In Newsweek's April 5th issue, Jonathan Alter's political editorial of the week focuses on "persistent progressivism," and the role of current democratic legislators in pushing for and executing tangible change in the face of the filibuster-happy right wing and its "gesture politics."
Says Alter,
"The question is whether the success of President Obama's emerging governing philosophy -- what might be called persisitent-progressivism -- can be extended into realms beyond health care."
Namely, can the Democrats keep the ruckus of the right wing to a minimum, and in doing so, stay on target and create the change that Obama's campaign promised?
We've already seen the first half of this administration's time come and go.
And after having read the article, the question that remains is, (not so) simply, when did the term "
progressive" become a label that holds so much weight? I don't refer to Alter's interpretation, but to the left-wing, right-wing, choose-a-side-or-be-labeled-a-centrist, landscape that has developed into the contemporary political spectrum.
Behind the definitive lines by which red and blue have been divided lay the ideals and principles that have formed and continue to shape America's major political parties. But where are they?
When did the labels placed upon political parties begin to dictate values?
When was it that being a republican began to mean taking Fox news more seriously than the RNC chairperson, while democrats pitied and were embarrassed by the right wing? When was it that voters began to choose between the united, filibustering party of "no," and the whining party of seemingly reasonable but overtly unlikable policy?
It was probably in close proximity to the time when the word bipartisanship became the biggest joke since civil rights; great in theory, but never making much measurable progress when in practice.
Looking further into the differences between progressives and conservatives also begs the question, why do people align themselves with said poles of the socio-political spectrum?
When was it that the idea that every person could be the same, that every child could be in school, that every citizen could see a doctor, and eat, and live sustainably, became so radical? Why is it "socialist" to believe that people shouldn't die, simply because we were too busy buying shit that we don't need, with money that we didn't need?
And why is it so hard to believe that by providing each person with even one meal every day wouldn't put a dent into any of our bank accounts?
When was it that giving a damn began to translate to being a progressive, gay-loving, planet-saving, tree-hugging, peace-marching, granola-eating, baby-killing monster? (And what is so offensive about love, peace, trees, and granola? Though, obviously, that's not the point.)
What is it that cements the minds of the people that are, apparently, in charge of overseeing the democratic republic of the USA, from being able to change, accept, and protect the diversity that is found within this nation's borders? Votes. Money. Greed. Power.
And on both sides of party lines.
With so much partisan conflict, it's still unclear what the 2010 election season will bring about. There are several congressional and senatorial seats up for grabs; will an increasingly liberal social climate garner votes to help the left uphold the slim democratic majority, or are voters tired of waiting so long for effective change to take place? And whatever they choose, are they aware of how each candidate will behave once the race for votes wraps up?
