Comments on FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: The Two Progressivisms

Shhh, we were finally building hegemony. Don't sa...

2009-03-26T15:32:00.000-04:00

Shhh, we were finally building hegemony. Don't say this too loudly or we'll end up with another cowboy.

"I believe that economic growth is both a reflecti...

2009-03-19T00:01:00.000-04:00

"I believe that economic growth is both a reflection of and a contributor toward societal progress, that economic growth has facilitated a higher standard of living, and that this is empirically indisputable."

But what about the fact that constant growth is itself unsustainable and ultimately destructive in any system? This concept underlies the field of Ecological Economics that many radical progressives are increasingly starting to endorse.

For example, see the work of Herman Daly or the Center for Advancement of the Steady State Economy at http://www.steadystate.org

風卻依舊輕撫著我的臉你卻已經離開了我的世界

2009-03-13T05:00:00.000-04:00

風卻依舊輕撫著我的臉你卻已經離開了我的世界

I love anything with graphs. I'm a dedicated rati...

2009-02-19T14:11:00.000-05:00

I love anything with graphs. I'm a dedicated rational progressive and I think it's about understanding that change means transition. To that note, there's a new book from the Progressive Ideas Network (The Progressive Ideas Network is made up of these groups: Campaign for America's Future, Center for Community Change, Center for Economic and Policy Research, Commonweal Institute, Commonwealth Institute, Center on Wisconsin Strategy, Demos, Drum Major Institute for Public Policy, Economic Policy Institute, Grassroots Policy Project, Green For All, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Institute for Policy Studies, The Jamestown Project, New Vision: An Institute for Policy and Progress, The Opportunity Agenda, Progressive States Network, Redefining Progress, The Roosevelt Institution, Sightline Institute) called Thinking Big - a rational progressive agenda for the new administration.

"I believe that there are objectively right answer...

2009-02-18T18:30:00.000-05:00

"I believe that there are objectively right answers" | But objectivity is purely a far left concept.

"I believe that economic growth is both a reflection of and a contributor toward societal progress" | Economic growth is a far right unsustainble destructive ideal, relying on the fantasy that elites can whip up a perpetually growing consumption frenzy. If we embrace the overall well-being of the biosphere, we can't embrace economic growth.

"I also believe that it is just as important to question one's own assumptions as to question the assumption of others." | Of course the far left's collection of best practices has to be refined and adjusted with the intent to enhance overall well-being, as measured empirically. As for assumptions, we minimize our reliance on those and assume with good intent.

"I'm suspicious of people who line up on the same side of the ideological divide on every single issue." | Why suspicion of the far left who consistently demand universal equity? The author probably believes that overall well-being is maximized through a class hierarchy of "special talents" and "benevolent dictators". In the real world there are no benevolent dictators and the average talent of a self-determined people is sufficient for overall well-being.

"While progressives, in my view, clearly have the preponderance of good ideas, they do not have a monopoly on them" | The far left is defined as the place where all good ideas/intents and all truths live, because this is where we put them. If we want progress, if we want to reduce our role in perpetrating evil on this planet, we have to move left.

"Nor do conservatives have a monopoly on bad ideas, especially when radical progressives flirt with Marxist modes of discourse." | Cuba has the world's greatest value in healthcare, education and agriculture on a measure of full benefits versus full costs. What better priorities might we choose? What better measure might we choose?

"marshal an army to fight a battle of wills while playing fast and loose with the truth and using some of the same demagogic precepts that the right wing does, I am not particularly interested in that." | Then walk on over to the far left where we embrace the truth. The truth at times appears authoritarian, like the laws of nature. But let's accept it, and institutionally, let's embrace universal equity and reap the rewards.

BENyour comment was worth reading. very well thou...

2009-02-18T03:04:00.000-05:00

BEN

your comment was worth reading. very well thought out, especially the nature of risk/reward calculus that is inherent to progressive decision-making but was mostly missing in this blog.

After reading this, I wrote the following. I know ...

2009-02-17T18:14:00.000-05:00

After reading this, I wrote the following. I know I'm a little late to the party, but I wanted to take time to organize my thoughts a little. I hope they are reasonable coherent. I do like this site a lot and am adding this in the spirit of respectful debate, not in order to attack.

Here goes:

My response focuses on a few key points that, while not a comprehensive discussion of this entire argument, does generally lay out my basic objections.

