The tea party movement plugs into all the fears and hopes of their participants, and provides a coherent way to talk about them that focuses on values and principles rather than the preferred policy position.

I don’t agree that the TP movement “provides a coherent way to talk about” “all their fears and hopes.” What is that coherent way? A consistent, credible philosopy of human nature? Some ideological framework that holds up to scrutiny? Some relationship to a large enough body of facts/evidence or intellectual analysis? I don’t think so.

The TP movement has succeeded in becoming a facxtor because they have massive corporate/right wing funding, an organized external effort, denied by spokesmen, to channel the anger in anti-progressive slogans that serve a corporate, conseravtive agenda, and huge confirmation of their fears/anger from Fox News telling them that they’re a group of principled, patriotic citizens instead of some of the most clueless, easily manipulated portions of the population.

It’s the money and the media that makes them formidable, not any coherent message.

Progressives have a coherent message, based on reality, good theory and analysis, but it’s not enough, because there’s no money and very little media to counter the flow of propaganda from the conservative corporate view.

As I wrote earlier and will probably write in each of these threads. Progressives need to break with the Democrats and go populist. It is staring these guys in the face, and they are reacting with a “Nope, not seeing it.”

It’s not about the issues or the vision, so much as the structure and process for organizing people who already lean left. Did anyone talk about how to actually mobilize people to get involved, regardless of the specific issue?

Thanks for your reporting on this!

You cannot expect everyone to agree on every issue. You can’t tell citizens who are affected by something unfair that you have spoken and they better fall in line. That’s how last election was.
A lot of times people writing and organizing get tunnel vision opinions from only those who agree.
How do you know you are in the right all the time? You just can’t look at FOX and be opposite. You have to consider legitimate objections and come up with fair solutions.

Flash, you may be wrong! Like Obama and demonizing Hillary.

Be for the common people, and improving the lives of as many americans as possible and only then can you capture their attention and imagination.
Off course, true healthcare – universal, public option would have done this.
The dems captured all 3 branches but were not true dems. It is better to have 1 FDR dem then 10 in name only.

As far as being invited to white house parties, may be it’s time to agree not to go to any.
Many companies forbid even the taking of a pen from vendors, suppliers and doctors groups moving towards same.

If you want to be mainstream, you have to act for common man and not every other group’s agenda.

When I hear calls for progressive political action on and by the Left, I am so skeptical that I keep seeing the three-headed hydra, Medusa. Perseus had the shield of Athena, was able to blind the witches and had the means to kill them and ride away on Pegasus. I see no such strategy, all that I see is a lot of dreaming about politics, the conflation of grassroots activism with some kind of political pony that is supposedly going to appear under the Christmas tree because they have been good Democratic boys and girls.

I also love how everyone talks about progressive this or progressive that. Blowing smoke out of your butt in order to mask plain old party politicking because you disagree with the party establishment is more like the teabaggers than progressivism.

The teabaggers’ goal is to protest an unfair system that is not unfair enough in their favor. Sound familiar? 
 I like Markos but that is what he sounded like tonight on C-Span. He was talking about good stuff but it was more a resentment of Democratic Party status quo. I think that he can be more straightforward about it.

It is grassroots organizing for a more progressive policy than the old guard is willing to promote, not a progressive movement. But the train has left the station so this point becomes a quibble until an internecine battle inevitably erupts. After all, I think he is a partisan before he is a progressive. He is a partisan who wants a progressive policy. He and Move On will become strong enough to challenge the self promoting culture of the Democratic Party but can he win that battle, can he withstand a truce and still get his candidates, can he stop the phony war that sustains the Party culture so that he can attract more middle of the road voters with his core values, is he willing to welcome conservative refugees in a way that won’t scare them? That, would be progressive.

Maybe he will change the meaning of the word progressive. Certainly, credit card marketers have tried to change the meaning of the word freedom. Put a big multicolored picture of a happy family on vacation on the front of the offer but the contract info in small type on the back. Thank you Chris Dodd.

There is history to learn about progressivism and it has nothing to do with Liberal politics, Left politics, neo-Liberal politics, Democratic politics, internal political party revolts or the co-option by the party establishment that usually results. Progressivism is often apolitical and arises out of a discreet local economic issue.

What scarecrow said.

The progressive movement is not a political party despite its voting record in 2008, it provided the margin that elected Obama. The task for the politically needy Left is waking up to that reality. I need a leader, what about you? As a progressive, I feel hurt and betrayed that of the two messages from the presidential campaign, the fine print took precedent over the hope. It was similar to a credit card offer.

Progressivism is a state of mind, like conservatism. Its power lies in influencing politics.

