I am pleased to report that at a meeting which I attended last evening, Progressive Democrats of Cambridge endorsed my personal “Dream Team” of candidates for the three contested state-wide offices: Deval Patrick for Governor, Andrea Silbert for Lt. Governor, and John Bonifaz for Secretary of the Commonwealth, who together represent an opportunity to bring a visionary and transformative energy to Massachusetts.
The three were also winners in their respective races at the Cambridge Democratic City Committee straw poll held two evenings earlier.
Linda Sophia Pinti
Please share widely!
I am curious to know what criteria was used to consider a candidate progressive (as that is the new buzz word of our party…) And well, is she (Andrea, that is)? Discuss.
It seems to me that all the LG candidates are remarkably similar on progressive type issues — pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-marriage equality, anti-rollback, and on down the line.
<
p>
One classically progressive program that Silbert is pushing now is an initiative to end family homelessness.
<
p>
That said, I don’t know what criteria the folks in Cambridge used.
And I don’t think there’s a “yea” of “nay” answer to that. (BTW, welcome, Wonkette03, to the BMG community. I love your handle; it reminds me of the good old days back in 03 when Wonkette was just starting out and was a laugh out loud funny daily read. For better or worse, the snarkiness that was so revolutionary there is now mainstream in our online political world.)
<
p>
But I digress.
<
p>
Is Silbert really progressive? If the criteria are abortion, gay rights and environmental protection, then yes, I think she falls squarely in that crowd. If the criteria include opposition to the war (which, I believe, is the issue that helped many organizing groups calling themselves “progressive” in our region start up and survive – since traditionally these groups haven’t been as much of a force as they have been vocal, but small), then Silbert also qualifies.
<
p>
But she’s also pushing the jobs issue. I happen to think that’s a progressive one too, but some Democrats who are fearful of business and believe it to be inherently untrustworthy, might not. I’d direct them to consider their Patrick support then, because when I’ve heard him speak, a main tenet of his pitch is that Democrats need to be less fearful of the private economy. Silbert, Patrick and indeed Gabrieli are all kindred spirits on this point, and electing any of them would be a boost for this principle — and would help us show independent voters that we CAN have businesses that, as Deval says, look at three bottom lines: fiscal, social and environmental.
<
p>
What other issues qualify? Healthcare? From what I’ve heard her say and what I have read here, her parents were doctors or something, so she’s up on those issues.
<
p>
What else?
<
p>
I’ll close going back to my point about Deval: his experience places him squarely amongst the wealthiest percentages of Americans, and he’s worked for some of the most imperialistic American corporations in the world. And he’s not espousing positions that are generally to the left of other Democrats (except on Cape Wind and the tax rollback.)
If the criteria are abortion, gay rights and environmental protection
<
p>
That’s “liberal” and yes, she is very liberal on social issues, as are all of the LG candidates.
<
p>
Progressive means believing in the power of government to do good, to harness the power of collective structures to make life better for people. There have been centrist progressives as well as liberal progressives through our history (we rarely get many conservative progressives because conservatism these days seems to preclude belief in government at all). Progressives value and promote Democracy, involvement, open and fair process, and broad movement-building to make progress. And obviously, there’s a lot of overlap between progressivism and liberal positions – for example, instituting gay marriage, or universal health care.
<
p>
Andrea Silbert worked with poor teen girls in South America, was horrified at the gap between rich and poor she saw there, and came back to the US to do something about it. Her time, energy, and skill have improved many people’s lives here in MA. If it were just that, it wouldn’t necessarily mean she’s a progressive – someone with her background might feel that all this activity is best left in the hands of the private sector. What makes her a progressive is the extent to which she thinks government can do these things, and have even more impact on people’s lives.
<
p>
I was at the PDC meeting and was one of only three people there who didn’t vote for the endorsement. Not because I don’t like Andrea Silbert – I think she’s great. I just haven’t made up my mind yet. Also, at the time, Sam Kelley was still in the race, and I felt strongly that progressives should vote for him on the first ballot, so that he could stay in the race and keep pushing health care as a top priority issue in the campaign.
I was just about to write a description of what I think progressive means, cause the conflation of progressivism and liberalism is too widespread. I think it’s important to remember wide range of progressives, including conservatives like Teddy Roosevelt and the late Canadian party, the Progressive Conservatives.
<
p>
I think the succinct idea of “progressive” is that it is not pro-socialist or pro-capitalist: even democratic (small d) government can’t do everything but doing nothing is even worse. Deval Patrick and Andrea Silbert are perfect examples in my opinion, in finding that balance and believing in the power of good government, improving the lives of the people and growing business positively.
