"...when progress does not always require us to be adversarial" and "suspicious of anyone who attempts to make it exclusive": thoughtful, fair-minded statements. Thank you. A few additional thoughts: 1) some on the left marginalize and stereotype moderates. 2) No human being is a label. No one is reducible to an -ism. 3) It's okay to simultaneously hold some liberal, radical, and conservative viewpoints, and changing one's mind is not tantamount to treason. 4) There are quite a few poor conservatives, and they are not stupid. 5) Please note how folks like Harvey Weinstein, among many others, use ostensible commitment to "liberal" or "progressive" causes to mask exploitative behavior. Denouncing "racism," "sexism," and "classism" is one way some people try to neutralize potential critics so as to gain social approbation and career success (e.g., see humanities and social science departments at universities). 6) Radical values? Try honesty and empathy, and go from there. And if some at times need to be moderates and conservatives, then that should be respected, not simply denounced. Meet many an "enemy" five years later, and they often have changed their minds and largely agree with you. Again, no human being--left, right, center, rich, poor, black, white--is merely a label stamped "-ism."
I supported Oliver in the primaries, but this wasn't great. I'm curious where they found those definitions of liberalism, progressivism, and radicalism, since they seem to be a little fudged for the purpose of their argument. Liberalism does not mean spending tax dollars to alleviate social needs. If anything, liberalism has been tied to capitalism, a system which is entirely allergic to spending tax dollars on social needs. Laissez-faire economics came out of classical liberalism, and our contemporary neoliberalism seeks to create markets where ever it can, even within public goods, like water rights and healthcare. Perhaps if one has an allegiance to liberal ideals this definition would make more sense, but, for the most part, elected liberals have an allegiance to the liberal state instead. Hence the "...get things done" caveat that always follows their idealism.
Progressivism is based on applying scientific and theoretical advancements to improve humanity. Historically, though well intentioned, it has also had it's drawbacks - eugenics, at one point, was considered a progressive idea. Aside from generally referring to revolutionary actions, the definition of radicalism is wildly different depending on what kind of radical you're having a conversation with. I understand that words can change over time, but there still needs to be a balance between historical usage and contemporary usage.
The conclusion to this piece was especially disappointing:
Let’s stop drawing arbitrary lines of what it means to be “left enough.”
Those lines suddenly become less arbitrary if you use real definitions. If someone believes that the market can solve our healthcare crisis, then they're not "left enough." If someone believes that our housing and homelessness crisis can be solved, essentially, by the market, then they're not "left enough." If someone believes that polite negotiation will end exploitation, then they're not "left enough." It doesn't matter where they come from if they hold those ideological views. They can certainly be liberal (and someone to engage in respectful debate with), but let's not pretend that left and liberal mean the same thing.
If you look at Kshama, and all the other complainers, including Oliver, what you will discover is after all of these years of raising hell, anti-semitic marches, taxing the hell out of everyone, we have a homeless crisis, POC and LGBTQ folks have a mindset they are under siege, oppressed and marginalized. Is this the disempowered Seattle Kshama and Oliver have dreamt of? I say they've just begun, unfortunately.
Empowerment is my message to POC and LGBTQ. You have the Intelligence, Strength, Grit, Ability to make your life what you Will it. To hell with the political hacks trying to tell us what our lives are.
Second paragraph: We do! Here are three totally arbitrary sentences that we just made up and are confusingly asserting as "formal definitions." Now you know if you are liberal (gross!) or progressive (gross!) or radical (that's the one).
Hubris, neo-lefty platitudes (WTF does 'refies' mean?) and an exaggerated sense of self-importance do not a political movement make. Those of us trying to make real progress simply don't have the time or patience for this kind of stuff.
What a load of twaddle, and thanks to the commenters here for pointing out how useless it all is compared to the real issues our real city faces.
