The basic theme of the article is that the trend of Leftists in recent years to identify as "progressive" rather than as "liberal" is a bad and unfortunate trend, since it leads to a more dogmatic political stance that makes people less interested in Compromise. He argues that since progressives view progress as an unmitigated and unlimited good, it means they'll stop at nothing to achieve said progress and will pay whatever price they need to get it, regardless of who is hurt in paying the cost.
He tries, limply, to cite historical examples like Woodrow Wilson as the "bad" example of what progressivism looks like and compares him to the "good" liberal that is FDR. This is weird because if you wanted to cite a historical figure of what devil-may-care, turn the system upside down kind of attitude, FDR's cousin Theodore is a much better pick than Wilson. Seriously, there's hardly any other President who went to work dismantling the monopolies of big business than Theodore Roosevelt, so for Weiner to pick the rather staid in comparison Wilson is just, odd. There's also the small problem that FDR's contemporaries didn't view the New Deal as some sort of safe, middle-of-the-road political exercise; rather, they viewed it as yet another Roosevelt taking dangerous government action to upend the natural order of things (he wasn't called a traitor to his class for nothing). But what I think is the more relevant issue here is that Weiner is able to come to these conclusions- like everyone else who writes "the left shouldn't be too leftist, because Compromise" pieces- because he insists on making his analysis in a vacuum of context.
For example, he writes that "[n]othing structurally impedes compromise between conservatives, who hold that the accumulated wisdom of tradition is a better guide than the hypercharged rationality of the present, and liberals, because both philosophies exist on a spectrum." Once you get past Weiner's exquisite ability to state the obvious, you may began to realize that he apparently hasn't gotten out much in the last say, thirty years or so. Because you know what does seem like a structural impediment to conservatives and liberals compromising with each other? Mitch McConnell refusing to even hold a hearing on a Supreme Court nominee in the last year of Obama's presidency. Or a then-minority leader McConnell saying that his most important goal was to make Obama a one-term president and then proceeded to obstruct every initiative the president put forth.
On top of all that, you know what really helps in the whole building compromise industry? A shared understanding of reality and facts. So when you have an entire media landscape that study after study has found left its consumers less informed of the world around them, or as a significant determinator in whether or not a person will believe climate change and evolution are real or fake. It's sort of difficult to build consensus on the best way to deal with a problem when the other half of the political spectrum believes that the problem you're trying to solve is either a Chinese hoax or a secret plot of the New World Order to take away their freedom. Apparently for Weiner these rather obvious structural impediments aren't important because as long as you insist on looking at Left and Right as points on a spectrum and not how they actually exist in the real world, it's much easier to make the point that identifying as progressive is the most pertinent threat to the country's political order.
Just as a quick diversion, I want to touch on 4Weiner's romantic definition of conservatism. Saying that they believe the accumulated wisdom of tradition is better than any current philosophy makes them seem like they're kicking their legs up in a hay barn singing the word "Tradition!" over and over again; but that's heavily misleading. The thing that conservatives are conserving is traditional economic, social, and political hierarchies. So that's why in the late-18th century and up to the revolutions of 1848 when citizens began demanding things like constitutions and guaranteed rights from the monarchies they lived under, conservatives responded by crushing them with all the force they could muster to protect the royal crowns. The whole idea of conservatism is that the people who already have power should keep that power and that any enfranchisement of marginalized peoples should come in piecemeal, insignificant ways if it ever comes at all. To pretend like conservatism is some benign, "we just want to use traditional methods to solve new problems" ideology is grossly misleading and just flat out lazy.
Anyway, the other big problem that Weiner has in this column is that he never really engages in what the progressive movement he's taking so much time to demonize actually wants to do. He drones on and on about how the unimpeded search for progress is dangerous because it makes people who oppose it enemies of the common good who need to be destroyed rather than listened to or reasoned with. There's also the obligatory reference to progressives driving conservatives away by calling them prejudiced and forcing PC culture onto them via self-righteous condescension. And sure, people can go too far with that sometimes, but the only thing I'll say in response to that is that if conservatives didn't want to be seen as bigots, they shouldn't be so happy to embrace people who say white people where the only race to ever contribute to civilization or stay silent about a president who defends the "good people" that make up the KKK and Neo-Nazi's
Weiner says that the best thing about liberalism is that at its core it is just the belief in the "capacity of government to do good, especially in ameliorating economic ills" rather than progressivism which he says suffers from the tunnel vision of "[identifying] a destination, grip the wheel and depress the accelerator." Notably, Weiner declines to actually use any examples of what current progressive policy options are, so let's just do that work for him. The main policy goals you could point to for the current progressive movement is a single payer healthcare system (Medicare-for-all) the elimination of student debt and creation of tuition-free colleges, higher minimum wages, and a general restructuring of the tax code that doesn't funnel 90% of income and wealth to the top .01% of the country. I think enacting policies that eliminate the number one cause of bankruptcy, paying workers a wage they can actually live off of, and getting rid of the debt that is holding the economy back are all pretty solid examples of the government doing good to ameliorate the economic ills that plague its citizenry.