I just wanted to flag this line from your comment:
<
p>
“Progressives value and promote Democracy, involvement, open and fair process, and broad movement-building to make progress.”
<
p>
I absolutely agree, but in the present case being true to this principle, it seems to me, means supporting the rollback (“demanded by voters,” in 2000, according to the Globe).
<
p>
My broader point is that being a progressive does not mean blind allegiance to government-based solutions and taxes. It means support for solutions that work — that’s the progress part. Structures that ensure that the powerful in our society will serve the public interest, and respect for the will of the people are critical elements of this approach.
Do you think it makes sense for a progressive to support it even though you know it was essentially rammed through by Libertarians during a different time, something that was designed to completely ties the hands of any Progressive elected in the future?
<
p>
This is somewhat off-topic, but to those who think that the people’s will from 2000 should be respected today (under different conditions), what do you see as qualifying to ever move the tax rate off of 5% in the future?
<
p>
Do you see the 5% as a “proposition 2.5” type thing that permanently restricts the government from raising revenue, something that is in place until the people vote it back, or do you see this as a goal to get to, and then once we get to it we can move from it?
<
p>
I think that being Progressive is almost the opposite of being Libertarian. Instead of being hands-off, being progressive means being hands-on.
<
p>
While some might see that as “big government”, I interpret it as government being both the referee and the coach, making sure that one group of us isn’t stamping over another group, and setting our vision for where we as a society will go.
<
p>
Remember, we are the government — it isn’t this scary oppressive entity lording over us like Reagan made it out to be.
Democracy is not the same thing as voting, although voting is an essential part of making many democracies work (not all). Elections are present in many undemocratic systems. Was it “Democratic” that Hafez Assad ruled Syria, when 99% of the people voted for him in each election?
<
p>
Democracy means participation. It means an open process that allows people to see what’s going on and to get involved in it. It means many things. It does not mean blind doctrinaire alliegance to a single vote that took place 6 years ago in vastly different circumstances, and has already been partially implemented, but was later modified through legitimate Democratic process.
<
p>
In other words, argue for the tax rollback all you want, but don’t claim that my definition of progressive implies supporting it. It really doesn’t.
Thanks for that, Cos, that’s dead right, and expands superbly on my limited comments.
<
p>
I guess the “belief in government” aspect of your comments strikes me the most, and I guess I am not sure who has a more solid belief in that in the LG race. I think all 3 candidates could claim that mantle.
<
p>
Murray, because he’s been in government for most of his professional life and knows how it effects people.
<
p>
Goldberg, because she has been in government, doesn’t need to make money and wants to use government to try to make things better with what she has to offer.
<
p>
Silbert, because she has worked in the private (albeit non-profit) sector and wants to expand her reach from, and offer her expertise to, thousands and, possibly, millions.
<
p>
All seem legit.
<
p>
I think all 3 would argue that the intersection of the private economy and government (see prior comments re. Deval) is where the rubber meets the road.
<
p>
The question, then, is who can convince voters that s/he is the “most” progressive? From the PDC event, where all 3 of these folks appeared, Andrea Silbert seems to have done the best job of convincing those in attendance of her progressive credentials – something that speaks to her political skills (which are crucial in selling oneself to the electorate).
This has been repeated again and again, we know this “The End.” Not one of them is more “progressive than the other despite the Cambridge straw poll. Personally I think polls of all types are pure balony and a waste of time.
<
p>
And as I said before Cambridge is definitely not a reflection of the greater MA electorate. In addition, I was informed by someone who attended the event, that all of the candidate’s staffers who were in attendence, but Murray’s voted in the straw poll. Just something to think about.
<
p>
Oh, and did anyone else realize the convention is only a week away!
A week left to cajole, convince, sway, poach, swipe, steal, win delegates…
…that may technically be true, since except for Murray’s staff (I believe he had 3), I barely saw any staffers there at all, and I don’t remember any being there during the voting. Silbert had one who showed up after she arrived, but I believe he left with her before the voting (I admit I didn’t see him leave, I just don’t remember him there during the vote).
<
p>
Needless to say, I would be very surprised if Silbert’s staffer (or any staffers who may have been there for Kelley or Goldberg) voted in the poll.
i was calling alternates the other night for murray to help whip in my senate district. I got this guy who was a pipefitter for many years. He told me ” I was a pipefitter for many years, I am very good with my hands would you let me do nrain surgery on you?” I said hardly not and he said “then why would you want someone whos not a politician be a politician” so I pose this question to all of you.