1) Silver claims: Reformist sees politics as a battle of ideas, Radical sees politics as a battle of wills. This seems to me to be entirely wrong. Perhaps the neo-liberal or reform-minded progressives see politics as a matter simply of good governance or 'doing what works', whereas the more radical wing believes that there are such things as ideology that make the simple task of 'good governance' a highly fraught task. What I mean is that the radical objection is roughly as follows: People are deeply entrenched within ideological frameworks, therefor, it is often impossible to convince someone of the correctness of a policy by way of logical demonstration. In this way, the good ideas of progressivism cannot triumph simply through being good ideas, but require a certain amount of will and a recognition of the essentially agonistic nature of politics.

This could be seen as a argument between post-partisanship and a partisanship of deep convictions. Rather than say: we are beyond politics and all just want what's best for our country, it's better to to say: we admit disagreement about what's best for the country and will admit that we cannot all agree on what constitutes good governance regardless of how hard we try.

Critically, radicalism does not close off pragmatism. Rather, it says at all moments: These are out firm beliefs. On some points, we cannot compromise, on others we must. But when we compromise, we will not call it a triumph but rather a partial failure in light of our real goals. The distinction of Idea v. Will is a misapprehension of the distinction between an attitude about the power of ideology and the minimums at which compromise is acceptable.

2: Silver claims that reformists are "Technocratic" and that radicals are "Populist". Radicalism does not equal populism, although that is sometimes a form in which the far left manifests. Of course, populism is also a form in which the far right manifests. This also can hold true for technocracy with regards to the center-right and -left. So what Silver is arguing is that the radical branches of any politics lose sight of rational thought in favor of a broad populism.

However, I would argue that this distinction is highly problematic. For example, mainstream DLC-style Democrats use the populist appeal to the "center" in order to assert their political power. Further, radical thinkers like Paul Virilio and Donna Haraway take technological advancements as true openings for new modes of progressive politics and radical life-techniques. In fact, the history of Marxist thought is essentially technocratic, as it takes the development of mechanized industry as an essential stage in the development of a generally socialized society (hence the fundamental contradiction in largely undeveloped countries like Russia and China attempting to establish socialist states).

3) Later in the post, Silver makes the critical (if common) error of judging Marxism by the failure of the Soviet Union. Marxist modes of thought are not equivalent to the specific case of Sovietism, which is in fact a gross betrayal of the specifically internationalist tendency of Marxist critique. In fact, the lessons of Marxism are still quite valuable to even a reform-minded thinker, as they provide the basis for an understanding of property, value, commodity, and ideology. Much of my previous discussion is informed Marxist thought, though I would never claim that it equates to an unquestioning acceptance of said thought, much less a desire for Soviet-style governance.

To me the real danger of a reformist politics is that in some cases, the reforms act to retrench and solidify interests and structures that in truth need to be entirely overhauled. Hence, if I say I am wary of certain kinds of health care reform, it is not because I do not see the desperate need for improved material conditions. Rather, it is that I fear that certain kinds of reform fail to greatly improve the situation and at the same time make it more difficult to enact the kind of change that is needed. This is not a matter of idealism v. pragmatism, it is a kind of calculation between short-term and long-term pragmatism.

There are, unfortunately, many totally non-pragmatic so-called radicals who take extremely shrill and self-righteous standpoints and totally close off any kind of rational debate. Having gone to Hampshire College, I've met more than my fair share of them. However, the election of President Obama should serve as proof of the fact that in a pinch, the majority of even radical progressives will act pragmatically. That they (we) will do so and then vocally criticize the very people thereby elected is not frivolity or inconsistency, but essentially the true mode of radicalism.

That is, the radical will act in a reformist capacity to relieve material suffering as much as possible, but will never call such action victorious. I once heard Alain Badiou say that of course he would (if he were American) vote for Obama, but he would not consider that as an action of (or even part of) radical politics. This kind of co-existance of pragmatism and radicalism, and the self-awareness to not confuse the two seems to me the proper condition of a thoughtful radicalism.

A radical politics deserving of the name requires a pragmatic approach that simply calculates risk/reward differently than Silver or the majority of Democratic Party members. Deciding the kinds of policies and compromises we deem acceptable is a serious and worthwhile debate. Attacking those that find themselves to answering these questions differently as 'anti-intellectual' or 'anti-ideas' is a thoroughly useless (and entirely non-pragmatic gesture), and is something that I normally consider Mr. Silver to be above.

@Jon "What I was trying to do was illustrate what ...

2009-02-17T17:20:00.000-05:00

@Jon "What I was trying to do was illustrate what can happen when populists with good intentions attempt to implement them without the aid of "elite" progressives. (Mao had a particular disdain of bureaucrats and "experts")."

