The term "progressive", it appears, commits one to a constant fear of the past. In particular one's forerunners: patricide is the easy path to the throne! Matt Stoller, worried about the "netroots" report card from the CBC (
MyDD :: Fox News and the CBC) reacts with the tried and tested "It wasn't us! It was the old progressives!":
[P]eople like Amy Sullivan talk about the religious left and the need to reach out to 'values voters' as if black churches have not been an important backbone of progressive politics for fifty years. The CBC doesn't recognize that the netroots are not actually the old progressive movement. We are new, and much more open to collaboration and working together with a newly energized African-American political progressive movement.
The indignation is premature. Indeed black churches have been an important backbone of progressive politics. And it has not only historically collaborated with liberal elements (such as in the Northeast) -- including our current favourite nemesis Joe Leiberman -- but also reached across history (and geography) to tap into and draw inspiration from the deep humanism of other leftists/progressives (one example is Martin Luther King's encounter with the thoughts and legacy of Gandhi, who in turn applied some of the ideas of Thoreau). There is a strong and continuous thread running through the history of humanist leftism, arguably the only one that has produced sustainable results.
The "old progressives" were neither ignorant nor uninterested in this history and this association. To the contrary, it is that shared humanism that enabled the collaboration between them. It is (or should be) hence unsurprising that an "End of History" attitude arouses suspicion, especially when accompanied by intolerance and disrespect.
Meanwhile, I hope that progressive African-American leaders begin to recognize that the progressive white world is not monolithic, and that there are real allies here who are trying to figure out a way to deal in good faith with those with whom our interests are aligned.
Alignment of interests serves short-term interests (and there is nothing necessarily wrong with that). Left movements are built on alignment of principles. And in that sense, the "progressive white world", monolithic or not, may become irrelevant in the future to the progressive world, judging by growing leftist groundswell in the so-called "third world".
The difference between the "old progressives" and the new "netroots" is spelled out wittily by Bitch|Lab (
Flicked Off) who quotes Alternet / In These Times:
Yet when it comes to issues of diversity, A-list bloggers like Moulitsas and Stoller can get defensive, and at times, dismissive. “Take a look at what you have today. Take a look at the folks who’re leading the party, dominating the media, or even within corporations. Do you think the top ranks of any of those institutions is any more representative?” responds Stoller, his voice rising in indignation.
[...]
In his [Markos Moulitsas] view, it’s simply absurd to demand what he sarcastically describes as an “affirmative action of ideas” within an inherently meritocratic medium such as the blogosphere: “I don’t see how you can say, ‘Well, let’s give more voice to African American lesbians.’
[...]
As for the relative paucity of top female progressive bloggers, Moulitsas is indifferent: “I haven’t given it a lot of thought. I find it totally uninteresting. What I’m interested in is winning elections, and I don’t give a shit what you look like.”
And Bitch comments:
Of course, but shouldn’t Kos care about that and wonder why? It seems to me to be at the heart of what a more progressive vision of the Democratic party was supposed to be all about. Yes? The paucity may not have to do with lack of talent, as Kos implies, but lack of interest in what women are writing about. Why should women support people who find what we have to say “uninteresting” and not meriting your concern?
[...]
[A] hiearchical system has been forged with Technorati rankings and Blogad networks where members have the right to deny membership. And it comes complete with justifications about natural deservingness that ring hollow to anyone familiar with the vicissitudes of oppression and injustice. But those aren’t really things people who “just want to win elections” care about. Afterall, elections are very much about accepting procedural justice and equality of opportunity as the sine qua non of politics. It’s a passive politics, an episodic politics. It’s the kind of politics enthusiasts pushing for a more substantive politics rejected as alienating and unresponsive to the desire of people to actively participate in the decision-making processes that affected their lives.
As long as we don’t question the eternal naturalness of a procedurlistic, episodic politics, and forge something new, then there will never be democratic participation, just endless reinstantiations of new hierarchical social relations, new hegemonies which justify the everlasting natural order of it all.
