Nov 5th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
The Progressive Center
I think Nancy Pelosi does a good job here of reframing an annoying question about the need to govern from the center, arguing that the results of the 2006 and 2008 elections reaffirm that the center is progressive and that what matters, ultimately, is delivering the goods to help people with their problems:
To me, that’s the right thing to say. You can’t very well say you intend to govern from the left-wing fringe, but neither can you pre-emptively surrender on the progressive agenda.
31 Responses to “The Progressive Center”
Register
RSSLogin
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Books By Matthew Yglesias
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Abortion
Afghanistan
Basketball
Blanche Lincoln
Budget
China
climate
Congress
Crime
DC
Demographics
Economics
Economy
Energy
Environment
EU
Finance
Football
Gender
Health Care
History
Inequality
International Law
International Relations
Iran
Israel
Media
Monetary Policy
National Security
NATO
NBA
Palestine
Political Reform
Public Health
Public Opinion
Race
Regulation
Russia
Sarah Palin
Sports
Stimulus
taxes
Technology
Trade
transportation
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Contact Matthew Yglesias
Use this form to contact blog author Matthew Yglesias.
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 5th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
This is no progressive majority in Washington. The Dems will again pander to the lie that this is a “center-right” country and fall down on progressive promises… This is a sad day for America, not a triumphant one.
http://www.sunstateactivist.org/ssablog/
November 5th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
…the center is progressive…
Gibberish. It’s like saying “the center is conservative.” The center by definition is neither “progressive” (or “liberal”) nor conservative, but something between the two. If “the center is progressive,” what are Edwards and Nader and McKinney?
November 5th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
On her list of profound progressive accomplishments, she left off reducing Iraqi troops or upholding laws against domestic wiretapping.
November 5th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
As opposed to the alternative, ssa? I prefer to think of this as a step in the right direction, after a long series of steps in the wrong direction. We have a long way to go, but let’s not be disheartened when we can instead resolve to do better still.
November 5th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
I’m with Mixner. The center is the center by definition. The left is to the left, the right to the right. Comparing the center to the center at another time or place is worthwhile, but without that point of reference it’s meaningless.
November 5th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Gibberish. It’s like saying “the center is conservative.” The center by definition is neither “progressive” (or “liberal”) nor conservative, but something between the two. If “the center is progressive,” what are Edwards and Nader and McKinney?
Don’t be silly. She obviously meant that the center (as defined by the electorate) is to the left of the policy consensus in Washington. Therefore, the Dems have a mandate to push the policy consensus leftwards.
November 5th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
The center is now defined by policies to the left of what the center would have defined 4 or 8 years ago.
November 5th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Pragmatism is the dominate American “ism”.
November 5th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
The center is now defined by policies to the left of what the center would have defined 4 or 8 years ago.
What policies would those be? Universal health care? Wait. Obama isn’t even proposing universal health care. His policy isn’t even as progressive as Hillary Clinton’s policy from 15 years ago.
We’ve had 8 years of steady movement to the right, preceded by 4 years of Republican-lite policies during Clinton’s second term (NAFTA, welfare reform, tax cuts, etc.) Obama will be lucky simply to partially roll things back to the way they were when Bush took office.
November 5th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
While I haven’t heard everything he has to say on the matter, in all of Obama’s speeches about “reaching across the aisle” or working with Republicans, I’ve never heard any statement that he would compromise any of his agenda. As far as I can tell, it consists of getting his way in an amicable and polite manner. He intends to avoid adding insult to injury, but the injury is going to happen.
It may seem like this is a ridiculous interpretation, but I don’t think it is. It would be a significant departure from Republican operating procedures in which every chance to paint Democrats as un-American was used.
In practice, this would amount to trying to pass a partisan Democratic bill on universal healthcare, but avoiding portraying the opponents of such as fiends who want poor people with cancer to die in agony.
I can live with that.
November 5th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Whine, whine, piss, moan. Fart.
