On the Need for the Progressive Movement to commit to victory

     This is a post I put up over at my DailyKos diary about a week ago. I thought I'd post it here for comments and criticism:



     This is in response to calls that I see from well-meaning progressives that our principles should be sacrificed in the name of the immediate 'winning' of an election. To be specific, I'm talking about the progressives who have already dismissed Dennis Kucinich as being 'unelectable' and in preference prefer one of the other Democratic candidates who, while they surely are more easily elected than Dennis Kucinich, do not represent a major shift in policy from the current Republican administration.

     What I might ask is, at what point do we start putting in the effort to make the 'unelectable' electable? The progressive movement, like any other movement, is supposed to deal with challenges and often even defeat. But I believe it's important that our goal is always clear and we strive towards it. Each time we neglect a progressive candidate and start campaigning and supporting one which does not adequately represent our values, we distort our message to those we are trying to convince. Political campaigning is not simply about getting more votes for an upcoming election, political campaigning is an education process by which the political consciousness of the average American should be transformed. When people go out and campaign for a Barack Obama or a Hillary Clinton, the people that we are trying to get interested in politics get the wrong message. They see otherwise intelligent progressives enthusiastically supporting minor refinements to the status quo. This not only leads to a lack of interest in politics, because of course if the candidates from both parties have very similar views and in the end will do more or less the same thing then it's pointless to care which one wins, it also makes it unclear which principles one should defend. Instead of trying to convince Americans that peace and diplomacy are important, people who hear the campaigning of the conservative Democrat supporters get the message that war, as long as it's waged effectively against the inherently evil terrorists, is perfectly fine. And then what happens once the conservative Democrat comes to office and disappoints the American people? Those who are jaded by this event may turn to the GOP having associated the problems with the Democratic administration with progressive values themself, which they were told that their candidates embodied.

     Imagine how much more effective a progressive movement would be that, instead of sacrificing its message to support the lesser evil of the two corporate-approved candidates, spent its time and efforts convincing Americans of the need for progressive change, to distrust what they hear on the corporate-owned media, and to commit to their principles and the struggle for real change. It may not be able to win the next election, but a movement that stuck to its principles would gather momentum and eventually would achieve success. In addition, members who see the movement as being dynamic, principled, and committed to actually changing the country are much more likely to be enthusiastic about it and help propagate it. A movement which has no apparent principles and is not commited to significant change is not going to excite any interest.

     The conservatives in power must feel very lucky. After 8 years of some of the worst administration that they could dish out, the progressive movement appears to already be giving up on the historic opportunity that this gives it. In a political environment where an end to the Iraq war is a highly politically favored position, many on the left refuse to support a pro-peace candidate and prefer to support one which wants to end the war as soon as 'possible' (where the 'possibility' of ending the war depends on when the imperialist objectives that originally started it will be accomplished). I think it's time that the progressive movement lives up to its name, both in the sense that it should be progressive, but also in the sense that it should 'move' and work towards long-term progress.