Snuck in to all of that nonsense is the real motivation:
In part, we do this by electing a more representative government. This means electing those whose lived experiences speak directly to the very failed systems we, progressives, aim to change.
Um, no, we don't have to elect persons who have had the proper "lived experiences" to get progress. Not only is American history filled with progressive change brought to us by privileged white guys in elective offices, but coming from a failed school makes a person less likely to be an effective leader.
This essay is really just a way of advancing the false claim that persons with the proper "lived experiences" have better claims to elective office than the rest of us do. It's just elitism with a different set of designated elites, and that can be every bit as harmful as any other form of elitism.
@6 & 7: Fuck both of you! I DO know I don't need ANYBODY'S permission to ATTEMPT to get righteous vengeance for Myself and Good Humanity in ANY fashion that I think is the easiest!!!
Uh, it's documented that potatoes and legumes originated in the Americas. They didn't exist in Europe. Neither did tomatoes. They were taken back by explorers/conquistadores, and what would you call any of them other than "oppressors"? They knew they there to take over a hemisphere from those who'd lived there since the dawn of time.
BTW...when did anybody on the left ever say "science isn't real"? That's the kind of thing right-wing climate deniers say.
Legumes are from the Levant, but would have therefore been brought to Europe by the Greek or Roman Empires...so their presence in Europe was still a spoil of imperial conquest.
Oh, and how did you get from the beginning of #22 to the end? At some point about halfway through, it stopped tracking logically and turned into some sort of free-form libertarian found verse. By "the Alaskans", do you mean Alaska Natives? What do the last two lines "As of this summer I'm a survivalist/they're not clean enough" have to do with anything you wrote before that?
Post #4 from you was coherent in structure and argument, if unnecessarily combative. Post #22 reads like it was written by an entirely different person.
Hypocrites. These colored women do the right's work for it -- every time a regressive tax hike measure is proposed they support it. Newsflash: hiking sales taxes, car taxes, and property taxes for transit is the antithesis of progressive -- it's reactionary in the extreme and exactly what the rich and powerful corporations want. Just because the old, white, well-off gay government workers SAY Sound Transit and Metro are progressive does not make them so.
That is largely what I thought post #22 read like. Not really sure where you get the comment about people on the Left being anti-science-these days, it's the Left defending science from Trump's attempts to defund science as a punishment for the scientific consensus that human activity is affecting climate.
As to "lived experience"-what, if I might ask, are you saying you know about the lives of other people that is more profound than what they know of themselves?
All the "lived experience" thing in the article, as far as I could read it, was that when the people who have it the worst are saying what their situation is and what they need, it is simply the most logical and efficient course of action to follow their lead and to do the things they suggest.
On homelessness, just build more freaking housing. Don't judge and don't treat the homeless as two-legged vermin.
On housing costs, repeal the statewide law banning rent control. It is not the business of the governor and the state legislature to help landlords keep rents rising, and it is not the place of those institutions to prevent municipalities from standing up to landlords.
On pollution, indigenous people, people of color, and working-class whites are the canaries in the mine. If they are being sickened and if they are being killed in extractive areas, that means there needs to be greater regulation and that ultimately what is going on endangers all of us.
On taxation...lived experience since 1981 is that tax cuts for the wealthy do not spur economic growth-the wealthy just bank the extra money and buy a few goodies with it.
On war-we've been continuously in war in the Arab/Muslim world since 2003. Nothing is better for anyone there as a result. Therefore, lived experience is that further military intervention is pointless.
All the "lived experience" thing in the article, as far as I could read it, was that when the people who have it the worst are saying what their situation is and what they need, it is simply the most logical and efficient course of action to follow their lead and to do the things they suggest.
Well, no. The article is very explicit, as I quoted. It says to elect a specific set of persons to office:
In part, we do this by electing a more representative government. This means electing those whose lived experiences speak directly to the very failed systems we, progressives, aim to change.