The worst effect of conservatism is the spread of cynicism, not the rise of the Republican Party. The phony war between the Democratic Party and The Republican Party is only a fundraising show. They may hate each other but that is not enough for them to directly aid voters instead of themselves. Party strategists, party officials and party apparatchiks comprise a self-serving culture that ignores the noble purpose of politics to act as an interface between legislators and the electorate. That is lost.

It is the reason why progressive initiatives are needed in the first place.

There are more social justice organizations, big and small than there are cities or houses of worship in The United States. There are more people working for social justice in some way or another than there are Republicans and Democrats. There are more people working for social justice than there are Progressives. All are potential progressive voters but make no mistake; progressivism like conservatism, is a state of mind, not a political party.

The nonprofit sector is 1.5 million organizations. They are well motivated, they know what they are doing, they are local grassroots organizations in most cases; they are protected by law and regulated by the IRS. In 2006, they accounted for a little over 8% of wages and salaries in the U.S. They already align with private enterprises for mutual promotion. Sometimes they serve to dispense care that is financed by government.

Those relationships have to be nurtured by lobbying for them, advocating, volunteering and funding them. As they grow into these roles, necessity will impose structure on them. They have the potential to insulate government against the conservative onslaught on government.

For the last thirty years, conservatives have maintained that government does not work; to lend credence to that theme, they have sought to dismantle and cripple government with dilatory parliamentary procedures, legislation, inept political appointees and denial of senatorial confirmations.
Any desire to impose a non-organic structure or organization on this maturing system is misguided.

Most importantly, this is not primarily a political movement. Keep politics away from progressivism. The urge to add structure or organize an already organized nonprofit sector is the best way to syndicate this process for both political parties. This has to be an apolitical movement that produces good citizens because of social service. That will, in turn, produce good politicians.

What scarecrow said.

Progressivism is a state of mind like conservatism, only its exact opposite. Its power lies in influencing politics.

There are more social justice organizations, big and small than there are cities or houses of worship in The United States. There are more people working for social justice in some way or another than there are Republicans and Democrats. There are more people working for social justice than there are Progressives. All are potential progressive voters but make no mistake; progressivism like conservatism, is a state of mind, not a political party.

The nonprofit sector is 1.5 million organizations. They are well motivated, they know what they are doing, they are local grassroots organizations in most cases; they are protected by law and regulated by the IRS. In 2006, they accounted for a little over 8% of wages and salaries in the U.S. They already align with private enterprises for mutual promotion. Sometimes they serve to dispense care that is financed by government.
Those relationships have to be nurtured by lobbying for them, advocating, volunteering and funding them. As they grow into these roles, necessity will impose structure on them. They have the potential to insulate government against the conservative onslaught on government.

For the last thirty years, conservatives have maintained that government does not work; to lend credence to that theme, they have sought to dismantle and cripple government with dilatory parliamentary procedures, legislation, inept political appointees and denial of senatorial confirmations.

Any desire to impose a non-organic structure or organization on this maturing system is misguided.

Most importantly, this is not primarily a political movement. Keep politics away from progressivism. The urge to add structure or organize an already organized nonprofit sector is the best way to syndicate this process for both political parties. This has to be an apolitical movement that produces good citizens because of social service. That will, in turn, produce good politicians.

I don’t think the economic theory behind progressives is coherent. It leads them to grant the deficit hawk view that deficits are important in themselves and that we have to manage fiscal policy in accordance with its impact on deficits. This is holding progressives back because the question “How are you gonna pay for it?” always creates a very big problem that distracts from the debate over the desirability of the progressive solutions being proposed.

The progressive problem is discussed by Warren Mosler in his discussion of deficit hawks and deficit doves here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/warren-mosler/g20-says-expansionary-fis_b_602398.html#postComment

Progressives have a coherent message, based on reality, good theory and analysis…

which progressives would those be?

the ones that pushed for a neoliberal healthcare policy they called progressive while treating progressive health policy, even discussion of progressive healthcare policy, as deviant? or would that be the deficit doves? or the ones who insist we vote for corporate sell-out dems? or the ones who mislead, misinform and sometimes out right lie?

i have yet to see a progressive economic message that is not, at its base, neoliberal — except by a very few economists like galbraith, wray, mitchell, mosler et al.

….but it’s not enough, because there’s no money and very little media to counter the flow of propaganda from the conservative corporate view.

i don’t think it’s the conservative corporate view that is preventing the dem-associated political blogosphere from covering actual progressive economic policies and the activists who support them. that would be the neoliberal corporate view.

…….

grass roots social movements are built from the ground up. and that’s in direct conflict with a bunch of people who want to be leaders (or followers) and not just members of a movement.