November 5th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
I agree that “left” and “right” have to be defined in relation to the “center”, so it makes no sense to say the United States is a “center-left” or “center-right” if your baseline for the “center” is the United States itself.
“Progressive” and “conservative” are a bit different, however. For example, you can define those in terms of something like desired change from the status quo (or, perhaps, from the claimed status quo as of some prior “Golden Age”, one that supposedly happened sometime around the 1950s). And so it can make perfect sense to say that the “centrist” position in the United States is “progressive” or “conservative” in that sense.
November 5th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Mixer said: Obama isn’t even proposing universal health care. His policy isn’t even as progressive as Hillary Clinton’s policy from 15 years ago.
And, Hillary got her okole handed to her, so that plan didn’t define “the center”. If Obama has better luck with his plan, it would suggest a “progressive” shift in what’s acceptable for national health care.
We’ve had 8 years of steady movement to the right, preceded by 4 years of Republican-lite policies during Clinton’s second term
I’ll agree with your point of where we were sitting by the end of Clinton’s second term. Since that time, the idea of “center” was completely shot to hell by a set of box cutters.
GWB and the 103rd Congress took advantage of the resulting opportunity to advance domestic policies that had nothing to do with 9/11, and – IMO – wouldn’t have made it out of committee otherwise.
Given GWB’s economic actions over the last month, I don’t think it’s going to take much for Obama to roll back and advance beyond just about *any* of the current Administration’s policies before he’s even half way through his first term.
November 5th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Obama isn’t even proposing universal health care. His policy isn’t even as progressive as Hillary Clinton’s policy from 15 years ago.
Actually, Obama has said that he would support a universal single-payer system if he was creating one from the ground up, but thought something more modest had a better chance of passing.
As opposed to Hillary, who created an insurance-industry-friendly system when given the chance to design one from the ground up.
Oh, and Kerry proposed a catastrophic-coverage-only plan four years ago; by your logic, that means the country is now dramatically more progressive.
Eight years ago, NAFTA-style free trade was the default position of both Democrats and Republicans; now, the governing party wants to make environmental and labor standards integral parts of future deals.
Eight years ago, financial deregulation was all the rage. The market in derivatives can police itself, doncha know. So…how’s that going?
November 5th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Eight years ago, financial deregulation was all the rage. The market in derivatives can police itself, doncha know. So…how’s that going?
Well David Brooks says that we are entering a period of “scarcity” after the “long boom.” He says, solemnly, that the children will have to pay for the sins of the parents. No where in the self-contained little universe of his column is the concept that the ideas of his vaunted politicians, like financial dergulation, led to this era of so-called “scarcity.” It’s an aporia, or blind spot. To me it’s kind of funny, b/c it seems so obvious.
November 5th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
What policies would those be? Universal health care? Wait. Obama isn’t even proposing universal health care.
Bullshit. If Obama’s proposal isn’t single payer by stealth, I don’t know what is.
November 5th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
And, Hillary got her okole handed to her, so that plan didn’t define “the center”. If Obama has better luck with his plan, it would suggest a “progressive” shift in what’s acceptable for national health care.
No it wouldn’t. It would suggest that Democrats have finally woken up to the fact that “the center” will not support any kind of radical change to our health care system, let alone “single-payer” health care. Obama’s health care plan is the least progressive of the plans proposed by the three major Democratic candidates, and Obama’s aides are already busy trying to lower expectations about just how much of that plan they have a realistic chance of enacting.
Given GWB’s economic actions over the last month, I don’t think it’s going to take much for Obama to roll back and advance beyond just about *any* of the current Administration’s policies before he’s even half way through his first term.
Incomprehensible. What “GWB economic actions over the last month?” And what do those actions have to with Obama’s ability to roll back all the non-economic conservative policy shifts that have occurred during the Bush era? For example, the whole “War on Terror” apparatus (our military presence in Iraq, the Department of Homeland Security, the Patriot Act, Gitmo, “Total Information Awareness” and all the rest of it)?
