Jump to content

The future of the Progressive Left


Hank Kingsley

Recommended Posts

On 8/18/2020 at 3:29 PM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Once the Trump Era is over, there’s going to be a void to fill on the right.  I hope the libertarians get their shit together because they’re not going to get a better opportunity to mobilize and seize some power.  Who am I kidding, it’s going to be the Mitt Romney/John Kasich party again. 

https://www.econlib.org/conservatives-and-the-mythical-third-way/
 

I think there are a lot of people that have no party

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's the future, indeed?

Quote

 

Will We Ever Listen To The Warnings?


The apocalypse is here — and it comes only a few months after the political class mocked a warning and spent a truth-teller into the ground.

spacer.png

 

This is a cautionary tale, written as I try to figure out how to construct the “safe room” that state officials now say I need to build for me and my family. And this cautionary tale is not just about one state or one election — it is about our democracy, our head-in-the-sand political establishment, and most important, about whether or not we have the ability to listen and to change as our survival is threatened.

This tale begins late last year, when Senate Democratic challenger Andrew Romanoff released a longform ad warning that if we don’t take climate change seriously, we are facing an apocalyptic crisis in the “not so distant future.” The ad depicted a dystopia of Coloradans trapped in their homes, unable to go outside because of scorching temperatures and poisonous air. 

A proponent of a Green New Deal, Romanoff was quickly mocked by the political establishment — the local media opted to vapidly focus on whether it was a good tactic and “good politics,” rather than consider its merits. Republican U.S. Sen. Cory Gardner suggested that Romanoff, a former House Speaker, had gone “insane” — a charge amplified by the local press. The GOP in Washington called the ad “fear-mongering” and derided “his unabashed support for the Green New Deal and other progressive policies."

The message from the entire political class was clear and resounding: Romanoff was ridiculed for not being politically savvy and for supposedly making a climate argument that was too hyperbolic and unrealistic. He was soon berated by Democrats like Gov. Jared Polis for spotlighting his opponent’s ties to the oil and gas industry. Few major progressive groups — other than the Sunrise Movement — worked to try to win this state for a climate champion. National Democrats like Chuck Schumer and Elizabeth Warren parachuted in to help crush the primary challenge, spend Romanoff into the ground, and secure the Democratic Senate nomination for one of the most pro-fossil-fuel candidates in Democratic politics. 

A mere nine months later, the climate dystopia that Romanoff warned of — and that he was berated for sounding an alarm about — is now the lived reality in Colorado. 

This morning, all of us here in Denver woke up to warnings telling us not to go out of our homes and to set up “safe rooms” in our homes. We are being told that this is necessary because near-100-degree temperatures mixed smoke from wildfires and ozone pollution make it unsafe for anyone to be outside.

As Romanoff’s ad suggested, all of it has a link to climate — the heat is from a climate-intensified summer; the wildfires are intensified by the climate situation; and ozone pollution is linked to the burning of and drilling for fossil fuels. 

For days, the sun has been blocked out by smoke. My kids quite literally miss the sunshine — exactly as Romanoff’s ad said they would.

“This is happening across the West, and people in those sensitive categories should be staying inside. Even for healthy and fit people, we recommend staying inside during peak conditions because of the effects this can have on your respiratory and cardio systems, especially pregnant mothers and children,” John Putnam, the health department’s environmental programs director, told the Denver Post today.

Despite this emergency — and the warnings during the primary — this blue state’s political class continues to effectively laugh at the emergency unfolding right before our eyes. 

Polis’s oil and gas regulators have approved more than 1,000 new drilling permits — and this week they shut down scientists’ scheduled presentation about the public health dangers of expanded fracking and drilling. The governor’s regulators are also dragging their feet on taking the most minimal steps to reduce the poisonous air blanketing the region. Meanwhile, our Republican incumbent senator is running as an unambiguous promoter of the kind of unbridled fossil fuel development that was unleashed by his Democratic Senate opponent, who is better than a Republican but who continues to oppose a Green New Deal.

In short, the political establishment of this bellwether state — whose voters so overwhelmingly voted out Republicans two years ago — not only scoffs at truth-telling candidates in its midst, it categorically refuses to meet this moment of crisis, if doing so requires even gently challenging the status quo or angering the corporate interests that own our democracy.