Just kidding, I know you probably got him, right? (Side question: does Murray not have whips in every district already? where is is purported army? I’m shocked!)
<
p>
My response is this: politics and governing ain’t brain surgery. It’s an art, science and faith all rolled into a human being. It’s not a skilled trade with a right way and a wrong way of doing it. I want a skilled tradesperson, trained in a union shop, installing the plumbing in my building. I want her to use her skills to make sure things work well and for a long time. Her job’s importance comes from adherence to basic principles coupled with increasing innovation as technology and engineering progress. It’s a perfected, but constantly developing, art.
<
p>
But politics is more than that. It’s about learning from history, bringing to bear perosnal experience, and thinking about what we as a people can and should be. It’s no less or no more essential to our society than pipefitters, piano teachers or hedge fund managers. But it’s also different from all of those.
<
p>
I can’t put my finger on why I don’t like your analogy, but it just doesn’t seem to fit in my book, because if it were our guide, then where would we be today?
Kerry never held any political office before being elected LG. (He lost a congressional race ten years before being elected.) As someone else pointed out when is smear-attack on Andrea was mentioned before, this supposed pipefitter would feel that Deval Patrick is unqualified to be Governor (along with Chris Gabrieli). LR, I believe you also support Patrick. So I pose the question back to you…”why would you want someone whose not a politician be a politician?”
<
p>
Also, isn’t it fairly obvoius that the MA electorate is very comfortabale electing a non-poliitican to office. Think Willard, think about the Weld /Silber race between two non-poliitcans.
<
p>
LR and SSL are desperate in their attacks on Andrea Silbert. And the best you can do is calling her a nonpolitican–pathetic.
attacked Silbert. So don’t try and make her a victim. I merely commented on a previous comment (which you carelessly, omitted in that link) and was referring to what I had been told by others, not necessarily my own opinion.
<
p>
And honestly it is Silbert supporters on this blog who have done most of the attacking (you should know). Oh and don’t even try to categorize me as desparate, because believe me I am the farthest from it.
<
p>
I think I’ll go outside and enjoy this lovelly day now . . . peace out
…you only repeated that you “heard” other people say she was “bitchy” as my link above documents. But no, you never once attacked her–you just repeated the attack. Do you really think people are that stupid not to be able to see through you.
busy few days before the convention. So anyway it isn’t or wasn;t my analogy, it was some guys who I actuall met at the convention and then he voted for Goldberg, go figure. Frank get a grip please link my attacks on AS, I believe you are sadly mistaken once again. I think ur taking this a bit personal, I have repeatedlyh said she is the only other candidate and todays results prove that….. at least to me.
Not to disagree with any of the comments here, but just to add a saw of my own. I like to say that “a progressive is a liberal who does something about it.”
<
p>
In other words, it’s one thing to have a belief, and quite another to act on it.
<
p>
Polls have shown [I’ll provide a reference after the Convention] that the vast majority of Americans agree with “liberal” positions on most issues, such as the ones mentioned here, but when asked if they consider themselves to be “liberal” in their political leanings, most decline.
<
p>
Gee, have I mentioned this one before?
<
p>
All 4 candidates Murray, Goldberg & Silbert are equally liberal this is just a known fact. Determinig who is best of the three is probably decided on who who compliment the top of the ticket the most. I feel Murray is the best compliment because he has the expeience and record of getting things done in a city like Worcester where things usually move at a snails pace. He also brings voters from central mass and all over the state. Goldberg does nothing substantial to help the ticket that the other 2 can;t already give. Andrea Silbert claims to get the woman vote but I find it hard to belive the lg candidate will get more woman to vote than there already is going to be, that is the governors job. She doesn’t balance the ticket well because she is unqualified at this point in time while I wouldn’t rule her out in the future. With two candidates for governor who have little to no mass political experience it is imperative that we have a candidate who knows the ropes. Although all of the 3 LG candidates are light years ahead of Reed hillman.
I’m not going to vote for an LG candidate because they “balance” the ticket. What does that mean? I should find the one who is most unlike Patrick?
<
p>
I’m going to vote for the person I think is the best back-up for Governor Patrick, and will be the most effective in the LG job.
<
p>
That said, I’m rather taken with all three candidates, but just wanted to mention that I’m not looking for “balance” — whatever that is…
Face it, progressive has become such an almost meaningless term, meaning so many different things to so many different people. My dictionary defines “progressive” as “1. moving forward; advancing. 2. Proceeding in steps; continuing steadily by increments; progressive change. 3. Promotong or favoring progress toward better conditions or new policies, ideas, or methods.” There’s not much difference there between “liberal” and “progressive”.
