendencies in Democrats, but too many voters seem to think that once people are put in office that they can just ignore politics again. Then the electorate gets pissed because Democrats didn't do enough.

This "what have you done for me lately" attitude showed up among the left in 2000 and Republicans were able to sow enough discontent to steal what should have been a cakewalk for Al Gore. Then there was the "shellacking" in 2010, when enough Democrats were disappointed that Barack Obama wasn't the anti-Dubya to stay home and hand a bunch of states and Congress over to them. Simply being the party of reform is not enough for the far left, the kind of liberal activists who could be out organizing and pushing the conservative Democrats to enact the reforms we so desperately need instead push these ridiculous purity tests and refuse to work with anyone who isn't perfect.

Angry hyperbole and breathless recitations of the right wing caricature of Hillary Clinton does not make it so. Republicans have been throwing mud at Clinton for almost twenty five years, the critiques of her from the far left always seem to eerily echo those. So it might be time to forgive all the Democrats who voted for her in this primary if they did not fully believe the legend of Hillary the devil figure. At the same time, for all his passion about income inequality and big plans to radically shake up the economic structure of America, Bernie is not a messiah. They agree on so much, does Hillary just not speak in a tone you approve of?

I'm sorry Jeff, but you just did a poor job of demonstrating that somehow progressive media has ceased to be because two columnists failed to back your horse. I certainly do not want to support anyone who would claim to have the one true way by making this coarse and vindictive conclusion:

Despite all of this,the people that we thought were progressives, the people who were given the responsibility of being the voice of the people, have disappeared in order to blindly support Hillary.

We here in the heartland, and progressives all over the country, have to realize that we are on an island with no reinforcements.  Luckily for us, there is strength in numbers if we use it correctly.

Do not give your business, votes or support to people who do not give it back to us.  I have unsubscribed to both magazines and unsubscribed from every email list where the person is a Hillary supporter.   Any support or dollars from now on coming from me, will go to those who support us.

For me, this is a bigger fight than the November election.

 I wanted so badly to believe that bernie or bust was a myth, an outlier, but I keep getting proven wrong. It is too much to even ask, "hey maybe we could put our purity tests aside long enough to stop Donald Trump?" Or, "hey, maybe we could work together with the common goal of kicking the goggle-eyed homunculus out of the governor's mansion in Wisconsin?" Making enemies for no good reason, ostracizing yourself and your followers still does not give you a monopoly on progressivism. I guess the rest of the Democratic Party will have to try and soldier on without you.