Progressive Massachusetts decided this year to release midterm report cards for both the State House and State Senate, so I wanted to use them as a conversation piece on what it means to be “A Progressive”. There has been a lot of discussion about how progressive Hillary Clinton is with I making clear that I believe she is sufficiently progressive. Others disagree, but I think there are a lot of unstated assumptions about what threshold is the appropriate one. Therefore, based on the linked scorecards I’d like your idea of how many votes that match PM’s desires (stipulating that we agree those are appropriately progressive positions on an appropriate list of votes) are necessary to be called “A Progressive” (majority?, 2/3?, 3/4?, 90%+?). Who strikes you as progressive based on those rankings and, be honest, who surprises you?
It also occurs to me that some insist the term only applies to Movement Progressives whereas others think there can be such a thing as small-p progressives. I’m reminded of some more fundamentalist churches that call themselves “Bible-Believing”. I used to take umbrage to the implication that some of us more liberal Christians were not, but I eventually realized it meant more specifically taking the Bible literally, in which case I’m happy to concede the point even though the Bible is still a very important part of our faith and practice. Likewise, maybe I should realize that some really mean storm the barricades Movement Progressives when they just say progressives, whereas some of us adhere to the principles in the same way liberal Christians adhere to the Bible.
I was surprised my Rep. (Golden) scores higher than my Senator (Donoghue). The Speaker gets 2/3 and of course many use his votes to guide their own. At very least a comment on another thread that Dems aren’t even a center-left party, let alone progressive does not hold water, even in legislative practice. I would say anyone with a majority is mostly progressive, 2/3 is solidly progressive, 3/4 is very progressive, and 90%+ is a progressive hero.
I suppose that is a matter of perspective. If you are a well to do suburbanite in Metro West, pro choice and pro marriage equality, sure, Hillary seems sufficiently progressive, even super progressive.
On the other hand, if you are unemployed or as many underemployed, paying more and more for health care insurance that covers less and less, Hillary is not that much different from moderate Republicans.
On social issues, sure, she is sufficiently progressive but with kitchen table bread & butter issues, not even close.
I’d use the same template with our state house and senate.
I’m less concerned with an overall ranking, such as presented by these scorecards, and more concerned about the issues that matter most to me.
In my view, the issue facing Massachusetts that is overwhelmingly more important than any other is wealth and income inequality. I suggest that substantive progress on solving this issue will bring significant progress on a host of other “progressive” causes. I view this as a matter of objective fact rather than political opinion.
I insist that a politician who seeks my vote acknowledge the reality of this fact and reflect this reality in their governance. I don’t much care whether they call themselves “progressive” or not — I do care that we solve this problem.
My second most important priority is public transportation.
Coming after that, for me, are several issues that vie with each other in my priorities:
– Education
– Privacy and militarization of police
– Environment
I do not think it is possible to address wealth and income equality while perpetuating and extending regressive public revenue sources such as the Lottery, casino gambling, property taxes, and sales taxes. I have little patience with officials who proudly trumpet their “progressive” views by supporting a glacially slow increase in the minimum wage from “extreme poverty” to “severe poverty”, while simultaneously promoting casino gambling and Lottery expansion.
To use your religious analogy, I don’t much care what the Bible says about the age of the earth, the origin of life, or parthenogenesis. I don’t believe in “miracles” as sought by the Roman Catholic church even today when it elevates a chosen person to “sainthood” (whatever THAT is). If that makes me an unbeliever, so be it.
In politics, I care about values, issues, and reality far more than labels.
It’s where DeLeo’s 1/3 of votes where he sides with the Republicans are troubling, especially since he leads folks like Majorie Decker who should be supporting public transit into odd votes against it. The fare hikes, the Bush 41 esque refusal to raise taxes, the flip flop on term limits, and the refusal to allow the legislature to follow open meetings and public records laws are appalling. He is presiding over the 49th least transparent legislature according to Common Cause.
I’m glad he realized he needed to end his long standing opposition to womens and gay rights to be a leader in this state. He isn’t pursuing parochial social policies like Billy Bulger and Tom Finneran did, but he is still elevating the needs of his district, constituents and donors over the needs of the state time and time again. And a lot of Democrats would disagree with you that he is progressive enough, including several long time activists thinking of joining my new party.
…as long as we have a system whereby one of the Representatives is elected Speaker there will be the issue of prioritizing his own district and constituents. I don’t think it’s fair, but I also can’t say that I blame them too much.
I reject the narrative that they are powerless to stop the Speaker, after all, they are the ones that ultimately elect him and give him the position in the first place. If we were smart about it, we would push a speaker like Denise Provost in a safe progressive district who doesn’t have to pander to conservatives but would be a real force of opposition against Baker and his policies.
Instead it’s ‘well we are a big tent and we need this coalition to keep our majority’, forgetting that the rump Republicans can’t even stop the Democrats from overriding the Governor’s veto or that we could risk 20-30 conservative Democrats defecting to the GOP and still have a large majority. I’d rather someone like Provost as Speaker even if it drives the likes of Dwyer and Miceli to change their registrations. Good. At least the ‘D’ after the name will come closer to ‘agrees with the Massachusetts Democratic Party Platform’. Isn’t that an outcome you of all people would prefer?
This is why I am befuddled by progressive hostility to the UIP. We offer three things:
1) A higher turnout more diverse general election electorate to defeat bad incumbents in one on one elections
2) A platform that is substantially more progressive than the MA State Democratic Platform it’s leaders routinely ignore
3) An opportunity to appeal to the majority of Massachusetts voters who have written off both Beacon Hill parties and win them over to something uniquely different.
And the irony is, we can’t offer these 3 things on the outside of the Democratic party without pressure from the inside. I probably can’t run 20 candidates against 20 DINOs this cycle, it’s been an uphill battle trying to get the 5 I set as my goal.
So I’ll need the help of serious progressive Democrats doing the same thing, either in D primaries or using our ballot line in the general. What I don’t get is the automatic hostility to a potential ally just because we don’t have ‘Democrat’ in our name or because we have ‘Independent’ in it. Especially considering how many Massachusetts Democrats clearly make a mockery of that name and it’s platform on a daily basis.
It’s not likely that ANY Speaker will be elected who is not him/herself a member of the House. I don’t know without looking it up whether it is constitutionally required that a Speaker be a Representative. Even Denise Provost will still have one eye on her district. It’s the nature of the beast regardless of party breakdown. Nobody is ever completely safe. Those who have assumed so have learned otherwise the hard way.
If they are this hostile now, wait till you have someone to run!
Keep in mind advocacy of a rule change in the Leg, that would have the effect of diluting the power of Mistah Speekah. A little less power to make committee assignments, to pick committee chairs, to assign offices in the basement and parking spots, to control agenda so thoroughly, etc., etc., etc.
It is a shame that this is so very un-sexy a topic, because if it could be accomplished, much of the frustration with our exceedingly shitty legislature and the exceedingly shitty party that controls it, is likely solved.
It was a big early part of Barney Franks autobiography, unfortunately the wrong people were allowed to come back to power and reinstall the old guard and it’s ways. And I am heartened that the folks rooting for my new party to fail are a small albeit vocal minority here. Most progressives I’ve interacted with on our off this site are quite excited at the possibilities we could offer to make these changes.
We are fleshing out a contract kind of pledge for legislative candidates. Pro speaker term limits, No double dipping other elected offices or jobs, a pledge to hold the seat for the term you’re elected to, and many of the more arcane rule changes that have to happen to clean the place out. Also no corporate donations or superPACs. But ‘independent’ and having a millionaire founder makes us regressive.