I agree with that 100%. However, given the intense coercion involved in the GLF, I don't think the two general social incentive issues you raised were particularly central to its massive failure. Most descriptions emphasize the massive diversion of labor and resources away from agriculture into pointless imitation industrial production.

Nate & All,It is amazing to me how the left side o...

2009-02-17T14:39:00.000-05:00

Nate & All,

It is amazing to me how the left side of the aisle while definitely philosophically more open minded, in practice consistently is the more obsessed group with labels and loyalties within the trenches.

Please get over the branding of memes, words, and titles and focus on analyzing issues and trends statistically. This really is not becoming of a column I love to get caught in the quagmire of brand strategy for the current administration. Otherwise, I can peruse Moveon.org instead.

What you call "rational" progressivism seems to me...

2009-02-17T14:32:00.000-05:00

What you call "rational" progressivism seems to me to be nothing more than a defensive rebranding of good ol' fashion middle-class reformist liberalism. As such, it is really a luxury of middle-class life, or at least of a reasonably plausible aspiration to middle-class status.

However, given the economic and social transformations of the past 30 years under a political order that is radically pro-oligarchic capitalism, and with the steadfast refusal of the U.S. to join the rest of the wealthy world in meaningful social reform (including the acquiescence of liberals like Carter and Clinton), most of us may no longer have the luxury of your incremental "rational" progessivism. In fact, as a response to our current situation, and the continuing radicalness of the opposition, that sort of approach is appearing both less progressive and less rational with each passing day.

Nate,Your radical/rational distinction is much the...

2009-02-17T14:27:00.000-05:00

Nate,

Your radical/rational distinction is much the same distinction as has been hashed out many times before by many others (Pirsig's classical/romantic, et al). But your analysis fails in its insistence on choosing sides. While it is true that radical progressives have a tendency to think in overly black/white terms and don't understand how to actually get things done, it is no less true that rational progressives tend to see everything in shades of grey, becoming dizzy and confused. Radicalism is important because it seeks to address the ROOTS of a problem - which is no less essential to solving problems than understanding that addressing the roots is not always possible right now. In the end, each on its own is entirely insufficient to addressing any of the complex problems facing our society.

Whew! Lots of talk here; couldn't read it all BUT...

2009-02-17T14:25:00.000-05:00

Whew! Lots of talk here; couldn't read it all BUT it strikes me that, outside of a few directions, one could describe Radical Conservatism as having the same characteristics as Radical Progressivism. If you omitted "populist" and "difficult to organize" they seem quite similar in their approaches and intents. Perhaps the programs are different but they descriptors are the same.

abso-freakin-lutely. thanks for the post, this is...

2009-02-17T13:16:00.000-05:00

abso-freakin-lutely. thanks for the post, this is extremely well-put and extremely on-point.

The “risk” with analysis like this is that it seem...

2009-02-17T12:30:00.000-05:00

The “risk” with analysis like this is that it seems to paint a dichotomy. Whenever you create an analysis that has two sides, the way you have done, you are sure to get a reaction, especially from people who think there are only two sides. And it doesn't matter how many disclaimers you include. You can say until you are blue in the face that the world is more complicated, there are many shades of grey, whatever. Usually when you paint a two-sided picture, you are only to some degree accurate, simply because the world is not back and white. That leaves you open to polemic. Hence, the Sirota lambasting. And while I tend to agree (generally) with your post, I think it may have been better to present your characterization on a scale. But that wouldn’t have produced a polemic. And as Fox News has proven time and time again, polemic produces ratings.

@Michael,The free rider problem and the tragedy of...

2009-02-17T04:01:00.000-05:00

@Michael,

The free rider problem and the tragedy of the commons applies to the great communal farms that Mao set up during the Great Leap Forward. Workers on those farms were paid according to their need and according to their productivity, but mostly according to their need. Therefore, there was no incentive to work, because everyone got paid the same no matter how long they worked - hence the incentive to free ride.

The tragedy of the commons applies to the great communal dining halls in these huge farms. Since the collective owned all the food, there was no incentive for individuals to conserve food. Therefore, you had a double whammy: less food was produced and more was consumed. Add this to the increased government levy of food produced from these farms, due to perverse incentives for officials to lie about ever increasing food production, and you had a grand disaster created from apparently good intentions (communal ownership of land to eliminate exploitation, increasing solidarity between peasants by having them live and eat together, ect.)

What I was trying to do was illustrate what can happen when populists with good intentions attempt to implement them without the aid of "elite" progressives. (Mao had a particular disdain of bureaucrats and "experts").

