The Last Word on “EmoProgs”

I hope this will be my last post on this blog about so-called “EmoProgs,” though I’m sure they’ll do something overly ridiculous in the future to cause me to react to them. However, I think the time for infighting is over. We have to start focusing on defeating Republicans, and we can’t do that as long as we’re preoccupied with debating the what ifs, shoulda, wouldas, and whatever else. So I’ll try to make this my final statement on the matter and then hopefully move on.

EmoProgs. Also known as “frustrati.” Perhaps a more descriptive name might be Purist Progressives (as opposed to Pragmatic Progressives). These people often share several traits:

1. They are usually either leftover PUMAs (Clinton and Edwards supporters from the ’08 primaries) who are still bitter over losing or former Obama supporters who suddenly realized that he’s the person he always said he was instead of the purist progressive hero they had imagined in their own minds.
2. As the term “Purist Progressive” suggests, they are progressive, and they largely hold purist positions, seeing compromise, not as a means to create incremental progress where otherwise there would be no progress at all, but as an obstacle to accomplishing their full and complete political goals all at once (or at the very least in huge chunks at a time).
3. They spend more of their time attacking Obama and how he has failed anyone and everyone rather than attacking those who are actually responsible for impeding progress (see: Republicans).
4. Many (though not all) of them ascribe to the belief that, after 4 or 8 years of complete tea party control of government, everyone will be so fed up with them that they’ll all come rallying to the progressive cause, and thus creating a glorious progressive government starting after either 2016 or 2020.  It’s basically a call for us to hold on to our hats for the next 4 to 8 years while we wait for the people to finally rise up and “see the light.” The fact that this didn’t happen after Bush’s 8 years is not evidence against their belief that this will happen this time (or they’ll claim that it DID happen with Obama, but he sold everyone out).
5. Many (though not all) claim that Obama is “no better than” the GOP, despite the quite obvious evidence to the contrary, and despite the fact that the last time people said this, Bush got elected over Gore and we see how much that helped everything. Then again, this feeds back into point #4 as well.
6. Many call for the complete purging of moderates out of the Democratic Party, and call for only progressives to run for Congress, even in deep red seats. They often even try to cite Dean’s 50 State Strategy when arguing for this position, despite the fact that it was that very strategy that led to many blue dogs getting elected in the first place in 2006 and 2008. They call for this because they see moderates as “just as bad,” and they see no real difference between electing moderates and republicans, as both will oppose their purist progressive policies. Why elect someone who might “meet you half way” when you have no intention of compromising in the first place?
7. They see negotiation with Republicans, even when they control one House of Congress, as pointless and a violation of principles. They call on Democrats to completely ignore Republicans, often by calling for the elimination of the filibuster in the Senate, use of extra-executive powers by Obama (see: 14th Amendment) or using the Bully Pulpit™ until the GOP cowers in surrender.
8. They largely take the stance that whatever final compromise Obama agrees to is, by definition, Obama’s actual policy stance on the issue. The final Health Care Reform bill doesn’t have a public option? Obviously he never supported it in the first place! Tax cut compromise extended the Bush tax cuts for the rich? Obviously Obama never intended to repeal them! Debt ceiling bill doesn’t include revenues? Obviously Obama never really believed that revenues should have been part of the plan! And so on.
9. They hyperventilate at every rumor, political commentator’s statement, or anonymous source that suggests at the mere possibility of a hint that Obama might do something like address Medicare spending or some other supposed betrayal, and declare that Obama has already sold them out again before he has even proposed anything. Meanwhile, they completely ignore anything and everything good he does.
10. They often agree with the worst case interpretation of every event, which feeds into their opinion that the only thing Obama can do is sell out. They see the tax cut deal, the budget deal, health care reform, and the debt ceiling deal (among others) all as a complete surrenders to republican demands, even though an objective assessment of those compromises usually reveal quite the opposite.
11. They don’t have a realistic view of the political process. In their minds, any of their policies can be enacted without compromise if only Democrats or Obama held firm. “Doing more” can take many forms, from eliminating the filibuster, using the Bully Pulpit™, or some other magical types of thinking that somehow things will work out, and the fact that it doesn’t is just proof that Obama is a sell out. They don’t view the fact that there are moderate democrats who may not fully agree with their policies, or that one House of Congress is controlled by a party who is completely intent on defeating Obama as a relevant criticism or obstacle to their agenda getting enacted.

As a result of the above, they generally oppose making progress towards their ultimate goals because it doesn’t go far enough, or in the process something has been agreed upon that they don’t like. For example:

• They would have sacrificed extending UI benefits, repealing DADT, ratifying START, and would have raised taxes on every single American, all over the single issue of raising taxes on the rich.
• They would rather have no health care reform law than the law that passed, all over the single issue of the public option (or for some, single payer, which Obama never ran on to begin with). Most also think that if only Obama had used the Bully Pulpit™, then the public option would have passed. (I should note that even a weak public option only passed the House by 5 votes)
• They would have shut down the government rather than agree to government cuts (which ended up being hardly any cuts at all)
• They would have defaulted rather than agree to a deficit reduction deal without new revenues, even though the deal puts Democrats on a far firmer negotiating position and potentially will make significant cuts in defense which I thought they had supported.

