What’s Next for Progressives? Pragmatism vs. Purity

In the August 7 issue of The NY Times, economist Paul Krugman asks the question posed in my title (ok, I stole it, but added cool alliteration).  He provides two answers grounded in pragmatism rather than idealism (not always Krugman’s strong suit).  One of his arguments is that the US health care system should be reformed by improving Obamacare a la the Netherlands rather than pushing for a single payer solution like Australia’s.  His other is that Progressive policy should focus on children and families, e.g., paid family leave policy, universal pre-k, subsidized day care, etc.

I agree, reluctantly on the first argument and enthusiastically on the second.  As I’ve written previously there is overwhelming evidence that a single-payer, Medicare-for-all system is the best policy alternative for the US.  But that doesn’t mean that this solution is politically feasible in the current environment.  Enhancing the Affordable Care Act, hopefully with a public health care option, is much more so.  As for expanded children and family policies, Krugman notes that our current spending on families is 1/3 the average for advanced nations – disgraceful!  Improvements are a no brainer and would be politically popular.

But why stop there?  If the objective is to win mid-term elections and then displace the amateur hour crew currently occupying the White House, pragmatism and political feasibility should dominate throughout a coherent alternative policy agenda.  And at the risk of  losing my cherished liberal card, I respectfully suggest that this new Progressive agenda should not be dictated by the Sanders/Warren wing of the Democratic Party.  In my ideal world and maybe yours, our nation would recognize the importance of providing health care, pre-k to 14 education, a living wage, social justice, etc., as universal rights guaranteed by our government and funded disproportionately and voluntarily by those privileged citizens who don’t need the guarantees, i.e., the very wealthy.  But in the immortal words of Allen Iverson when asked to hustle at basketball practice, ‘that ain’t happenin’ anytime soon.’

So what should be emphasized in a pragmatic Progressive platform, and what should not?  Just as ‘single payer’ is desirable but politically impractical for now, let me humbly suggest three other areas to deemphasize in the interest of coalition-building.  Issue #1 to avoid is gun control.  Of course the Founders could not envision today’s frightening array of killing machinery.  Of course they did not in all likelihood intend to establish a right to bear anything close to a personal arsenal; in fact they probably were not envisioning a personal right at all.  And of course America’s fascination with guns is irrational, perversely obsessive and unique among civilized societies.  But none of this matters.  It’s political suicide to aggressively go after guns in this country.  Accept this fact, Progressives, and move on to issues that will move the needle in your direction.

I tread very cautiously on the second issue that I believe Progressives should deemphasize – abortion.  As it turns out Rep. Ben Ray Lujan, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chair, recently made this very same argument in asserting that Democrats will not withhold financial support for candidates who oppose abortion rights.  According to Lujan, Democrats need to cast a wide net and build broad coalitions in order to win the 24 2018 seats required to reestablish a Democratic House majority.  And abortion rights were also notably absent from the Democrats new policy primer, A Better Deal, presented last week.  But understandably this party pragmatism has also received substantial criticism and pushback.

I fully support a woman’s right to choose, but I also understand that this is a deeply personal, emotional and moral issue for most women (and hopefully most men as well).  I know a number of rational, socially sensitive women whose personal moral compass simply does not permit them to support abortion or abortion rights candidates.  They are not mindless ultra-right evangelical zealots, but they are numerous and they vote.  Like with gun rights, I don’t understand their moral calculus or support their position.  But once again, that doesn’t matter.  

Finally Progressives, find a way to support human rights for all without obsessing on identity politics.  No black/white/ blue/muslim/elite/poor, etc. lives matter – we ALL matter.  I understand the temptations, especially given American history in an immediately post-Charlottesville period, but ultimately identity means exclusion and division rather than inclusion.  That’s not a political winner – nor should it be.

None of this is to suggest that Progressives should abandon initiatives to achieve sensible gun regulation, pro-choice policies or improvements in the lives of disadvantaged groups.  I’m simply suggesting that these efforts should not and need not be the centerpieces of the Progressive agenda going forward, nor should they be litmus tests for entry into what needs to be a more inclusive tent.

Elizabeth Warren recently ridiculed the moderate wing of her political party while proclaiming that liberals “are not the gate-crashers of today’s Democratic Party.  … . We are (its) heart and soul.”  In spirit, yes, but in practice, it’s more complicated.  Within days of Warren’speech, the Democratic Party released A Better Deal.  It identifies three goals:  job creation/wage increases, cost-of- living containment for families and education/ training.  It’s a short document, not a full-blown Party platform, but nevertheless there’s no mention of guns, abortions or any lives mattering more than others.  Progressives need Warren and Sanders to provide heart and soul.  But they need A Better Deal to win.

Author: garygram

I spent my career as an economics professor and administrator at universities in New York, Texas, Florida and the United Arab Emirates. Since some part-time consulting in 2013-14 in Qatar, I have been retired with my spouse in Hilton Head's naturally spectacular Moss Creek community. My current passions are public policy, music, tennis, grandkids, community service (I currently serve on the Moss Creek Board of Directors), the Nebraska Cornhuskers and now blog writing, not necessarily in that order. While I will always attempt in my blog writing to be objective and evidence-grounded, it will probably become apparent that I am what is typically today called Progressive, a status that seems quickly to be coming back into favor. View all posts by garygram