Kevin Sullivan

The Cult of Progress

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Uncategorized

I won’t attempt to expound much upon Michael’s excellent post on the neo-progressive purge being cooked up over at Open Left.  It’s a must read, and I think an important discussion to be had.  What I find rather interesting however are the kinds of responses this post has garnered.  Some have asked why it’s only the Democrats who get criticized for this, since party discipline has in fact always been enforced through primaries and other such tactics.  FDR demanded strict party discipline from Congress, and would threaten to run a New Dealer in the primary of any Democrat (particularly southern Democrats) who refused to fall in line.  We have clearly seen this happen over and over again, so why is it such a shock now?

Cernig raises this question in a post today, and argues that those of us who are concerned about Stoller, Kos, et al. should pay more attention to the Republicans and their coercive party compulsion:

The ludicrous nature of the basic thesis is that a few people who are famous within their own small pool but utterly unknown to the world at large and who have no established political power base among the movers and shakers are going to mount an ideological purge of the Democratic Party. Never mind that people like Kos and Stoller, who I have to say I think often suffer from an over-inflated “wannabe” attitude about their own importance, are viewed as little more than a new source of money and free activist labor by the real movers and shakers (as just another “union”, if you like).

The argument is Kos Derangement Syndrome at its very worst – and also includes an element of hypocrisy by decrying totalitarianism in a small and relatively powerless element of Democratic Party internal politics while at the same time ignoring Republican totalitarian message discipline and attacks on heretics which stem from the very top of the power pyramid. Which is the most serious attack on democracy, exactly?

I can’t speak for Michael, or anyone else here at the Gazette for that matter.  But as a Democratic voter, and a proud Liberal, I can say with relative certainty that I welcome a cannibilized Republican Party.  If they wish to eat their own and implode, well I am all for it.  What they do to ruin their party isn’t really my business, and quite frankly, should be encouraged.  All the easier to defeat them.

However, when I choose between Coke or Pepsi, I don’t enjoy being told that I can only drink diet (pardon the Carvillian analogy).  This is ultimately a debate over ideas, and whether or not the Democratic Party will remain a place for those who reside from the center to the Left.  The problem with Cernig’s argument is that it is always a small group of people who do these things, if I may paraphrase and tweak Margaret Mead.  If their ideas were truly respected and embraced by the majority, than little “Bush Dog” antics such as this wouldn’t be necessary.  The dissenting opinions would be marginalized, and wonderful “progress” would ensue.  Ironically, it has been the self-proclaimed progressives who have suffer under these party purges in the past.  Now the shoe is on the other foot, and they seem to want their pound of proverbial flesh.

Cernig calls it “Kos Derangement Syndrome”.  Was it “KDS” when Mark Warner lavished the Netroots with a party and chocolate fountain at last year’s YearlyKos?  Was it “KDS” when all of the major Democratic presidential nominees decided to attend YearlyKos ‘07, while not a single one attended the annual DLC conference?  “Just another union”?  Unions have had a direct policy sway over the Democratic Party for decades.  Referring to Kos & Co. in this fashion may be a unintentional compliment on Cernig’s part.  Money and manpower is all elected officials ever really want (aside from your vote), so how does that dismiss the political efficacy of the Netroots in any way?  They have learned that your ideas don’t necessarily need to be popular, or even sensible, as long as you can mobilize money and manpower.  This is why they are relevant, and this is why a debate over Liberalism is probably a pretty darn good idea.         

But I think the Kos’ and the Stollers of the world have long given up on a debate over ideas.  They are primarily focused on electoral strategy and discipline, foregoing any discussion about what constitutes as actual progress.  G.K. Chesterton once remarked that “progress should mean that we are always changing the world to fit the vision, instead we are always changing the vision.”  The Cult of Progress forbids any such talk, and demands only discipline and groupthink.

In the grand scheme, is it a small bunch that is attempting this party takeover?  Sure.  But it’s the small bunches that often scare me the most. 

(Cross posted at The Van der Galien Gazette)