The election of President Barack Obama and a large majority of Democrats in both houses of Congress provided a rare, once-in-a-generation opportunity for the United States to move in a boldly progressive direction through the actions of national political leaders.
Gradually, it is becoming apparent that our country will not see the major change that progressive political activists hoped for when we volunteered, donated and voted for the current Democratic leaders in Washington. The 2010 elections will at the very least significantly reduce Democratic majorities in Congress, and may even shift control of the House of Representatives to the Republicans. Whatever "major progressive change" was likely to come out of the Obama Era has probably already happened, since the window of opportunity is closing.
Instead of endlessly venting our spleens at this sad turn of events, we should begin thinking about where to direct our energies productively to create some of the progressive change that national politicians have been unable or unwilling to provide.
First of all, I wish to make clear that I consider it a civic and moral duty to vote for the Democrat when there is a Republican on the ballot, because there is currently only one party that can win elections on the national level in the U.S. which is generally sane and benign -- the Democratic Party -- and somebody will win office. Most Democratic politicians leave much to be desired, but the Republican Party today is defined by detachment from reality, celebration of ignorance, wild militarism, and total support for the interests of the very wealthy and the largest corporations at the expense of everyone else. Voting for the Democrats truly is voting for the lesser of two evils, and I would prefer to live in a society whose leaders are merely mediocre or, perhaps, mildly evil rather than other potential leaders who are grossly evil and dangerous.
So let's keep voting for Democrats, and vote for the better Democrat whenever there is a primary. But beyond the duty of voting, it may be time to take stock of whether progressives are getting enough of a return on investment for active participation (with our time and money) in national politics. I think the answer is clearly no -- and the fact that the extraordinary and extraordinarily rare opportunity afforded by the results of the 2008 election is bearing so little fruit is all the evidence we need to make a rational decision to seek better alternatives for creating progressive change than national politics.
Consider that President Barack Hussein Obama had the name he did, was black, and was literally loathed and considered a non-American by a significant percentage of those who opposed his election. Despite all that, he won the presidency by a large margin and swept into office on his coattails the largest Democratic Congressional majority in a generation. If there was ever a mandate for sweeping change, this was it.
And what have President Obama and the Democrats in Congress done with this incredible mandate? For the most part, they have let the moment pass, governing as the equivalent of Rockefeller Republicans. They have defined for a whole new generation of American voters the Democratic Party brand as "soaring progressive rhetoric with mediocre centrist results" -- basically the party of semi-competent government that improves things around the edges while letting the festering gangrene continue to rot out the core of America. The only thing saving the Democrats in 2010 from a 1994-style electoral disaster is the fact that the vast majority of Americans hate the Republicans and could never bring themselves to vote for them, for their brand is now defined in most people's eyes as "total incompetence, stupidity, and a government that only knows how to get us into unnecessary wars."
The Obama Era Democratic leaders have squandered their historic opportunity to reshape American society according to a progressive vision because of their philosophy of weak incrementalism more suitable for a time of nearly evenly divided government and stable economic and environmental conditions than present circumstances; their quixotic quest for bipartisanship when Republicans show no interest in any degree of cooperation or even offering positive ideas; and their establishmentarian mindset focused on appeasing the interests of corporate elites rather than implementing policies that strengthen the middle class and improve the lot of the unemployed and underemployed.
The United States is unlikely to see another time when we simultaneously have a Democratic President, large Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, and an appetite among the public for major change (driven by terrible economic conditions and an extremely negative memory of the previous president), for at least 20 to 30 years, maybe significantly longer.
So, what are progressives to do, other than hold our nose and vote Democratic and expect little in the way of real results? I don't think either not voting or voting for a third party is the way to go. Is there anything else we can do -- anything truly effective?
Perhaps we need to stop seeing the federal government as the main engine for progressive change and feeling terribly disillusioned when it doesn't act as such an engine. Maybe national governments can fulfill that role in liberal European countries but simply not in the U.S., because of the way our political system is designed (to prevent rapid and major change rather than enable it) and because our country includes a large region (the Deep South) that has never really been culturally and politically in tune with the rest of the nation, stymieing national progress.
The realities being what they are, I propose three ideas for how we could create progressive change more effectively than by focusing on national political activism:
1. Accept federalism and use it to our advantage, by working to turn purple states blue and to make blue states as progressive as possible.
First and foremost, this means moving out of red states and moving to states that are purple or blue. I'm sorry to say, but maybe we have to just accept the fact that some states are always going to be conservative, and not be angry about it or try to change it but just let them be who they want to be -- and get the hell out of there ourselves if we currently live there. If states like Oklahoma, Alabama, South Carolina, and so forth want a government that bears little resemblance to what progressives want, they can have it, but we don't have to live there and suffer under it.