I believe that Obama, as a progressive, wants populists (the common people) to organize into a political movement, use that movement to to elect sympathetic progressives (the educated elite) and then pressure them to implement policies that will benefit the common man. I think progressives like Obama get nervous (and rightly so) when populist leaders goad the common man to bypass the "elitists" and take matters into their own hands.

I am re-reading this post after checking out David...

2009-02-17T02:25:00.000-05:00

I am re-reading this post after checking out David Sirota's response to it on Open Left. There is a monumental abyss between what Nate actually wrote and the conclusions Sirota drew from it. Nate didn't say everyone to the left of him is radical, and he didn't explicitly say radical progressives are "dangerous". The intellectual dishonesty and misuse of context in Sirota's piece is almost sickening.

Two other things:I hope Nate does a clarifying pos...

2009-02-16T23:54:00.000-05:00

Two other things:

I hope Nate does a clarifying post, my take is that he is not saying the the rational way is the only way to go and that all "radicals" are "dangerous". I believe he is saying that some radicals are dangerous. Which I would agree with. Just like some "rationalists" are dangerous.

I would also add that rationalists are prone to over-analysis (or paralysis by analysis if you want a more negative view of it) while radicals are prone to snap-judgments (or not thinking things through, if again, you want a more negative term).

I also think that on the conservative side, what we've seen over the last eight years is a radical type of thought-process, just go down the list and most of them apply, as does the deriding of those on the right who aren't radical as "fake" conservatives and a tendency to act without thinking things through (Iraq, for starters). What is left of the Republican party is basically the radical part.

http://dissentingjustice.blogspot.com/Dichotomies ...

2009-02-16T23:38:00.000-05:00

http://dissentingjustice.blogspot.com/

Dichotomies nice when they confirm our own world view of "others" we dislike. "Radical" versus "rational" is a highly simplistic comparison that does very little to advance debate.

I have criticized the Left (radical and otherwise) many times, particularly for its partisanship and for abandoning principles in order to support a party or candidate. This is not a fatalistic, naive, inherently radical or unhelpful mission. If change is won, as you suggest, by "enlightenment" and reason, then progressives must embrace consistency. Instead, many of them -- whom you would probably describe as "rational," have remained silent or have become partisan defenders of Obama as he embraces or comes perilously close to embracing some of Bush's most despised policies (rendition, etc.). How do you suggest that the Left englighten society with a blatantly uneven application of "outrage"?

Finally, I found your argument to rest on an artificially narrow understanding of the history and politics of social and political change. A broad mixture of forces have influenced the evolution of US politics and policy. Radicals, moderates, conservatives, professionals, community organizers, politicians, judges, international affairs, etc. have all played important roles in broad policy shifts historically. By suggesting that only one helpful path exists for progressives (the other path being "acutely dangerous"), your essay offers a shockingly simplistic and ahistorical analysis of social change. I am thoroughly disappointed (for the first time, Nate).

This "either/or" trap has plagued social movements historically. The successful movements employed all possible agents of change. Progressives should do themselves a favor and get a crash course in history and politics. http://dissentingjustice.blogspot.com/

I agree with those who have noted that the comment...

2009-02-16T23:25:00.000-05:00

I agree with those who have noted that the comments in this thread have been absolutely fascinating because I think they tend to confirm the broad outlines of Nate's analysis, and that those are tend to be more of the "radical" type are not going to like Obama, not at all. He is at heart a pragmatist, which will continue to make him enemies among those for whom pragmatism is a dirty word.

One other thing I think you tend to see is that those who are in the "radical" stream tend to use the "left-right" divide construct among "progressives", labeling the "rationalists" as "right" or "stealth-conservatives" whereas you don't generally see the rationalist calling the radicals leftists. One thing is for certain, each group needs each other to bring about positive change (change only brought by part of this group tends to be negative--see eugenics and other cold-blooded social engineering techniques and the Terror in France for examples of one working without the other). Sometimes rationalists need a push, sometimes radicals need to be held back. But it is also true that these groups have great disdain for each other, and I don't think there is any "papering" this over so the conservative neighbors don't see.

I echo those who ask for Nate to take a look at conservatives, where I think you'll find some of the same divides, mainly because these are not ideological categories but human ones that speak to the core of how you view the world and how you believe change can be brought about.

For those who think these categories are too neat and tidy, here's a good case study (I think): do you think Congress should have brought articles of impeachment against George W. Bush and Dick Cheney as late as say, last August? Keep in mind that if this had worked, the result would have been President Nancy Pelosi until the conclusion of the election, and I'm sure that this would have in no way interfered with a victory by Obama (I guess I just gave my answer, and myself away. . .)

If the rationals are empirical, how do they avoid,...