This isn’t only about Romanoff or one Senate primary, and it’s not about the upcoming general election, in which the only hope for even minimal change is for Republicans to be removed from power. This also is not just about the corrupt politics of the kind of intermountain “flyover” state that is always ignored by a national media that exclusively covers the Acela Corridor and nothing else.

This is a larger, universal parable — because no matter where you are reading this from, there’s almost certainly stories like this that has happened in your community. After all, if this kind of head-in-the-sand, nah-nah-nah-can’t-hear-you attitude toward the climate crisis is happening in a blue state like Colorado, then it is happening everywhere.

No matter where you look, this emergency is becoming very real, very fast — and the people warning about it and demanding real action are still getting berated, laughed at and mocked. We have a Republican Party that portrays climate change as a hoax, and a Democratic Party dominated by a corporate wing that doesn’t take the emergency seriously. 

Indeed, late last week, as fires ripped through California and as Iowa struggles to recover from an inland hurricane, President Obama’s former chief of staff Rahm Emanuel went on national television demanding that a prospective Biden administration make clear from the beginning that it will block a Green New Deal. Just a few days earlier, the Democratic National Committee’s platform was changed to eliminate a modest non-binding request to end fossil fuel subsidies that are fueling the climate emergency.  

What is it going to take to get us to listen and to act? How much worse do things have to become? 

These are the questions that Romanoff’s ad evoked in me when I first saw it — and when I watched him get berated. 

They are the questions I now obsess over on as I now try to figure out how to build a “safe room” and struggle to help my first-grader and fourth grader log on to Zoom for their next remote-learning class, because they can’t go to school. 

We are all trapped right now — but we don’t need to accept climate annihilation as our long-term future.

We are told by our media and our culture to lobotomize ourselves and put our heads in the sand — but we don’t have to.

We are choosing to allow our political leadership to create this horrible future — but we can make a different choice. 

We must.

 

https://sirota.substack.com/p/will-we-ever-listen-to-the-warnings

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/25/2020 at 5:29 PM, MC Fresh Breath said:

Personal bias, but Andrew Romanoff was miles ahead of Hickenlooper in that race for the Democratic nomination to take Gardner's seat in the US Senate. He never stood a chance once the "centrists" backed the neoliberal Hickenlooper. 

https://coloradosun.com/2020/06/16/where-hickenlooper-romanoff-differ-democratic-colorado-senate-primary/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Sen. Markey holding on to the Democratic Nomination for US Senate over Kennedy in Massachusetts is good news for left of center-right Democrats. Kennedy pulled the "bernie-bro" canard on Markey and his supporters - and it failed. 

It was cool to see Markey be able to win that race. His record is progressive and he seems like a good guy. That said I would imagine if Elizabeth Warren moves into a cabinet position in January that we will see Kennedy get the senate seat he covets. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, UpperWestside said:

It was cool to see Markey be able to win that race. His record is progressive and he seems like a good guy. That said I would imagine if Elizabeth Warren moves into a cabinet position in January that we will see Kennedy get the senate seat he covets. 

That's Kennedy's turn - agree. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Quote

 

“The Green New Deal will pay for itself as we move forward,” Biden alleged. “We're not going to build plants that, in fact, are great polluting plants.”

Moderator Chris Wallace interjected for clarity, “But do you support the Green New Deal?”

“No,” Biden answered definitively. “I don't support the Green New Deal. I support the Biden plan that I put forward.”

 

 

Didn't watch the debate.  Saw that clip today.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Jimmy Dore is a nutjob and needs to be benched as someone the left takes seriously.  He will always cause more harm than good. 

 

 

Didn't say I agreed with him 100 percent, but maybe you could explain how he does more harm than the politicians themselves are doing?

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, MC Fresh Breath said:

Didn't say I agreed with him 100 percent, but maybe you could explain how he does more harm than the politicians themselves are doing?

 

I'm not comparing him to politicians. He's considered a "thought leader" by a certain segment of leftists, which is problematic IMO. The dude is just an underinformed, radical agitator with no solutions. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, ok.

Instead of watching the 17 minute video, why don't you tell me what he said in the clips I posted that was wrong.  Esp anything he says dealing with Biden, which is essentially playing old clips of Biden and mocking them. 

