Maybe I wrote this because I just finished reading A History of Warfare (h/t Bird), or maybe because I just like making diagrams.

The pincer movement or double envelopment is a basic element of military strategy which has been used, to some extent, in nearly every war. The flanks of the opponent are attacked simultaneously in a pinching motion after the opponent has advanced towards the center of an army which is responding by moving its outside forces to the enemy’s flanks, in order to surround it.

The Key Word is Simultaneously

Over the past years, I’ve heard the argument that Democratic electoral victory must happen first, and only after that can Progressives really push for better policy. Everything that has taken place since the 2006 elections proves that this strategy is wrong.

Largely as a result of Progressive activism, the Democratic Party won a majority in both houses of Congress, but the net result of their legislative action so far has been to maintain a Conservative, even ultraconservative authoritarian, imperialistic status quo. Congressional power may have changed hands, but the Beltway Conventional Wisdom that seems to dictate policy did not change.

Going back to the diagram, only the electoral arm of the Progressive pincer was deployed successfully in 2006 and this allowed “the enemy” to slip away on the other flank, as it were. In order to achieve the enactment of good policy - which I think is every Progressive’s ultimate goal - a change in political power and a change in the policy debate must take place at the same time.

If the Corporate Media suddenly starts talking about the crucial importance of defending our right to privacy and getting out of Iraq ASAP, it won’t make any difference as long as Republicans hold the White House. Similarly, as we have seen recently, having Democrats in charge of Congress doesn’t get us very far if the media consensus stays locked in Conservative territory.

If Progressives can elect more, and more progressive, candidates to public office while simultaneously moving the Overton Window of policy debate to the left (and down) I think good things are bound to happen.

Purity Trolls and Baby Sausage Trolls

In the progressive blogosphere, a lot of arguing takes place about whether electoral or policy issues should have priority. I think that both can, and actually need to be priorities at the same time.

A quick review for those unfamiliar with the terms:

Those with an electoral focus name-call those with more of a policy focus “Purity Trolls”, because the latter criticise Democratic candidates for not being “pure enough” on their policy issues.

Electorally-focused progressives argue that Democratic politicians should be excused for not espousing or taking action on more progressive policy issues because the priority is to get more Democrats elected and kick Republicans out of office. The implication is that criticism of Democratic politicians or of the Democratic party will hurt their chances of electoral success.

On the other hand, “Baby Sausage Trolls” is a Corrente-devised nickname for policy-focused progressives to name-call electorally-focused progressives. The name comes from two often-heard mantras:

“baby steps, people, baby steps!”, used to argue against complaints about the lack of progress made by Democratic politicians, and

“legislation is like making sausage”, used to justify
ugly compromises made by Democratic politicians and also to make the point that the legislative process is too complicated for mere amateurs to understand (see the process dodge).

Bottom-up communication flow and freedom of expression are key.

While it can be a lot of fun to argue and call people names, this often has the effect of “shouting down” and shutting out opposing viewpoints.

One of the big problems with a purely electoral focus is that it tends to exclude any opinions (and even people) that are seen as inconvenient, embarrassing and ultimately detrimental to electoral success. We need more people to be involved, not less.

This makes for a top-down communication flow that can actually be manipulated by the politicians themselves. Democratic politicians and party officials can squelch calls for positive change from progressives simply by raising the specter of Republican electoral victory. Which they say will be the inevitable consequence of loud criticism from the progressive base.

The great thing about the progressive blogosphere and web-enabled grassroots organizing is not the technology, but rather the opportunity for free, open and honest expression in a medium that is not restricted by institutional filters. We have seen the results of institutional filters in the Corporate Media.

Bottom-up, open and free expression also goes back to the idea of Democracy: a trust that the People will eventually get it right and that entrenched ruling Elites, no matter how much smarter they say they are, usually screw things up.

This is how the Right Wing does it

I listened to Rush “Druggie” Limbaugh and Sean “Slanthead” Hannity throughout the immigration debate earlier this year, and guess what? They were actually attacking GOP politicians and even Bush for supporting “amnesty”. Both shows featured ads by the Heritage Foundation urging listeners to call their congresspeople and complain about the “amnesty” bill.

This is because Right-Wing radio, blogs and think tanks are part of the policy/ideological arm of the Conservative movement. The GOP is merely the electoral arm.

And while both often work together, they are sometimes at odds, if only in appearance. This appearance of independence is very important to maintaining support from their base.

While GOP politicians had to advocate for “immigration reform” to please their corporate donors, Right-Wing radio and think tanks had to advocate against it to maintain their credibility with their listeners.

And in the end, when election time comes around, Limpballs will, of course, urge his listeners to vote Republican every time. The Right-Wing policy infrastructure sees supporting the GOP as the most convenient way to get the policy outcomes they desire. See the nomination of Roberts and Alito to the SCOTUS for just one example.

It works in the other direction as well. The GOP needs the Right-Wing policy infrastructure for their electoral success. Bush has hosted a number of personal teabagging strategy sessions with Right-Wing radio hosts since they shot down his immigration initiative.

Progressive Policy infrastructure is needed

While Conservatives can count on things like the American Enterprise institute and Right-Wing Radio to advance their agenda inside the beltway and in the sphere of public opinion, there is really no counterpart on the Progressive side.

This is partly because the Democratic party has successfully argued that all progressive activists’ energy (and money) should go through them and the party infrastructure.

CD, astute as usual, asks: what does Progressive infrastructure look like and how do we make it happen?

It basically comes down to Progressive citizens getting together (yes, networking) and building organizations that are independent of the Democratic party and that can raise funds, support activists financially and spread the progressive message to as many people as possible. The blogosphere is a start but it can’t be the end-all because it only reaches a specific and relatively small group of people.

It is also about activists demanding policy outcomes and results, just as the Conservative movement has done with their politicians and their organizations.

Voting Conscientiously

While some blogs and organizations are better suited for an electoral or a policy focus, as an activist there is no reason why one cannot have both.

For example, there is no reason why we can’t call bullshit on the Democrats when they let us down, while at the same time go and vote for them out of necessity because the alternative is far worse.

Electorally focused bloggers get concerned that when people talk about how the Democrats suck that means that they will not vote for them or not vote at all.

My primary concern is policy, but as an informed citizen I recognize that not voting or protest voting has very bad consequences. I vote as progressively as I can, based on the polls and the likely outcome.

Living in San Francisco, I have the luxury of voting for green party candidates locally and statewide because I know that I’m in a deep, indigo blue district and it won’t matter. If I lived in South Carolina I would vote differently… I think. I’m a stubborn person.

There’s also voting with your dollars. You can donate to the most progressive candidates rather than the beltway-based committees, support primary challengers to DINO’s but also, more importantly, support non-electoral organizations that get results and help spread the message. Like, for example, fellow bloggers.

I used to think that the Green Party was the solution, but that was before I considered the possibility that a Progressive movement could change the public discourse enough to force progressive policy on politicians no matter what their party affiliation. This, coupled with a simultaneous Progressive grass-roots electoral focus, gives me hope.