With all the lamentation on this site about how 'the left' or 'liberals' or 'Progressives' have failed in various ways, I propose a "New Rule," because this is all getting very confusing to me.
If you are going to bash or call out these groups, either come up with a site wide definition of what these things mean, or cease with using any of these terms without explicitly saying who you are talking about.
I think for the most part everyone can agree that various commentors and authors are referring to the same people when using these terms in this context. If you are bashing or calling out 'the left' or 'liberals' or 'Progressives,' you can use those terms interchangeably throughout your thesis, and nobody will think anything of it.
So at the outset, a discussion of referring to these groups with swathing stereotypes....I don't get particularly bent out of shape at stereotypical references, but doesn't it seem that about the only group in this country that can be universally pigeonholed without comment about the dangers of stereotyping a gigantic swath of people are 'the left' or 'liberals' or 'Progressives?' I mean, even 'staunch conservatives' and teabaggers will have chatterheads in conservative media chirp about pigeonholing these groups. Do the same with 'liberals' in the liberal media, and nobody challenges the notion of a monolith.
Then again, it is understandable, particularly in this case, because it is particularly useful and true. You see, for me, and to those commenting about the failures of these groups, and to everybody really, we are talking about a collection of Americans who are defined by a universal characteristic, across the board liberal viewpoints on almost every single issue. Yet to read Dailykos, you would think that we are talking about more than approximately 15% of the population.
Other than perhaps an initial honeymoon in 2008, and early 2009 Progressives never bit their tongue on their criticism of Obama's policies. So if your gripe is with people who held their tongue, look for somebody who loosely threw about the term "pony" during his first term.
And no, liberals did not stop questioning the assumptions of the flawed psuedo-meriticracy. Quite the opposite. They are the only ones who kept that fight up the past 30 years. You want to find someone who did, go find someone who argued Simpson Bowles wouldn't be that bad. Or someone who argued that OWC was 'meaningless unless turned into electoral victory.' Indeed, since liberals entire value system is based in empathy, if any single issue defines what it means to be 'liberal,' it is economic inequality in all of its manifestations.
And no, the left did not abandon labor. More accurately, labor died, was shipped away, abandoned liberals as liberals took more causes under their tent, abandoned itself, and became completely redefined. You want to find someone who abandoned labor, go find the guy who chose union buster Rahm Emanuel as his right hand man.
All of the writings I refer to are very valuable. They have insite and opinions and solutions that are to be valued. (Particularly valuable is thereisnospoon's description of 'how we got here'). But isn't it more accurate to say that all of these failings are more accurately attributed to 'people who vote for Democrats but aren't necessarily 'the left' or 'liberals' or 'Progressives?'
Isn't it more accurate to say that the Progressives argued all along that Obama's policies and choices were not sufficiently liberal while being beaten back by Post Moderns and New Coalition Democrats? Isn't it more accurate to say that liberals have been fighting against the corporatist machine all along while the Disaffecteds became disaffected, Hard Pressed Democrats became even more hard pressed, and Libertarians were lured? Isn't it more accurate to say that 'the left' is the ONLY one of these groups who stood by labor, rather than abandoning it like the Hard Pressed Dems and Disaffecteds, or looking the other way while it was shipped elsewhere like the Post Moderns and New Coalitions?
Every four years, the Democrats have themselves a big convention. At that time, they vote for a platform. And each and every time for the past 40 or so years, that platform is a near perfect reflection of contemporary 'liberal' values. And after each and every convention of the past 40 or so years, 'the Left' and 'liberals' and 'Progressives' have to fight tooth and nail to get their own party to adhere to those values.
I kidded earlier about coming up with a site wide definition for these terms. It's impossible and that very subject has been the source of many pie fights. But if you want to go blaming someone for various failures, think more critically about who you are actually talking about, and pick some other punching bag.