I already noted the elitism inherent to this idea. Another problem with it is what you identified: victims of failure are not always the best persons to diagnose the problems from which they suffer. Sometimes an outsider's view is also required.
Fine.
Good luck building a coalition large enough to do anything with that qualifications like that.
Progressivism is based on applying scientific and theoretical advancements to improve humanity. Historically, though well intentioned, it has also had it's drawbacks - eugenics, at one point, was considered a progressive idea. Aside from generally referring to revolutionary actions, the definition of radicalism is wildly different depending on what kind of radical you're having a conversation with. I understand that words can change over time, but there still needs to be a balance between historical usage and contemporary usage.
The conclusion to this piece was especially disappointing:
Those lines suddenly become less arbitrary if you use real definitions. If someone believes that the market can solve our healthcare crisis, then they're not "left enough." If someone believes that our housing and homelessness crisis can be solved, essentially, by the market, then they're not "left enough." If someone believes that polite negotiation will end exploitation, then they're not "left enough." It doesn't matter where they come from if they hold those ideological views. They can certainly be liberal (and someone to engage in respectful debate with), but let's not pretend that left and liberal mean the same thing.
Empowerment is my message to POC and LGBTQ. You have the Intelligence, Strength, Grit, Ability to make your life what you Will it. To hell with the political hacks trying to tell us what our lives are.
Second paragraph: We do! Here are three totally arbitrary sentences that we just made up and are confusingly asserting as "formal definitions." Now you know if you are liberal (gross!) or progressive (gross!) or radical (that's the one).
Policy positions: 0
According to this editorial, progressivism is not a political movement at all, since it doesn't imply any particular position on any particular issue.
If you want people to vote for you, tell them in concrete terms what you plan to do and how it will affect them.
Snuck in to all of that nonsense is the real motivation:
In part, we do this by electing a more representative government. This means electing those whose lived experiences speak directly to the very failed systems we, progressives, aim to change.
Um, no, we don't have to elect persons who have had the proper "lived experiences" to get progress. Not only is American history filled with progressive change brought to us by privileged white guys in elective offices, but coming from a failed school makes a person less likely to be an effective leader.
This essay is really just a way of advancing the false claim that persons with the proper "lived experiences" have better claims to elective office than the rest of us do. It's just elitism with a different set of designated elites, and that can be every bit as harmful as any other form of elitism.
BTW...when did anybody on the left ever say "science isn't real"? That's the kind of thing right-wing climate deniers say.
Post #4 from you was coherent in structure and argument, if unnecessarily combative. Post #22 reads like it was written by an entirely different person.
As to "lived experience"-what, if I might ask, are you saying you know about the lives of other people that is more profound than what they know of themselves?
You asked a black guy "if he had any spells"?
On homelessness, just build more freaking housing. Don't judge and don't treat the homeless as two-legged vermin.
On housing costs, repeal the statewide law banning rent control. It is not the business of the governor and the state legislature to help landlords keep rents rising, and it is not the place of those institutions to prevent municipalities from standing up to landlords.
On pollution, indigenous people, people of color, and working-class whites are the canaries in the mine. If they are being sickened and if they are being killed in extractive areas, that means there needs to be greater regulation and that ultimately what is going on endangers all of us.
On taxation...lived experience since 1981 is that tax cuts for the wealthy do not spur economic growth-the wealthy just bank the extra money and buy a few goodies with it.
On war-we've been continuously in war in the Arab/Muslim world since 2003. Nothing is better for anyone there as a result. Therefore, lived experience is that further military intervention is pointless.
Well, no. The article is very explicit, as I quoted. It says to elect a specific set of persons to office:
In part, we do this by electing a more representative government. This means electing those whose lived experiences speak directly to the very failed systems we, progressives, aim to change.
I already noted the elitism inherent to this idea. Another problem with it is what you identified: victims of failure are not always the best persons to diagnose the problems from which they suffer. Sometimes an outsider's view is also required.