THE PROGRESSIVE ELITIST

Because for so long we have concentrated our ire and our air on Bush/Cheney, it's been easy enough for Kos, Chris Bowers, and Whoever Kidnapped Josh Marshall to fool those of us who are more inclined to populism and traditional liberalism that they were of the same mind and heart. This primary season has certainly disabused us of that notion.

But I have to say that Chris Bowers has amazed me more than any of the Blogger Boyz with his faulty and sometimes downright flaky analysis. His lengthy post today on Obama and the "current" incarnation of the progressive movement is so target-rich I don't know where to start. Take just the following passage for example (emphasis mine):

Another objection that will be raised to this formulation is that I am characterizing both Obama and the netroots as elitists, which is exactly what Republicans will do. My first response is that well, we kind of are elites, when you look at our demographics. My second response is that 2008 is the first election year where the conservative backlash narrative against "liberal elites" and civil rights will find itself in a minority nationwide. In other words, the era of "liberal elites" as a negative is over in terms of its national political effectiveness. Consider, for example, how Obama has been hit harder with this characterization than even John Kerry or Michael Dukakis, and yet he continues to comfortably lead John McCain and cruise toward the nomination. The changing demographics of the electorate have rendered the "liberal elite" change functionally inert.

Is he serious? Obama has been hit harder with the "elite" meme than Dukakis or Kerry? They were dogged with the tag from day one and it never let up. Obama didn't receive such scrutiny from his adoring media fans until late in the primaries, with his infamous San Francisco comments just before the PA primary, and it didn't even begin to resonate until AFTER Pennsylvania. In addition, the MSM long ago decided that no person of color could possibly be deemed an elite, owing to their membership in an "oppressed minority," so Obama hasn't suffered nearly the mockery that Dukakis and Kerry experienced. In fact, the media didn't even inject an iota of mockery in their reports -- the remarks, it was made obvious, didn't bother THEM, rather they questioned whether the comments might hurt him among the peasantry.

And where on earth does he get his information that the "liberal elites" attack is no longer effective for Republicans? They haven't even STARTED on Obama, and it's a sure thing that they'll use it, and use it and use it, particularly since BO is having such a tough time selling himself to lower-income, less educated, and older non-AAs. They know it's a Barry vulnerability, and they'll use it to contrast him with good old salt-of-the-earth ex-POW John McCain, who knows how to barbecue and graduated near the bottom of his class. And dang, if I were a Republican I'd be quoting Bowers and every other Blogger Boy who proudly declares "we are the elites."

Here's a revealing excerpt that doesn't surprise me. The "new progressives" (so many of which are ex-Republicans) are ready to dispense with the Democratic Party and take the reins of power:

Further support for this thesis can be seen in the demographic breakdown of Obama's support, which is heavy both on non-partisan self-identifiers, on high-income voters, and on highly educated voters. This elite, anti-partisan message appeals to the growing progressive movement, which is largely de-moored from identification with dominant institutions like the Democratic Party, rather than changes the movement. It is a sort of creative class identity politics, which Obama appeals to both through his life story and his anti-partisan, pro-unity message.

I find it hysterically funny that Chris could talk so confidently about Obama's "elitist" message and then call it "pro-unity." What's the opposite of elite? Common? Does he really think progressives can triumph if they frame the argument as between elites and the common people? How do you unify the peasants with their "betters"?

Scary stuff, guys. More reason to support Hillary and avoid the trainwreck ahead.

HOW DID I GET LEFT BEHIND BY THE PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT?

Well, I'm flummoxed. I guess I'm not a progressive, after all (though I've lived and voted my entire adult life thinking that I was liberal aka progressive). Here's news from the Take Back America conference. "A whopping 72% were for Obama, compared to 16% for Clinton, with just 12% saying they’d be happy with either."

Add this to MoveOn's endorsement of Obama, it seems that while he's split the union vote with Clinton, he's winning the progressive vote. Though living up to their expectations might be easier said than done, they are realistic about what the president might be able to do right off the bat: asked what he expected the next president to do when he/she takes office Hickey said the first priority should be a plan to end the war in Iraq "or face a revolt from the left." But second, he said, would probably have be an economic stimulus package and he said that universal healthcare would likely have to be a longer term goal.

See, from what I can tell, Hillary Clinton has already formulated a responsible plan to extract us from the war in Iraq, while Barack Obama has floated a "hard date" for withdrawal that one of his top foreign policy advisers calls a "best case scenario" that he won't necessarily follow once he's POTUS. Hillary's plan is so sensible that she's received the endorsement of anti-war Congressman John Murtha (and isn't it interesting that this is despite the fact that his good pal, Nancy Pelosi, has been sending unmistakable signs that she supports Barack?).

Fool that I am, I thought universal health care was a top priority for progressives. After all, aren't liberals supposed to be the ones who care most about the interests/concerns of the working man? An economic stimulus package is an important issue, agreed, and Hillary has proposed an impressive program to create jobs and at the same time reduce America's dependence on foreign energy sources and address the global warming crisis. Obama, also, has addressed the economy and its impact on American families. But his health care proposal is hardly "universal," and he has repeatedly voiced the Republican talking point about "fixing" Social Security. As Paul Krugman said, "Progressives who fought hard and successfully against the Bush administration’s attempt to panic America into privatizing the New Deal’s crown jewel are outraged, and rightly so." I guess a lot of progressives weren't so outraged after all.

I think the "progressives" have left me behind. I'm no young, elite movement maker-and-shaker. No, I'm just a 50-something lifetime Democrat and liberal, who has been as anti-war as anyone (hey, I made my bones in the anti-Vietnam War days and spoke out against the Iraq invasion from the very beginning and never waivered). I'm also one of those despised Baby Boomers who still believes that real solutions take hard work and the courage to fight for the rights of Everyman. I still cry, "Union! Union!" and believe that ordinary Americans deserve a president who listens and responds to the needs of the working poor and middle class. And I want to see proof that that's been their agenda and life's work before I fall in line.