A project could be started to encourage millions of progressives living in red states to relocate to purple states where they can, en masse, shift the political balance of those states so that they will become blue. A positive byproduct at the national level would be that there will eventually be more Democratic Senators and Representatives from those states -- and since the red states already elect almost entirely Republicans, there will be net gain for Democrats in Congress and the electoral college.
Beyond that, we need to work aggressively on the state level to elect progressives to the state legislatures and as governors. There is a lot that states can do, independently of the national government, to enact progressive policies within their own borders. That's how the Founders set our country up, and that's what Republicans want anyway -- states' rights rather than national uniformity -- so why not use this principle to our advantage and focus on making some states bastions of progressive thinking, education, intelligence, social justice, celebration of diversity, science and technology, workers' rights, a strong middle class, and everything else that is good; while other states can choose a worse path for themselves if this is what they prefer and vote for.
It is much easier to elect progressive on the state level than the national level, and to hold them accountable once they get in office, so our task will be easier. And if we concentrate ourselves in the states with the most potential to become solidly progressive or to switch from conservative to progressive governance, we can really change things rather than hope for occasional progressive scraps from national leaders who always fear a conservative backlash in the country at large.
2. Migrate to progressive cities and communities, and help them to thrive and become stunning examples of the success of progressive ideas.
Progressives need to find out which municipalities in the U.S. are the most on the cutting edge of progressive policy and then go there, live there, and become active in the local political scene to keep the momentum going for positive change at the local level.
For one thing, this will this make us feel like we are actually able to accomplish something real, by improving the real-life communities in which we live, rather than just moaning and groaning about how national politicians in distant Washington D.C. always fail to live up to our expectations. We will keep a more hopeful, optimistic attitude toward life and the future, because we will be able to do something that generates results -- even if only on a small scale -- rather than only being able to wish for great visions on a larger scale that never come to fruition and thereby becoming more and more frustrated, even depressed.
Furthermore, implementing bold progressivism on the local level will cause people from other parts of the state or country who visit our wonderful progressive cities, towns, and communities and see how much better the quality of life is there, to come to realize that progressive ideas have beneficial effects in real life, rather than remaining as untested abstractions. One of the great dangers of always playing the role of the "theorizers" who continually supply great ideas that never get fully implemented in policy is that people never get to see that progressivism works -- that it makes life better for real people. All they see is that "what we have now sucks," and they get angry and in many cases lose hope for a better future, stay home from the voting booth, or even vote Republican out of blind fury. We need to focus on providing positive real-life examples of progressive greatness, for only then will our favored policies ever be accepted and adopted by people who are not yet progressive.
3. Use the nonprofit sector as a substitute for progressive national government.
What is holding progressives back from simply creating the kinds of programs and institutions we believe in ourselves, rather than relying on the federal government to do it for us? Yes, there is the challenge of fundraising. It's certainly easier to do things with the vast supply of tax dollars than with private funds which are much more limited. But I'm sure if we actually come up with brilliant ideas for nonprofit-based solutions to implement progressive ideas, there will be wealthy benefactors who will support such projects. Not all millionaires and billionaires are conservatives!
Want better health care? We can create nonprofit health care cooperatives on a large scale.
Oppose the amorality and excessive profit motive of corporations? We can create our own corporations based on principles of employee ownership, profit-sharing and reinvestment, and support corporations like this that already exist; and we can boycott en masse the worst corporate offenders.
Hate the corrupt banks and financial institutions? We can create our own credit unions that follow ethical principles and support those that already exist, and boycott en masse the financial institutions whose philosophy and policies we oppose.
Want more investment in green technologies for a clean energy future? We can identify which companies are developing the energy solutions the world's people and natural environment need, and then systematically promote investment in these companies by all progressives everywhere.
What we need are national, large-scale movements among progressives to systematically live and transact personal commerce according to the principles we believe in, and systematically opt-out from any participation or support whatsoever for any institution in society that is contrary to our principles. If we want to be serious about putting our ideals into practice and thus living with integrity, this is one of the most important ways of doing so.
The bottom line is, getting Democrats elected to national elective office is not the only answer to our problems. Sure, it would be easier that way -- if it actually worked. The problem is, it doesn't work, or it doesn't work well enough. In fact, I would argue that recent evidence shows that "controlling the federal government" by progressives, for progressivism, is virtually impossible in the United States political system and current framework of mainstream culture, mass media, and civic disinterest among the general population.
Progressives can do a lot more to change the world for the better in other ways. Let's get to work!