November 5th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Actually, Obama has said that he would support a universal single-payer system if he was creating one from the ground up,
Since he isn’t creating one from the ground up, completely irrelevant.
Eight years ago, NAFTA-style free trade was the default position of both Democrats and Republicans; now, the governing party wants to make environmental and labor standards integral parts of future deals.
Er, NAFTA was the product of a coalition of economically moderate, DLC-type Democrats like Bill Clinton and congressional Republicans. The “progressive” wing of the Democratic party came to accept it only reluctantly, if at all. And the Moveon.org types hated it then and still hate it. Obama has made no suggestion that he plans any kind of significant roll back of NAFTA or free trade in general. Free trade is a clear example of an economic policy that was considered conservative only a decade or two ago but is now firmly in the “center.”
November 5th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Bullshit. If Obama’s proposal isn’t single payer by stealth, I don’t know what is.
Do let us know when Obama’s sneaky “single payer by stealth” plan actually manages to achieve single-payer health care. I think you’re going to be very disappointed.
November 5th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Do let us know when Obama’s sneaky “single payer by stealth” plan actually manages to achieve single-payer health care. I think you’re going to be very disappointed.
Mixner: I’m not a cheerleader for single payer, so I don’t know I’d be disappointed either way. But I do think having government sell premium-capped policies directly to consumers will be a tough act for private insurers to follow, and I therefore suspect we’ll likely move toward the functional equivalent of a model rather closely resembling that of France, with consumers widely using private insurance for incidentals, but with the bulk of major medical/catastrophic care being paid for by the government.
November 5th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
But I do think having government sell premium-capped policies directly to consumers will be a tough act for private insurers to follow, and I therefore suspect we’ll likely move toward the functional equivalent of a model rather closely resembling that of France, with consumers widely using private insurance for incidentals, but with the bulk of major medical/catastrophic care being paid for by the government.
The French public health care system does not consist of health insurance policies offered for competitive sale on the insurance market by the government and voluntarily purchased by citizens. It’s an involuntary system funded by payroll taxes, like Medicare. Obama’s plan doesn’t include anything like the French health care system.
November 5th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
The French public health care system does not consist of health insurance policies offered for competitive sale on the insurance market by the government and voluntarily purchased by citizens.
Hence my use of the term “functional equivalent.” I just don’t see much difference between the French system and what I think the Obama plan will evolve into: most Americans paying taxes — oops, make that “premiums” — directly (and very likely mandatorily in the near future) to the central government in exchange for said government’s paying most of the bills.
Obama’s plan doesn’t include anything like the French health care system.
As I just pointed out, it certainly offers something “like” the French healthcare system.
November 5th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Hence my use of the term “functional equivalent.”
Your use of the term “functional equivalent” is nonsensical. An involuntary tax is not “functionally equivalent” to a voluntary purchase.
what I think the Obama plan will evolve into: most Americans paying taxes — oops, make that “premiums” — directly (and very likely mandatorily in the near future) to the central government in exchange for said government’s paying most of the bills.
Well, do let us know when Obama tries to impose this mandate on everyone, in explicit contradiction of the plan on which he campaigned.
November 6th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Mixner: Incomprehensible. What “GWB economic actions over the last month?”
Spotted this while looking through old posts for something else. WTF? I’d shoot fish in a barrel, but nobody’s around to watch. What’s the fun in that?
January 27th, 2009 at 10:26 am
SNILKISSUSY google
SerryFenoGery Sednunseddy http://google.com
March 11th, 2009 at 4:46 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
March 12th, 2009 at 11:34 pm
It is the coolest site,keep so!
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:18 am
tramadol
I want to say – thank you for this!
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:23 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
buy cheap viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 6:24 am
thanks !! very helpful post! viagra
April 19th, 2009 at 8:50 am
gzshQV ukyjjplajztp, [url=http://toduqsricjjv.com/]toduqsricjjv[/url], [link=http://gpfuksiftevs.com/]gpfuksiftevs[/link], http://nofqoyyquuhu.com/