Tweet
Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL)
For the social compact of the United States, most of the Congressional Progressive Caucus has gone missing.
While still on the caucus roster, three-quarters of the 70-member caucus seem lost in political smog. Those 54 members of the Progressive Caucus haven’t signed the current letter that makes a vital commitment: “we will vote against any and every cut to Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security benefits — including raising the retirement age or cutting the cost of living adjustments that our constituents earned and need.”
More than 10 days ago, Congressmen Alan Grayson and Mark Takano initiated the forthright letter, circulating it among House colleagues. Addressed to President Obama, the letter has enabled members of Congress to take a historic stand: joining together in a public pledge not to vote for any cuts in Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid.
The Grayson-Takano letter is a breath of fresh progressive air, blowing away the customary fog that hangs over such matters on Capitol Hill.
The Progressive Caucus co-chairs, Raul Grijalva and Keith Ellison, signed the letter. So did Barbara Lee, the caucus whip. But no signer can be found among the five vice chairs of the Progressive Caucus: Judy Chu, David Cicilline, Michael Honda, Sheila Jackson-Lee and Jan Schakowsky. The letter’s current list of signers includes just 16 members of the Progressive Caucus (along with five other House signers who aren’t part of the caucus).
What about the other 54 members of the Progressive Caucus? Their absence from the letter is a clear message to the Obama White House, which has repeatedly declared its desire to cut the Social Security cost of living adjustment as well as Medicare. In effect, those 54 non-signers are signaling: Mr. President, we call ourselves “progressive” but we are unwilling to stick our necks out by challenging you in defense of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid; we want some wiggle room that you can exploit.
In contrast, the House members on the short list of the letter’s signers deserve our praise for taking a clear stand: Brown, Cartwright, Conyers, DeFazio, Ellison, Faleomavaega, Grayson, G. Green, Grijalva, Gutierrez, A. Hastings, Kaptur, Lee, McGovern, Nadler, Napolitano, Nolan, Serrano, Takano, Velazquez and Waters.
If you don’t see the name of your representative in the above paragraph, you might want to have a few words. (For a list of the 54 Progressive Caucus members who haven’t signed the letter, click here.)
It’s one thing — a fairly easy thing — to tell someone else what you hope they’ll do, as 107 House Democrats did recently in a different letter to President Obama: “We write to affirm our vigorous opposition to cutting Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid benefits. . . . We urge you to reject any proposals to cut benefits.”
It’s much more difficult — and far more crucial — for members of Congress to publicly commit themselves not to vote for any cuts in those programs, which are matters of life and death for vast numbers of Americans.
Even a signed pledge to do or not do something, in terms of a floor vote, is no guarantee that a member of Congress will actually follow through. But in a situation like this, the pledge is significant — and even more significant is a refusal to make such a pledge.
As of now, 54 members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus have taken a historic dive. We should take note — and not forget who they are.
Photo Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons
30 Comments
Since “progressives” in the rank and file typically vote for the “lesser of two evils,” there really is no point to Congress being any more “progressive” than it has to, is there?
the progressive caucus should be referred to as the Peter G Petersen caucus since they represent him (and those of his Ilk) and not us, Piss on all of them
This and the sun will rise tomorrow somewhere and the universe will continue for a few more million years.
Oh yeah, another Sternly Worded Letter(tm). That’ll show ‘em.
PINOs….they let us down every time.
PINOs. Sounds anatomical. I like it.
Until they draw a line in the sand and vote down legislation that doesn’t hit the mark, there is no reason to take progressives seriously – and no one will.
Thanks Norman. I’ll call Gwen Moore (Milwaukee) and Mark Pocan (Madison) tomorrow.
This illustrates perfectly why voting for moderate Republicans who put a (D) after their names is not at all the lesser of two evils.
The last President, a Republican who admitted from the jump that he was a Republican, tried to alter Social Security, but Democrats in Congress would not allow it.
This President, a Republican who admitted he was a Republican only after his re-election, tries to alter Social Security, and both Parties go along with it.
And this plea for an explanation from D defenders will fall on deaf ears but I’m gonna make it anyway.
Please explain to me how it’s better for D’s to vote to cut our social safety net programs (which are inadequate from the start, so NO CUTS should ever be entertained by anyone that truly understands the situation, which is these programs need expanding, not cut) than it is to have Republicans do it???
You swear every election that primaries are the only time to hold D’s accountable and that on the general we should vote D’s because they’re somehow less awful than the R. And then these D’s vote to cut more holes in our inadequate safety net. Why is it so important to have that vote be from D’s instead of R’s????
I’m guessing crickets but I had to ask.
Thanks Norman , this letter isn’t the final word on who makes the credibility cut ,but it certainly tells us who doesn’t ,and hence whom we should work against with our support .The congenital losers will still support some of the backstabbing austerity ilk who betray us for Obama ,with lesser -evil rationales ,and they are the root cause of America’s downfall by driving the party into right-wing fascism .
