The pragmatist/purist divide in American progressive politics.

[Here's a piece I wrote in May 2019. My thinking has changed a bit around the edges on this piece but my central theme still remains: if progressive policy is what we want, than the Democratic party needs to remain ideologically pluralistic and communicatively moderate. Counterintuitive on it's face but I believe that the current American political climate is ripe for progressive change as long as they don't think of it in those terms. Progressives will often cite broad support among American voters for progressive ideas but not recognize how low the favorables are on those and similar ideas when they are framed as being 'progressive' or 'socialist.' The counter argument is that progressives don't have much choice, regardless of how they message policy it will be labeled as extreme by right-wing media and politicians. It's a fair point and probably something I'll explore later.]

There’s a tension in my mind over effectiveness and pragmatism in politics today. I’ve long felt that the best way to go about seeing political change is to act in a way that will give your ideas the best chance of becoming reality. This has generally meant that I steer towards palatable paths. Instead of disrupting the system, overturning cars, and making grandma and grandpa uncomfortable, I’ve felt the most effective means of change come from gradual shift towards solving minor injustices and more radical yet respectful moves for major injustices. Obviously not everyone would agree with my definitions of major and minor injustices. Racial segregation and the lack of women's suffrage were both major injustices, health care and worker rights are minor. My distinction comes from where the level of desire for change should come. 

When I speak of pragmatism I’m thinking about results. I’m critical of much of the discourse that has come out of various social justice corners of the internet in previous years, not because I disagree with their goals, I broadly agree. Instead my concern comes from what I view as an overly combative and escalatory language. When activists jump down the throat of any pundit or politician who doesn’t speak the exact same language I find it hard to believe they are going to gain any more followers. I’m not suggesting that activists should be quiet or to acquiesce until a better time. No, I think there’s strength in holding one’s ground and refusing to be silenced or censured. But I do have an issue with any movement that prescribes to an ideological purity that precludes it’s less knowledgeable allies.

The Republican party is a prime example of what happens when ideological purity overtakes pragmatism and process. The party has trended rightward since the failed campaign of Barry Goldwater in 1964. If a member of the Republican party doesn’t show their conservative bona fides they can be sure to either lose their current position to someone more ideologically pure or fail to get a change in the first place. Progressives and progressive movements should not look to the Republican party as an organization so alien as to not accept the lessons that can be learned from it’s ideological capture. I’m increasingly concerned about the calls for a more ideologically left Democratic party. On the one hand, it makes perfect sense for the party to attempt to replicate the successes that the Republican party has had around forming their entire existence around a singular encompassing ideology. But on the other hand, this type of thinking has led to a party that would rather trash our system to protect one of their own than to cross the aisle and work with their political opponents. Few would call Trump a conservative, yet he does enough for their movement for them to protect every democratic backstep he takes. A republican would never dare side with democrats over concerns about their own president because, for a movement captured by ideological purity, they would rather protect their highly flawed and destabilizing own than to work with ‘liberal’ democrats. 

Some of the more leftist young-guns of the democratic party have threatened to primary democrats who they feel are not progressive enough. What end does this serve? Further exacerbate the political tensions in this country? Help fuel the republican narrative that every democrat is a secret red in waiting? Flip close house seats to the other party? I understand that in a democracy the people should be allowed to choose their representatives, but if their choices are made via party activists in the primary process they will be left with a widening gap of ideological extremes. 

Again, to be clear, I myself would certainly side with the more progressive wing of the Democratic party. But I don’t think the rest of the country is in the same place. As pointed out in their 2016 book Asymmetric Politics,  Matt Grossmann and David A. Hopkins: most Americans are ideologically conservative and operationally liberal. That’s to say, Americans tend to be more likely to extoll the virtues of the conservative movement while at the same time supporting liberal laws and policies. This is why I think it is incumbent to move surely but carefully for progressive goals. You don’t have say that you are a socialist in order to secure better benefits for workers and to fight income inequality. Americans are fearful of left-wing labels. They are not fearful of leftist policy. I think democrats need to spend more time focused on issues and avoid falling into labeling or ideological concerns. I do think this is what most democrats are doing already. Even the young-guns who get talked about ad nauseum on Fox News and other conservatives media outlets seem to be focused on issues and policy (even if they are labeled as the ideological opposite and equivalent of Republicans). 

But the tension I’ve been feeling in my belief on pragmatism is when that pragmatism runs into conflict with the system itself. As mentioned earlier Republicans have been captured by ideology and are thus willing to act in any way possible to win, regardless of the consequences. What do progressives do in this case? Do they fight for the institutions at the risk of turning good governance into a partisan tainted issue? Or do they hedge to the right and conceded territory to Republicans in hopes that they won’t do more damage to our system? George W. Bush famously announced that the United States doesn’t negotiate with terrorists. Should Democrats take his advice when it comes to his old party? I don’t know the answer, and that’s troubling to me at a time when there are any number of serious areas that could be addressed by appropriate policy. Instead Democrats are poised to have to continue to battle with a captured party. I fear the Democrats will find themselves captured too in the future as alternatives to combat with Republicans are shelved.