Progressives Against Progressivism
Progressives Against Progressivism
Justin Peck: Progressives Against Progressivism
Beginning with his December speech in Osawatomie, Kansas, Barack Obama has adopted the language of the progressive movement and tried to present himself as a reincarnated Teddy Roosevelt. In Osawatomie?the location of Roosevelt?s ?New Nationalism? address?Obama explicitly likened contemporary political conditions to those faced by Roosevelt and portrayed his policy goals as particularly Rooseveltian. While less explicit in his State of the Union address, Obama continued to push progressive themes of economic fairness and corporate regulation. This rhetoric is compelling?especially when compared to the free market fundamentalism of his rivals. Yet, if this is progressivism for the twenty-first century, it is a shallow and attenuated version of its former self: it completely elides the democratization agenda that animated early twentieth century reformers. It ignores the link between political and economic inequality and, in so doing, legitimizes the institutional arrangements that have given rise to the problems that Obama and the Democrats ostensibly aim to solve. Contemporary progressivism, in other words, offers no viable political or economic alternative to the status quo and thus no realistic chance of counteracting our various social, economic, and political problems. Perhaps worse, however, is the fact that Obama?s record directly undermines his stated commitment to the progressive vision.
In his analysis of economic and political change during the progressive era, historian Martin Sklar identifies the philosophy that motivated progressive reformers: a belief in the ?growing role for positive government in both regulative and distributive functions.? More specifically, these interventions would ?guard against, remedy, or effectively nullify special privilege or monopoly power? and would be administered by ?a pluralistic web of class and political relations.? On this view, state intervention alone does not ensure an equitable economic system because such interventions can be perverted to benefit powerful interests at public expense. Instead, interventions become the vehicle through which equity is pursued because they are guided by and thus reflect the concerns of a broad cross-section of the public. State intervention must be linked to the active participation of an informed public.
To identify the centrality of the democratization agenda, we need only turn to the ?New Nationalism? speech that President Obama attempted to co-opt. In this speech, Roosevelt argued that ?the citizens of the United States must effectively control the mighty commercial forces which they have called into being? by ?mak[ing] our political representatives more quickly and sensitively responsive to the people whose servants they are.? To bring this about, he called for a complete prohibition on corporate campaign contributions, a direct primary system, and so ?thorough and effective? a revision of the financial system ?as to make it certain that hereafter our currency will no longer fail at critical times to meet our needs.? This was a radical reconceptualization of both the means and ends of national government.
Roosevelt?s ?New Nationalism? address is particularly instructive because it illustrates the principle that contemporary progressives have abandoned: namely, that economic inequality can only be durably reversed through the reaffirmation of political equality. While it is true that contemporary progressives recognize the problems associated with increasing wealth inequality, the policy ends they advocate suggest that we look to unelected technocrats and regulators for salvation. They do not provide a democratization agenda, nor do they offer strategies for ensuring those in the middle or at the lower end of the economic spectrum new opportunities to influence or direct policy. As a consequence, the rich will continue to wield disproportionate influence in Washington and government will continue to disproportionately serve their interests.
President Obama has amassed a record that suggest he is hostile to the democratization ideal. For example, the Electronic Frontier Foundation recently declared 2011 ?The Year Secrecy Jumped the Shark,? providing a catalogue of the various ways in which Obama has relied on and bolstered a secrecy regime that makes collective self-government impossible. Adam Liptak provides further evidence for this in a February 11 New York Times article documenting the administration?s war on whistleblowers. By targeting those who report elite wrongdoing, the Obama administration directly violates the progressive commitment to publicity. Indeed, in his Osawatomie speech, Teddy Roosevelt called for the ?complete and effective publicity of corporate affairs.? There is little reason to believe that Obama shares this view.
Further, despite using his 2010 State of the Union address to condemn the Supreme Court?s Citizens United decision for allowing American elections to be ?bankrolled by America?s most powerful interests,? we learned on February 7 that President Obama will solicit and accept contributions from a Super PAC, the election-financing vehicle birthed by Citizens United. This ensures that concentrated economic interests will continue to receive ?special privileges? in the policymaking process. A look at the largest donors to the Bush 2004, Obama 2008, and Romney 2012 campaigns, compiled by opensecrets.org, illustrates significant overlap among those who receive such privileges. To believe that policy outcomes will depart from the interests of these donors?even when a majority of the public opposes such outcomes?requires a heroic willing suspension of disbelief.
To look at President Obama and see the likeness of Teddy Roosevelt we truly must squint to the point of blindness. But Obama has correctly pointed out that, as in the early years of the twentieth century, we are moving through a period of wrenching economic change that has undermined the economic security of many Americans. Unfortunately, the progressivism he espouses does not provide a credible set of solutions to address the interrelated problems of wealth and political inequality spawned by these changes. In the words of Sheldon Wolin, contemporary progressives seek voters, not citizens. The burgeoning Occupy movement?one response to widespread public dissatisfaction with both wealth inequality and our ?undemocratic? politics?suggests that the public wants political reforms commensurate with the aspirations of Roosevelt?s ?New Nationalism.? Achieving these meaningfully ?progressive? policy ends, however, requires that we overcome the efforts of those who seek to appropriate the progressive label even as they subvert its agenda.