<
p>
Back after the Second World War, Henry Wallace’s Progressive Party was to the left of Democatic Party liberals, and most of the difference centered around the liberals antipathy toward Communism and the Progressives lack of such antipathy. I don’t think that there were many substantive differences other than anti-Communism, but maybe the willingness of liberals like Hubert Humphrey to stay in the Democratic Party, with so many racist elements, was also a difference.
<
p>
In my recollection, the term “progressive” most recently became fashionable as an alternative to “liberal” in the 60’s and 70’s because many Americans had come to find liberalism too elitist and conservatives had pretty much succeeded in making “liberal” a dirty word. Then too, it was a liberal view of the world that brought us the Vietnam War, and many of us who moved left at that time came to abhor liberals. So, for a variety of reasons, the term “progressive” became more popular than the term “liberal.”
<
p>
There is now a group of reformers in Massachusetts who have taken on the mantle of progressivism, and you can see from the postings here that they do not yet have a uniform consensus on what now constitutes progressivism, although those of us with many years of experience and allegiance to the Democratic Party, who even hold similar views on poltical issues with the reformers, are no longer considered progressive. I’d go back to calling myself a liberal, but I can’t get that Phil Ochs song out of my mind.
Funny, you define “progressive” and then say
without saying what liberal means.
<
p>
A liberal, in the classic sense, is one who believes in liberty. That implies a system of government that is neither autocratic nor anarchic. In other words, citizens are not ordered what to do, but are free to do as they choose, provided their actions don’t trample on the rights of others.
<
p>
This is not the “same” as being a “progressive” — they are different, though not incompatible concepts.
your “classic” definition of “liberal” sounds an awful lot to me like what we now think of as “libertarian” – maximum freedom for all, provided that the rights of others are respected. As my comments on a variety of topics demonstrate, I have some sympathy for that view. But I think that the classic liberal/libertarian view is rejected by a lot of modern liberal/progressives. Curiouser and curiouser!
Well, David, let’s get back to this discussion after the Convention, when I have more than 5 minutes of free time per day. I admit I was trying to use shorthand and explain some complex concepts in a sentence or two.
<
p>
Try this link for a good survey of definitions of libertarianism.
<
p>
The essential difference comes down, it seems to me, to the view of the role of government. Liberals view strong government action as appropriate if necessary to protect the rights of minorities or individuals. Libertarians see any government action as an intrusion, and think people should work things out amongst themselves. Or something like that. I’m not a libertarian, so I don’t pretend to speak from that point of view.
<
p>
One example that comes to mind is zoning by-laws. Liberals see them as necessary and appropriate to preserve the common good, libertarians see them as government intervention that violates the rights of property owners to do as they see fit.
<
p>
Okay, my 5 minutes is up.
<
p>
One more thought: I know I’ve mentioned this before, but it bears repeating in this context:
Look to the late 19th century for the rise of “progressives”. They then influenced Teddy Roosevelt, considered the first “progressive” president. FDR was the one who pretty much defined what liberal progressivism is.
I will admit that I personally met Galvin and had a great conversation with him on a variety of issues around the time of the DNC, he was actually shut out of the convention due to a fire code violation that prevented nearly 1,000 delegates from attending Kerry’s speech and he seemed very humble about it. Also as someone else mentioned his record on SEC issues ranks with that of Eliot Spitzer as a maverick trust buster who ensures that buisness is done properly in MA, especially in regards to insurance fraud and telemarketing.
<
p>
His election time pamphlets are very instructive and he has a pretty solid election staff that I dealt with when I briefly considered running as a 17 year old state rep candidate earlier this year.
<
p>
That said his main liabilities come from being an entrenched incumbent, his big ego (he likes seeing his face on everything), his ambition to be gov, and his reluctance to implement sweeping post-florida electoral reform.
<
p>
Though in my opinion Galvin should not be replaced and it is highly likely that he wont be, and I have a lot of issues with the Bonifaz operation (to respond to my critics pro choice and anti war were very prominently displayed in the original platform I saw, and again both great positions, but are completely irrelevent to Sec of State, also SOS is not just in charge of elections and Bonifaz has no experiences actually running fair elections or dealing with the other 75% of the SOS responsibilities) but I think a pro reform challenge if it was strong enough could push Galvin towards Reform and a challenge especially for a 16 year incumbent is always good.