And these are just the major points.

EmoProgs are, frankly, little better than Tea Partiers. They focus on achieving specific policy objectives, such as enacting single payer or re-enacting Glass–Steagall, rather than working with moderates toward mutual policy goals such as implementing a working universal healthcare system or strengthening financial oversight and regulations. This is virtually identical to the Tea Party, who are focused on specific policy goals, such as Cut, Cap, and Balance, instead of working with others on mutual policy goals such as long term debt and deficit reduction.

Really, the only difference between the Tea Party and Purist Progressives is their ultimate policy goals. Their hatred of both party establishments, and of President Obama is shared, as is their belief that compromise is a weakness, not a means toward progressing their end goals. Their existence makes it less likely that their ultimate political goals are actually achieved, not more likely. And their continued insistence on purity and their attacks on anyone who doesn’t share it increases the chances that the opposing party will get elected, enacting the very policies they most abhor.

Other than those who believe in point #4 above, few EmoProgs are able to answer the question of how, exactly, their goals of single payer, strong regulatory reform, and other goals, can be achieved if their attacks and lack of support of Democrats and Obama leave the GOP in charge. Usually their fallback ends up being something along the lines of “it wouldn’t be any different than Obama.” However, even a political novice would be able to tell that this wouldn’t be the case after actually hearing what the GOP Presidential candidates have in mind for the country.

Now, contrary to what someone like David Atkins says, I do not object to those who try to advocate for their positions. Indeed, advocating for your positions is good, and pulling Democrats from the left is a useful and needed counterbalance to the GOP pulling from the right. However, at some point one has to realize how much one is going to be able to win at the moment, and take what you can get. That is the very nature of compromise.

Health Care Reform is progress. Might it be all the progress progressives want? Probably not. Is it a step in the right direction? Absolutely.

The tax cut deal gave Democrats far more than it gave republicans. Yes, it extended the Bush tax cuts for the rich for two years, which sucks, but we got an extension of UI benefits and the additional stimulus of the payroll tax cut as part of the deal. And the deal cleared the way for the ratification of START, repeal of DADT, among other things. The tax cut deal was, under almost any definition, a smashing success for Democrats. The fact that we had to give up the Bush tax cuts for two years is a simple consequence of compromise. Democrats still got far more than they lost, however.

The budget deal? The deal that included such horrible cuts that many progressives were saying it was worth causing a shutdown over? Yeah. It only cut a whopping $352 million, remember? For those who aren’t sure how much that is, that’s about 1/100th of 1% of the federal budget.

I’ve already written about the debt ceiling bill, but in short: before the deal, the GOP held absolutely all the leverage. They could have demanded anything they could have dreamed of from Obama under the threat of forcing a default, forcing Obama to make an impossible choice. After the deal, Democrats are at worst on even ground, and I would argue even on better ground than the Republicans when it comes to leverage on the joint committee. And virtually no cuts come until 2013, where, if Democrats retake Congress and Obama is re-elected, they can do something about it. And even if nothing is done, huge chunks will be taken out of defense, which many progressives actually support.  If one needs more evidence that this wasn’t as bad of a deal as being portrayed, consider the fact that Boehner essentially had to lie to his caucus about what was in the bill to get it passed, and the deal assumes that the entirety of the Bush tax cuts expire in 2013.  There is a good reason why most Republicans hated the deal.

Yet EmoProgs would paint each and every one of these deals as failures of leadership by Obama. Cave-ins to the GOP. A complete abandonment of his principles. A stabbing in the back of not only progressives, but the American people in general.

The fact of the matter is this: Obama has made progress on a wide range of issues in sometimes very challenging circumstances.  He is perhaps the most accomplished Democratic president since at least LBJ, if not FDR, and this is after only 2 1/2 years. Yet, nothing is ever enough, and in their zealousness to express their displeasure at Obama and other Democrats for not meeting their excessive expectations, they threaten to facilitate the ushering in of an era of Tea Party governance which would threaten to write permanent conservative governance into the constitution itself. They are truly as dangerous as the Tea Party, if not even more dangerous, because they are working under the guise of being progressives and democrats.

If Obama perfect? No. Has Obama made mistakes? Sure he has. But then again, governing a nation like the United States is difficult, especially with divided government and with a party that hates your guts. Add to this fact that Obama is, after all, only human. To expect someone to fulfill your expectations 100% of the time is just not realistic.

I’ve never subscribed to the idea of Obama being some sort of miracle worker. I admit that I made my decision to vote for Obama in the Virginia primary over Hillary in the actual voting booth, so people can hardly accuse me of being someone who was “put under his spell” or any crap like that. I don’t believe in things such as the claim that he’s playing 11th dimensional chess or anything like that. I simply think he is doing the best one can expect of someone put in the circumstances he has been put in.

The way – the only way – we’re going to get any progress between now and 2016 is if we re-elect him and give Obama back a Democratic Congress. Anyone working against or inhibiting that goal is ultimately fighting in favor of or helping to facilitate the dismantling of the very safety net and government protections that they claim to cherish.

Advertisement