Weiner also makes the point that progressives drive for progress also makes them favor a strong executive that destroys the balance of powers in the Constitution. That all the goals listed above can only happen via Congress passing the laws to make them happen and that progressives explicitly call for them to do so is just another thing he has to conveniently pretend doesn't exist for his analysis to have any weight. There's also the small wrinkle that the primary reason progressives reflexively dismiss conservative positions about well, pretty much everything is that Republicans have implemented their agenda pretty successfully at the federal and state level and left a long legacy of failure in its wake. It seems like a relevant thing to bring up when you want to portray progressives as dangerously averse to compromise, but, relevant examples just don't quite seem to be Weiner's strong suit.
At heart, the real issue I have with Weiner's argument and all the others of its kind is that it boils down to advocating that when we look out at the problems that plague our society, we should prioritize the solutions that don't upset too many people rather the ones that would actually solve our problems. This, in a word, is bullshit. To borrow the New Deal example again, if FDR had followed Weiner's advice that he shouldn't do something which the conservatives did because it would make them and their precious traditions feel attacked, he would've done absolutely nothing and the Great Depression would've been even worse. When the society you live in has the kind of deep, structural problems that ours does, you need a solution just has big to fix it. At this point, looking at all the failure that being the centrist, modest party has gotten them, why would anyone seriously want to argue that the Democrats should fight to keep that strategy? More importantly, why would anyone be dumb enough to listen and think it's a good idea?
Weiner says that the best thing about liberalism is that at its core it is just the belief in the "capacity of government to do good, especially in ameliorating economic ills" rather than progressivism which he says suffers from the tunnel vision of "[identifying] a destination, grip the wheel and depress the accelerator." Notably, Weiner declines to actually use any examples of what current progressive policy options are, so let's just do that work for him. The main policy goals you could point to for the current progressive movement is a single payer healthcare system (Medicare-for-all) the elimination of student debt and creation of tuition-free colleges, higher minimum wages, and a general restructuring of the tax code that doesn't funnel 90% of income and wealth to the top .01% of the country. I think enacting policies that eliminate the number one cause of bankruptcy, paying workers a wage they can actually live off of, and getting rid of the debt that is holding the economy back are all pretty solid examples of the government doing good to ameliorate the economic ills that plague its citizenry.
Weiner also makes the point that progressives drive for progress also makes them favor a strong executive that destroys the balance of powers in the Constitution. That all the goals listed above can only happen via Congress passing the laws to make them happen and that progressives explicitly call for them to do so is just another thing he has to conveniently pretend doesn't exist for his analysis to have any weight. There's also the small wrinkle that the primary reason progressives reflexively dismiss conservative positions about well, pretty much everything is that Republicans have implemented their agenda pretty successfully at the federal and state level and left a long legacy of failure in its wake. It seems like a relevant thing to bring up when you want to portray progressives as dangerously averse to compromise, but, relevant examples just don't quite seem to be Weiner's strong suit.
At heart, the real issue I have with Weiner's argument and all the others of its kind is that it boils down to advocating that when we look out at the problems that plague our society, we should prioritize the solutions that don't upset too many people rather the ones that would actually solve our problems. This, in a word, is bullshit. To borrow the New Deal example again, if FDR had followed Weiner's advice that he shouldn't do something which the conservatives did because it would make them and their precious traditions feel attacked, he would've done absolutely nothing and the Great Depression would've been even worse. When the society you live in has the kind of deep, structural problems that ours does, you need a solution just has big to fix it. At this point, looking at all the failure that being the centrist, modest party has gotten them, why would anyone seriously want to argue that the Democrats should fight to keep that strategy? More importantly, why would anyone be dumb enough to listen and think it's a good idea?