I'm also somewhat curious Hank about your role as judge of what the left 'needs.'  (Triple edit, I should have phrased this better--it just strikes me that i get more comments about personalities than about the things the personalities are talkign about). Do you consider yourself part of the 'progressive left' or is it just something you find interesting?

 

Edited by MC Fresh Breath
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Truly apologize if my post comes off as sanctimonious. I just think the guy fucking sucks, and he gets way too much attention. 

 

No need to apologize, I appreciate the engagement on an otherwise dead thread.

I just don't really "know" you so I don't know where you stand on things.

 

To be fair, to know me, well J-ziggy figured it out--watch a chris hedges youtube clip and you'll get where I stand pretty quickly. Edit: again, what Hedges says, not Hedges himself. Just in case you don't like him.

Edited by MC Fresh Breath
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I support progressive policies and moving this country further left. My issues are not with the overall message, but with most of the progressive messengers (though I really do like and respect Seder in general). 

I was a Buttigieg supporter in this primary but voted for Bernie in '16 and '20(because Pete dropped out)

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Far enough, thanks for the reply. 

I would have voted Sanders (shocking I'm sure), but it was decided before I had the chance.  I'm disappointed in Sanders now, but that's another matter.  And in my personal rankings Biden would have been dead last...well I guess not dead last if you count Bloomberg.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I had no idea who Jimmy Dore was until five minutes ago and after a perfunctory investigation, he shouldn’t be considered anything close to a thought leader on the left.  

Good for you (seriously). The guy has over 800k YouTube subscribers. 

I think he's appreciated more in far left circles due to his mainly anti-imperialism rhetoric. He might make a few good points here and there, but in general he's an insufferable twat. And he's a HUGE Tulsi fan. 

 

Edited by Hank Kingsley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

I support progressive policies and moving this country further left. My issues are not with the overall message, but with most of the progressive messengers (though I really do like and respect Seder in general). 

I was a Buttigieg supporter in this primary but voted for Bernie in '16 and '20(because Pete dropped out)

 

Still cracks me up that after all of that back and forth with b_t and washpark, you, henry and I all voted Bernie. We were basically the three shitlib musketeers according to our resident Berniebro.

Edited by BradInATX
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MC Fresh Breath said:

Looks like his reason was that the bill would not be limited to rehiring for job losses related to a state of emergency -- instead, it would apply broadly to all layoffs at any time for any reason.  The implication was that if it was limited to layoffs due to the current state of emergency, he would not oppose it.

Man, these articles are always garbage: "Congress fails to pass bill praising puppies!"  Then 5 paras down, it mentions that the REASON everyone voted against it was that it required not just the praise of puppies, but the murder of kittens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the LA times version of the story:

Quote

 

SACRAMENTO — 

 

Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a bill Wednesday that would have provided sweeping new labor protections for workers laid off during the pandemic by requiring hotel, airport and janitorial employers to rehire based on seniority.

Assembly Bill 3216 by Assemblyman Ash Kalra (D-San Jose) called for employers in those industries to first rehire workers they laid off during a state of emergency, including in cases in which a new owner takes over a business. The protections pushed by labor groups targeted businesses, including event centers and building maintenance, that have let go a third of their workforce as a result of COVID-19.

Newsom said the bill was too prescriptive and threatened to hurt the already devastated hospitality industry.

“I recognize the real problem this bill is trying to fix — to ensure that workers who have been laid off due to the COVID-19 pandemic have certainty about their rehiring and job security,” Newsom said in his veto message, adding that the bill would apply to layoffs unrelated to a state of emergency.

“Tying the bill’s provisions to a state of emergency will create a confusing patchwork of requirements in different counties at different times,” Newsom’s message said.

Newsom’s veto was made public late Wednesday on the final day for the governor to take action on bills passed by the Legislature last month. His veto message for the labor-backed bill was posted online without the governor’s office first announcing it.

Kalra called Newsom’s veto “devastating news.”

“This feels like a missed chance at a recovery for all,” Kalra said Wednesday in a statement.

Kalra, Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez (D-San Diego) and Sen. Maria Elena Durazo (D-Los Angeles) called the bill a “job saver” in a letter to Newsom urging the governor to sign the bill.

Republicans and business groups opposed the bill, arguing that the “right of recall” provisions — which would require employers to extend offers of employment to laid-off workers — were unworkable and would hamper industries trying to reopen.

