Legal Commentary

Progressives As Pushovers

By Big Tent Democrat

I'm obsessing on this, but it bothers me so much, I can't stop writing about it. Matt Yglesias writes:

[Chris] Bowers likes to make the point that the administration does more to lean on progressives than it does to lean on moderates. This, however, ignores the basic reality that the administration has more leverage over progressives than it does over moderates. It also ignores the basic reality that progressives are actually the good guys. If you decide to adopt an attitude of sociopathic indifference toward the gargantuan looming catastrophe of climate change, this gives you a lot of bargaining power in a legislative negotiation But progressives can’t adopt an attitude of sociopathic indifference merely in order to strengthen our bargaining position, because refusing to adopt such an attitude is part of what it means to be progressive.

(Emphasis supplied.) According to Yglesias, being a progressive means sucking at political bargaining. More than that, trying be be a good political bargainer means you have "sociopathic indifference" to issues. Of course it should mean the exact opposite on both points. A good progressive is the one who can bargain most effectively for important progressive issues. The milquetoast "progressive" Yglesias in fact represents is really the worst type of progressive in that he does not think there are any issues worth some hard bargaining. This impulse is truly one of the most dangerous in the Democratic constellation. It is a new version of The Third Way really. One last point - Yglesias is right in criticizing Bowers about this being an issue of "trust." Only a fool trusts a pol.

Speaking for me only

Full post as published by TalkLeft on September 10, 2009 (boomark / email).