3 ms·

Real progressives don’t agree on what progress means. No amount of progress is ever enough. If no amount of progress is enough, no progressive politician is eno

by n8cpdx 5y ago

Real progressives don’t agree on what progress means. No amount of progress is ever enough. If no amount of progress is enough, no progressive politician is enough. Progressives then don’t show up at the polls for anyone who isn’t a “real progressive”. And then progressives have the gall to complain that the few progressives who do manage to get elected are fighting for table scraps. I’m becoming convinced that the true definition of a progressive isn’t based in any specific ideology, but in a refusal to acknowledge the constraints of politics. And the result is progressives would rather compete to have the best idealistic vision for utopia than actually do what is needed to win elections and make progress.

clairity 5y ago
i specifically used 'progressivism' rather than 'progressive' to avoid that exact identity issue. identifying with an ideology, particularly with an amorphous one, devolves into tribalism and partisanship. progressivism in US politics is largely defined by mediopolitical interests anyway so it's entirely detached from any principled stance. Democrats now tend to use this term because 'liberal' has gone out of fashion, so they co-opted another term that had less existing baggage. for politicians and political parties, principles are simply tools to be wielded and bent in the service of power, not the other way around. that's why there's no agreed-upon definition. but none of this has to matter at all for the majority of voters who have little power outside of their tiny vote. if such voters would stop identifying with ideologies, parties, and especially politicians (and ignore media who push this upon us), we'd actually collectively have more sway over the platforms they ran on, because we'd be resistant to being railroaded mindlessly into sets of policy positions shaped by more highly motivated (but numerically tiny) moneyed interests. we'd make amassing and deploying power harder that way.

by n8cpdx 5y ago

clairity 5y ago

i specifically used 'progressivism' rather than 'progressive' to avoid that exact identity issue. identifying with an ideology, particularly with an amorphous one, devolves into tribalism and partisanship. progressivism in US politics is largely defined by mediopolitical interests anyway so it's entirely detached from any principled stance. Democrats now tend to use this term because 'liberal' has gone out of fashion, so they co-opted another term that had less existing baggage. for politicians and political parties, principles are simply tools to be wielded and bent in the service of power, not the other way around. that's why there's no agreed-upon definition. but none of this has to matter at all for the majority of voters who have little power outside of their tiny vote. if such voters would stop identifying with ideologies, parties, and especially politicians (and ignore media who push this upon us), we'd actually collectively have more sway over the platforms they ran on, because we'd be resistant to being railroaded mindlessly into sets of policy positions shaped by more highly motivated (but numerically tiny) moneyed interests. we'd make amassing and deploying power harder that way.