The California Chamber of Commerce included AB 3216 on its annual “job killer” list highlighting laws corporate interests say will hurt employment and the economy. The chamber said the bill “imposes an onerous and stringent process for specific employers to return employees to the workforce, which will delay rehiring and subject employers to litigation for any alleged mistakes.”

The National Federation of Independent Business, which represents small business interests, highlighted AB 3216 as an example of California making it harder for businesses to rebound from the pandemic.

“Small employers need flexibility to hire or rehire during these terrible times on Main Street,” said John Kabateck, the California state director at the National Federation of Independent Business, which has 15,000 members in California. “AB 3216 places far too many rules and requirements on already fragile mom and pops, forcing them to adhere to unreasonable timelines and procedures or face the likelihood of frivolous lawsuits brought upon by scheming plaintiffs attorneys.”

With business interests pushing hard for Newsom to veto the bill, labor groups ramped up their own campaign to see it signed.

Nine labor leaders appointed to the Governor’s Task Force on Business and Jobs Recovery sent a letter Sept. 13 urging Newsom to sign the bill, saying the protections are needed to ensure there is a “fair and equitable recovery that will help some of those Californians most hard-hit by the pandemic and economic crisis — Latinos, immigrants and women workers.”

The labor leaders highlighted a story in The Los Angeles Times featuring Raquel Lezama, a minibar attendant laid off in March from the luxury hotel Mr. C Beverly Hills. Lezama said that after she was laid off, she was told her termination was final and that if the hotel rehired in the future, she would have to reapply and start at minimum wage with no seniority.

Thousands of workers share similar stories, wrote the labor leaders, including D. Taylor, president of Unite Here, Art Pulaski of the California Labor Federation, Mary Kay Henry, president of SEIU International and Ron Herrera, president of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor.

“The lack of recall or retention rights gives employers the ability to rehire workers at lower pay rates without any seniority,” the letter to the governor reads. “They can hide discrimination against older workers or workplace activists that may have raised issues in the past.”

Right to recall protections have been adopted in several California cities, including in Santa Monica, the city and county of Los Angeles, Pasadena, Glendale and Long Beach, Hernandez said. Santa Monica adopted a right to retention ordinance following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, which left many too scared to travel “and resulted in tremendous declines in tourism,” said Santa Monica City Councilwoman Gleam Davis.

“We got the same apocalyptic warnings that this will be bad for business and would hurt the ability of the economy to come back,” Davis said. “That turned out not to be true. Our economy came back stronger than ever, but the best thing about it was the workers who helped build the economy in the first place were able to participate in that recovery.”

Walter Almendarez, 43, of Palmdale said the bill would have ensured he would get his job back and given him a peace of mind that he hasn’t felt in months. Almendarez said he was fired along with his coworkers as the pandemic hit in March from Chateau Marmont in West Hollywood, where he worked for 23 years and made $15.45 an hour as a bellman at the hotel. He said beyond the likelihood that he will have to start over at minimum wage, he will also lose the more generous vacation benefits the hotel no longer offers new employees.

The hotel would have been required to rehire workers let go due to the pandemic under local ordinances, Almendarez said, but its owners have since announced that they plan to reopen as a private club, though it will not be fully closed to the public. AB 3216 applied the rehire protections to private clubs.

“There are a lot of people who work in the hotel industry who are impacted,” Almendarez said. “I’m still struggling with my bills and my mortgage. Now, there are no jobs anywhere.”

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

 (though I really do like and respect Seder in general). 

 

 

Apparently Seder vs Dore is an going thing:

 

https://old.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/iyslwt/sam_seder_attacks_jimmy_dore/

 

I link that b/c the first response I see is someone calling him a "grifter."  I recall you using that term to describe Ryan Knight.  It seems this is a common insult among the left.  And if Seder is a regular on MSNBC (I'm not familiar with him, honestly) then that does tell me about all I need to know, for me.  MSNBC is Fox News for dems, imo.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MC Fresh Breath said:

Apparently Seder vs Dore is an going thing:

 

https://old.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/iyslwt/sam_seder_attacks_jimmy_dore/

 

I link that b/c the first response I see is someone calling him a "grifter."  I recall you using that term to describe Ryan Knight.  It seems this is a common insult among the left.  And if Seder is a regular on MSNBC (I'm not familiar with him, honestly) then that does tell me about all I need to know, for me.  MSNBC is Fox News for dems, imo.

