The so-called American 'Progressive' Community

Since I started this blog in February of this year, I have often wondered aloud why so many on the American left who call themselves 'progressives' now and who, in the future under the guidance of Markos of Daily Kos, will change that self-identifying label to 'Libertarian Democrat' once his next book comes out (if they haven't done so already), have failed to put forth a manifesto of what they actually stand for politically.

I used to blog over there and I found it confusing, especially since I first assumed (wrongly) that the site was for liberals. I was quickly informed that it was a place for supporters of the Democratic Party. Period. (Unless one of those Dems like Joe Lieberman has drunk too much right-wing kool-aid). I next realized that kos's philosophy was simple: ensure Democrats win. Beyond that (and the hate for Lieberman and Hillary), I was unable to ever discern what the site's policy agenda contained.

Now, it's oft been repeated that the site now has almost 100,000 particpants (which is untrue since once you register and receive your used ID number, you can never give it back - it's yours for life even after you no longer participate there - rather Hotel California-like), you're bound to find discrepancies in agenda items and beliefs. Fair enough, but one would think the 'progressives' would be able to state what they were actually trying to progress in the political sphere beyond winning. I have yet to see that happen and the 'big tent' mantra does nothing but a disservice to such a movement that ought to be able to express its goals in order to attract more supporters. Winning and raising money are the aims of every political party.

John Heilemann of New York Magazine makes the same point:

Their populist impulses are real enough, but they are wedded to no overarching set of policies, let alone an encompassing philosophy. They no more have a fully elaborated or articulated vision of what a 21st-century Democratic Party should stand for than do the hated members of the Washington hierarchy.

I think this post , 'Whatever happened to the conservatives?', at the Republican Dictionary adds to the conversation:

Politically speaking, the great majority of people in the United States can be broken down into four groups: Democrats, liberals, Republicans, and conservatives. Liberals and conservatives are people who hold a general philosophy about what our society should be and the role of our government. Democrats and Republicans are partisans, who consider party loyalty more important than their own views (that is, if they are cognitive enough to have their own views).

That's the divide and that is the problem. So, when you inject lefty 'progressives' into the mix, where exactly do they fit? Some are liberal. Some are conservative. Some are a bit of both and others are in some no man's land of political philosophy.

Is it wrong then to even expect a statement of principles or a position paper on the issues? Is winning for the sake of power enough? Or is a guide necessary to encourage more to join the netroots campaigns? If so, who defines it? And when?

Debate and discussion of these things is invaluable but I believe that having a clear agenda, which the progressives accuse their Democrats of not producing, would go far to boost the movement. Until one is actually identified, the right can just keep shooting progressive fish in a barrel just as they've done with Democratic representatives.