Are You A Real Progressive Or A Fauxgressive?
Like it or not, there’s a great divide in America’s political left, and you’re either on one side or the other. — Caitlin Johnstone Newslogue 12 Jan 2017
A great divide was exposed on America’s political left this past election cycle. We haven’t quite figured out how to talk about it yet, but it’s there. Now that Clinton and Sanders are out of the election picture it won’t make much sense going forward to talk about it in terms of the Hillary camp vs. the Bernie camp, and framing it as progressives vs. liberals doesn’t really work either since people get pedantic about the word “liberal” and a lot of the most adamant Hillary supporters identified strongly as progressives. Lately I’ve taken to labeling the divide as being between actual progressives fighting for an actual progressive agenda, and “fauxgressives” who, for whatever reason, are content to support political power structures that hold a public position of progressivism in order to secure support for their private position of rampant corporatism.
1. Progressivism benefits the people; fauxgressivism benefits the oligarchy.
2. Progressives look at the whole picture; fauxgressives focus on identity politics.
3. Progressives oppose war; fauxgressives only oppose it when a Republican does it.
4. Progressives care about morals; fauxgressives care about political parties.
A progressive doesn’t care what letter you’ve got next to your name; the success or failure of a politician is measured by the extent to which they succeed or fail to forward the progressive agenda. A bunch of my readers jumped down my throat yesterday for being too forgiving of Bernie Sanders’ endorsement of the Russian hacking narrative, and that’s a good thing; even the number one face of the American progressive movement is subject to harsh criticism and ridicule the instant he fails progressivism in any area. That’s as it should be. Leaders should be judged by their actions and supported or condemned based on whether those actions benefit the people or the oligarchy.
Her chosen pictures were good, so I used them as shorthand, but each item is supported by excellent, and colorful, reasoning. So read the entire article. It’s lively, it’s interesting, it’s true, and she nails it.
It is applicable to progressives everywhere — including here.Pastiche, nashvillebrook, HomerRamone and 46 othersPiperay, sabrina, Ohio Barbarian, IdaBriggs, Yanath, tk2kewl, wilsonbooks, Paka, hopemountain, jwirr, ReTooled, B Calm, As Seen on the Internet, Entrepreneur, OzoneTom, PDiddie, NikolaC, Segami, Hari, bvar22, Utopian Leftist, ramparta, Haikugal, OCMI, dlegendary1, FanBoy, Pam, ozoneman, Enthusiast, BillZBubb, djean111, mmonk, nevereVereven, historylovr, disillusioned73, Scuba, bbgrunt, TM99, Doremus Jessup, goodgirl, Tuesday, Passionate Progressive, joentokyo, Sadie, NuttyFluffers, id-entity like thisHow about we petition our elected representatives to draw up and pass a bill overturning the 1996 Telecom Act? https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/statement-on-monopoly-power-of-new-media-conglomerates
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.