 

Seder used to have a show on MSNBC back in the day. Then they fired him I believe. I think he only goes on during Chris Hayes' time slot. 

I don't consider Dore a "grifter". He's just crazy and full of shit. 

Seder>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Dore.  Trust me. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Side rant which has little to do with anything, but its on my mind.

 

I hate the way "debate" is these days.  Back in High School, I was on the debate team.  Took 3rd in State my Senior year, and it was  hard work getting there.  Lest that be seen as a humble brag, I'll point out I had no athletic skills and no chicks, man.  Debate was it for me.  The first couple of years, there was no direct interaction with the opponent. Then they introduce cross examination, or "C-X" as we called it.  Even then, the C-X was you asking questions the other person answering.  

None of it was yelling at each other.  None of it was direct back and forth crap.  I guess I'm Andy Rooney-ing this here, but I wish we had more real 'debate' in anything termed as such.  I can't stand what posits as debate now a days.

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, MC Fresh Breath said:

I might check it out at some point, thanks.  worth noting, however, that I'm not watching Dore videos from 4 years ago.  I'm enjoying the current run on current matters.  As to whether he's a hack or not is really not that important to me.  I either agree with his point, or I don't.

 

You should watch the Seder/Dore video, considering you enjoyed Dore's recent Supreme Court video. Listen to what he was saying about the Supreme Court 4 years ago. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

This is from a lefty subreddit.  I feel mostly the same.  There is no 'future' for the progressive left, really.  Not a good one.

 

 

Quote

 

I think it's safe to safe between Biden and Harris being the mext likely President/VP, ACB 's confirmation to SCOTUS, and the typical Democrat's fecklessness, the road ahead for the left isn't looking very bright. Honestly it isn't hyperbolic to say the progressive movement may effectively be finished, at least in terms of actually getting policy implemented.

So, of course, everyone is fighting over what to do next. They're all confident that they're strategy is the best way forward. But most if these "silver bullet" strategies completely ignore reality.

The "push them left" crowd ignore Biden's horrendous 40 year record, and just how much of a grip corporate money has on Democrats.

The "take over the party" people ignore how hard Democrats worked to screw Bernie (twice) and progressives down-ballot, knowing full well it would hurt the party. There's no sign they'll stop anytime soon.

The "withhold your vote" crowd don't realize (or don't care) that actually costing Democrats elections would probably make them hate us more, and double down on screwing us. Just see how Dems and libs are STILL blaming Jill Stein voters, even though Hillary probably still would have lost if third parties didn't run.

The "Green enter/ People's Party" people really seem to underestimate just how much our system is biased against third parties. Even if we did somehow get ranked choice voting and proportional representation, many people are so entrenched in the two party, FPTP system, it could be a while before people finally "get it" and send Green/PP's to Congress.

The "General Strike now" people seem to underestimate just how hard it would be to organize something that huge. Not to mention that the powers that be would do everything in their power to stop it. Cough cough MLK Jr. cough cough. Plus, given how in we don't have guaranteed healthcare and poor wages, it could prove tougher to get a huge number of Americans to just stop working for any extended period of time, or even just one day, compared to other countries that have done similar strikes.

I want to be clear that all of these strategies have their merit, and I'm personally in favor of an "all of the above" approach. But I think people are putting more weight on these in them than they probably should.

Virtually any of these options could work. But I think any success they produce isn't coming for a long time. So as much as I hate to admit it, I think the left is forced to play the long game.

Sorry if I come off as a contrarian or a doomer. These are just my observations over the last few weeks and I needed to get it off my chest.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a future for the progressive left, but IMO the strategy needs to be recalibrated. 

This incessant need to shit on "establishment" Dems isn't helpful. Do you want to win an argument or do you want actual change? Treating the Dem Party as the true enemy has always been a mistake. These are people you can continue to nudge in the right direction. Whether it's actually a good thing or not, most Ds are hopeful and optimistic. They don't take kindly to being treated as moral failures. 

Leftist activism has created a lot of progress over the last decade in pushing policy ideas left. But activism is different than electoral politics. Treat Dems as people you can encourage and welcome into the tent, and the progressive left becomes more powerful. Shaming them doesn't work.

I think AOC gets it. And more people need to follow her lead, as compared to someone like Nina Turner. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...