Thankfully, getting to my next session of the day proved to be no trouble whatsoever, as this one was located right next door to the previous one!
“Progressives” featured four (you guessed it!) progressive panelists from different fields discussing their ideas for how the progressive movement in America can more effectively mobilize and help give this country the government it needs and deserves. I personally consider myself fairly liberal, even pretty progressive on some matters, so this session was less about learning “how to be” and more about discovering “how to do.”
Chip Berlet opened the panel and made sure everyone was in the correct room by offering his definition of progressive: “fundamental, radical change to the system through lawful and appropriate means.” He suggested that one way this change could be achieved is through clarification of the term “dissident,” which automatically has a negative connotation in many people’s minds. When you get right down to it, a dissident basically refers to a person who doesn’t agree with or conform to prevailing values -- which is essentially anyone who’s ever had an opinion contrary to the government, which I’m guessing is a lot of us!
That doesn’t automatically make people outlaws, yet current rhetoric seems to suggest that any kind of dissidence is harmful and/or dangerous. I agree with Berlet’s assertion that dissidents who are non-violent and non-criminal need to make their presence known to start informing those false assumptions. “We need to push Obama, but don’t target him as an enemy,” Berlet said, before reminding us that social movements, not individuals, are what make political parties pay attention and act accordingly.
John Hockenberry turned his attention to the media and networking aspects of the progressive movement. While he commended such media personalities as Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann for directing attention to progressive causes, he actually finds their range too narrow to be as effective as they could be. (I think this probably has more to do with network bureaucracy than them as politically active and influential individuals, but I digress…) He also believes that the progressive movement needs to seek more solidarity and less segmenting, as relying on demographics inadvertently undermines the cause. The movement can’t be defined by people’s friends, connections, or political legacies, but instead by challenging the flawed institutions themselves as a united front.
Lorelei Kelly, a national security expert, disagreed with Hockenberry. By acknowledging the value of relationships and infrastructure, she finds that working within the system is the best way to get around it, as it has allowed her to witness firsthand what helps and what hinders the progressive movement. She observed that conservatives tend to be better-funded and equipped because they focus on the practical resources rather than the ideal, a common mistake among progressives who stand up for what we “should” have. According to Kelly, closing that gap between practical and ideal should be a shared priority in the movement. She closed by invoking the “myth of omniscience” under which people tend to operate, which states that the availability of information about something makes it true and applicable, and thus justifiable, for any purpose that’s intended. Just because something is transparent doesn’t mean it’s accountable, and the goal becomes finding ways to make both true for all who are involved and concerned.
Jim Hightower picked up where Berlet left off, plainly stating that making the government the enemy shuts us out too since we’re supposed to be part of the process. He believes that the true nature of the political spectrum is not left and right, but rather top and bottom, and everyone still plays an equal role from wherever they are in life. “Remember: this country started in taverns,” Hightower said, pointing out that the importance of sharing our lives and ideas is something that everyone has in common, regardless of party affiliation. He further advised that we need to live the dream, because thanks to leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr., the movement has already been created. It’s up to us to better connect and relate to it!
The Q&A portion of this particular session got a little heated at times, because it seemed that people were deliberately trying to provoke or contradict the panel. Which is fine, freedom of speech and all… but it took away from what the speakers were really trying to say! In the end, though, each speaker got across at least one more point of illumination.
Just like his earlier clarification of dissidents, Berlet came to the defense of socialist principles, which have gotten a bad reputation because of exploitation by totalitarian regimes. Critics of socialism have misappropriated its meaning, which he feels is unfair to the system's beliefs and at odds with history in countries that have reaped its benefits.
Kelly credits the “global communication revolution” for many successes during the Obama campaign, but wishes his “world-class participatory campaign” would be more reflected as a “world-class participatory government.” She advocates a new public engagement strategy with better state venues for open forums with constituents, especially in Colorado, which has become an “attractive” state for progressives.
Hightower first mentioned, and the panel later echoed, that a corporation is not a person, and it should not be granted the same rights as individual people. At the same time, he firmly believes that wealth or lack thereof shouldn’t buy or determine the amount of government influence held by any one person or group.
Hockenberry favors a shorter electoral process, which would make the system less exclusive to candidates as well as voters and would also restrict wasteful advertisement badgering. On the subject of voters, he reminded us that everyone has an element of personal responsibility in the political process. We assert ourselves “up the chain” not only with our votes, but also with our spending habits and participation in community events and activities. All of these things send a message; we have to make sure it’s the right one for what we want to accomplish!
The panel ended with a question about the role of religion in the progressive movement, which the panel agreed are not mutually exclusive concepts. Religion has held a powerful cultural and historical influence over progressives and kept them in touch with their roots and the core beliefs of what’s being pursued. As it turns out, a new faction of evangelicals have begun to embrace environmentalism, a cause dismissed in some circles as “hippies hugging trees,” even though we all need the planet to be sustainable in spite of our spiritual differences. If you ask me, one’s faith should never stand in the way of honest discourse if significant common interests are at stake.
All of these panelists have good intentions and great ideas. I say let’s make these things happen! Where do I sign up? =)
No comments:
Post a Comment