2009-02-16T23:17:00.000-05:00

If the rationals are empirical, how do they avoid, at times, being radical?

Most great rational, empirical thinkers in science are known because of the radical changes they produced.

My opinion is that Obama is an empirical thinker/learner. But the required change is based upon the data. A strong empirical leader will make whatever changes are necessary, although s/he may recognize that the changes need to be broken down into digestible pieces.

But on a more general note, progress isn't something that "happens" on a personal or cultural level. The latest iPhone is not an example of progress.

First of all, I enjoy your work Nate. I think you ...

2009-02-16T22:07:00.000-05:00

First of all, I enjoy your work Nate. I think you have a lot of good things to say.

In regards to this column, I must say that I find myself to fall somewhere in the middle of the two progressivisms you describe above. I believe what you've put forth is somewhat of a false dichotomy. I think that you can ascribe to some radical ideologies, without abandoning rational thought, and I think it is rather condescending of you to imply otherwise. What's so wrong with wondering whether this system we're incrementally changing is worth it all? Why not wonder if there's a fundamental flaw, and a new beginning would be better for everyone? I think it is possible to ponder these questions and more, while still viewing the world through a reality-based lens. I don't know about you, but I believe there is a plethora of (truthful) evidence that the system we live within, on its many intertwining levels, IS fundamentally flawed.

I think it's fine--and extremely important--to question the status quo. Questioning something opens you up to just as much of a chance of finding out you were wrong as if you were right. And I'm sorry, but I have a hard time believing that all the ideas considered to be rational by who-knows-who are the only ones worth considering.

Your column starts as a false dichotomy and devolves into the same old finger pointing as always. I believe that we agree on many if not most issues, but I disagree with your characterizations of radical vs. rational progressives.

This all seems a bit contrived and facile to me.

2009-02-16T21:04:00.000-05:00

This all seems a bit contrived and facile to me.

Interestingly, I just wrote a post on my discomfor...

2009-02-16T20:31:00.000-05:00

Interestingly, I just wrote a post on my discomfort with the radical left, though it's far more sardonic than philosophical.

@Jon- Your analysis makes sense as applied to the ...

2009-02-16T20:17:00.000-05:00

@Jon- Your analysis makes sense as applied to the US from 1945-1975, with approximately fixed income distribution and fairly steady increase in the mean productivity, income etc. It is strikingly irrelevant to a period in which dramatic inequality increases are swamping the average income increases for a large segment of the population,and skyrocketing debt has been followed by economic collapse. You've basically got a mantra for avoiding looking at what's going on.
BTW, I can't see any reason why you say the GLF tragedy had anything to do with 'free riders' or 'the commons', though those effects are real elsewhere. It's an extreme example of what can happen when extremely concentrated power lands in the hands of a loony malignant narcissist.

you're a genuine and respected polling expert. You...

2009-02-16T19:44:00.000-05:00

you're a genuine and respected polling expert. Your expertise does not extend to public policy analysis.

The 2008 election results are more than just a horserace. The survival of America depends on getting it right.

A generation of GOP/DLC "centrist" public policy put America on the ropes.

Your advocating their continuation by attacking the only people who are thinking outside the "centrist" box demonstrates that you should stick to the political horserace aspect of politics.

Comments on FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: The Two Progressivisms

Shhh, we were finally building hegemony. Don't sa...

"I believe that economic growth is both a reflecti...

風 卻 依 舊 輕 撫 著 我 的 臉 你 卻 已 經 離 開 了 我 的 世 界

I love anything with graphs. I'm a dedicated rati...

"I believe that there are objectively right answer...

BENyour comment was worth reading. very well thou...

After reading this, I wrote the following. I know ...

@Jon "What I was trying to do was illustrate what ...

Nate & All,It is amazing to me how the left side o...

What you call "rational" progressivism seems to me...

Nate,Your radical/rational distinction is much the...

Whew! Lots of talk here; couldn't read it all BUT...

abso-freakin-lutely. thanks for the post, this is...

The “risk” with analysis like this is that it seem...

@Michael,The free rider problem and the tragedy of...

I am re-reading this post after checking out David...

Two other things:I hope Nate does a clarifying pos...

http://dissentingjustice.blogspot.com/Dichotomies ...

I agree with those who have noted that the comment...

If the rationals are empirical, how do they avoid,...

First of all, I enjoy your work Nate. I think you ...

This all seems a bit contrived and facile to me.

Interestingly, I just wrote a post on my discomfor...

@Jon- Your analysis makes sense as applied to the ...

you're a genuine and respected polling expert. You...

風卻依舊輕撫著我的臉你卻已經離開了我的世界