« The Truth About Thanksgiving
GA Supreme Court Rules Part of Sex Offender Law is Unconstitutionally Cruel and Unusual »
Progressive Republicans: Why Bother?
Occasional TMV contributor Dennis Sanders recently interviewed Travis Johnson, the founder of a new group attempting to recyle the concept of “Progressive Republicans.” I appreciated much of what Johnson told Sanders — for instance, on why his group co-opted the term “progressive” …
Progressive traditionally refers to Republicans. Heck, Teddy Roosevelt ran for another term in the White House as a Progressive. The American Left only took to the term when President Nixon made “liberal” too loaded a term for them to use.
A ‘Progressive’ according to the dictionary is someone interested in making the world a better place. A Progressive, in my opinion, is someone interested in making a brighter future for our children. I refuse to believe the Democrats have exclusive rights to the future.
I also appreciated Johnson’s enthusiasm and confidence. Later in the interview, he summarizes his group’s plans this way:
The first step is to get the members of the Party who have hidden their Progressive views to publicly announce who they are, begin to self-identify as a Progressive Republican. Then we have to bring the Progressives who left the Party to join the Democrats back home. We can’t do this without them. Then we have to get into the local, state and national party apparatus and make our voices heard as loudly as we can.
We’re going to save the Party and, by extension, the country. I think that’s worth a little noise.
Of course, while Johnson is trying to identify and recruit progressive minds for the GOP, the Democrats — notably via the efforts of the Blue Dog Caucus, Rahm Emanuel, and Howard Dean — have had a several-year head start on recruiting (and getting elected) a cadre of fiscally and/or socially conservative candidates. (Recall the fourth point in my prior post on the variables working against a GOP revivial.)
Progressive Republicans. Conservative Democrats. Seriously: What’s the difference? And if we can’t tell the difference, then I have to repeat my recent broken-recordness and ask again: Why bother with political parties at all — especially when the check-and-balance of “a single-party system with competing factions,” which we’ve seen already on the state level, is starting to manifest on the federal level?
2 Responses to “Progressive Republicans: Why Bother?”
I appreciate his wanting to include more minorities in the GOP. I have to say, however, that I found his thinking really problematic for 3 reasons.
First, it's simply not true that “progressive traditionally refers to Republicans.” While Teddy R did run as a progressive, the movement predominantly felt more comfortable within the Democratic party. Woodrow Wilson was the first president that implemented a slew of progressive policies. These included the income tax, the federal reserve, and a foreign policy designed to make the world “safe” for democracy. The progressive movement simply ignored the Consitution and sought to expand the power of the presidency. Gene Healy's The Cult of the Presidency has a good discussion about how progressives sought to increase the President's power. Paul Johnson's A History of the American People also has a broader discussion about the progressive movement's impact on turn on the 20th century politics.
Second, while he didn't use the word to describe himself, we've had a progressive Republican in the White House for 8 years. The Iraq War, the Medicare prescription plan, and No Child Left Behind were all implemented to make the world a better place. That's been the problem all along! There was a time when Republicans at least pretended to understand that government's actions needed to be limited lest it created incalculable harm. The party simply does not understand that anymore. That's why it's no better than the Democrats in that sense.
Third, his emphasis seems to be more on rebuilding an effective party rather than adopting effective policies. Why should I care if I put on a red shirt instead of a blue shirt if I don't do anything differently? That distinction seems to be lost on many Republicans, particularly its leadership.
Contrary to what many say, we don't need a third party, we need a second party. If this interview is any indication, it's going to be a long time before that happens.
Today's GOP is hell-and-gone from TR! TR was an environmentalist, very anti-monopoly, was not a fan of concentrated wealth, and mistrusted too much government power. He was clearly a blue-blood, so he was socially & economically “one of them”, but it was an uneasy fit at best. Today, he'd barely recognize the party he barely recognized when he was part of it.
The only way the GOP could possibly become progressive is if they simply find new buzzwords and a new marketing strategy for the same old crap they've been pushing for years: increased wealth for them at the expense of the nation.