Anyone who doesn’t sign ,and then stand by the pledge ,is voting for austerity and by dint of deceit is the sleaziest of all corporatists .However ,the ones who show some backbone deserve our strong support if we take progressive politics seriously . I don’t think any of the comments praised the signers , and I would hope that doesn’t indicate flabby cynicism as opposed to real progressivism that always fights the good fight .
The democrats need to take a page out of the T-party’s book and start primarying these turncoats from the left.
They won’t but they should. The repubs may be the minority party but they remain the more effective party.
I agree with others here that this is actually an indictment of the Dim party overall. You have to know that party leadership is twisting arms to stay away from challenging their corporatist agenda. Remember Dragon Lady Pelosi warning all freshmen D’s elected in ’06 from looking into the criminal activities of Bush/Cheney, and in ’06 and ’08 from messing with Iraq/Afghanistan war funding or bringing those atrocities to an end.
This needed saying. I berated Grayson here many times for precisely the lack of this critical voting commitment. And then, to my amazement, he produced one which has also done the job of exposing the secret, progressive ratfuckers for all to see. I don’t believe anything will ever come from attempts to reform the D party from within, but if you are of that persuasion you now have a perfect roadmap how to go about trying it.
So what’s new? The amazing thing about the Progressive Caucus is that people actually still believe it exists. They never stand up for progressive ideals against the brazenly corrupt corporatist Reaganite wing of the Democratic Party. All they do is make vaguely progressive noises for the benefit of their constituents’ consciences. At least I voted for ____________, she’s a good Progressive! In fact, neither she nor the Progressive Caucus as a whole ever have to put their values into their voting. They come from safe Democratic districts and compete with their Democratic challengers on pure Progressive symbolism. Once in office, they let the Corporatist wing lead (who collects the most corporate payola pays the piper and calls the tune) The Progs just coast along not making waves. Who wants to make waves? The President is a Democrat and Black! Isn’t it obvious that things just couldn’t get any more Progressive than this? Their constituents think the rest of Congress is horrible, that it truly deserves its rotten approval ratings, but on the other hand, their local Progressive Rep is so great! District by Progressive district they think this. Gosh, they just think the world of her or him! If only the rest of Congress would listen to her or him! Meanwhile the country spins down the drain. And Progressive Caucus members sit on their hands and let the Democratic President run the country to the right of Nixon and Reagan.
I would love to primary DINOs. I even had dreams that someone would mount a primary challenge to Obama.
However, the DNC and the Party higher ups make it very difficult to primary DINO incumbents (as opposed to the party itself going after incumbents of a more liberal inclination, like Rangel and Weiner.)
Lamont, certainly no leftist, attempted to primary Lieberman. The party’s stars, like Obama, Clinton and Schumer, showed up and attacked Lamont in the primary. When Lieberman lost anyway, they withdrew, leaving the Democratic candidate whom they had bloodied to twist in the wind on his own. (Lieberman repaid Obama by campaigning for McCain.)
A similar scenario occurred in Arkansas, with Lincoln. Similarly, for U.S. Senator from Florida, Obama supported Crist, rather than the Democratic candidate.
For Governor of Rhode Island, Obama threw his support behind Chafee, supposedly because of his personal relationship with Chafee. Where the head of the Democratic Party gets the idea that his personal relationships supersede the reasons Democrats donated to him and the DNC is beyond me, but that’s not the point.
And it goes on.
As I said, I am all in favor of primarying DINOs, but we have to realize the game is rigged and find some way to fight that or we are not going to be effective.
Either that, or vote third party whenever primaries and/or elections have been gamed to our disadvantage.
P.S. Forgot to remind you that the Tea Party was something the Koch brothers dreamed up in the 1980s and put a lot of planning, effort and money into long before it suddenly sprouted as a faux grass roots organization.
No one is doing anything similar for Democrats. Nader tried, but we all know what happened and now he is pretty much worn out.
Members of the left wing of the Republican Party were the founding members of the Progressive Party.
The DLC revived the term “progressive” to make its rightist policies seem more palatable. So, I never quarrel when politicians who self-describe as progressive talk a liberal game, but vote like the left wing of the Republican Party.
When Obama began his first time, Progressive Caucus had about 100 members. After mid-terms, it had about 70 members. It might be useful to track what happened to almost a third of the Caucus in only two years. I haven’t, so I have no idea what conclusions to draw.
I’m sorry but I am not following your comment about a perfect roadmap.
Do you mean voting against the members of the Progressive Caucus who did not sign the pledge, district by district?
Or did you have something else in mind.
BTW, I, too, have little hope of reforming the party from within. On the other hand, I see no harm in trying, while also moving on other fronts.
Sorry. Yes, I meant the roadmap would be to take the names of those 54, and very publicly and loudly make their congressional existence a short, and painful living hell, ending in a brutal, successful primary. However, please note I don’t personally believe this route will work. I think the D wing of the Uniparty is completely beyond reform from within. But if anyone does believe it’s possible, then this list of names, and a simple to state abdication on their part is an open goal.
Of course, there is another glaring issue here. When will Grayson follow up on this in the only consistent and logical way possible and himself publicly call out and berate his 54 snivelling failure “progressive” colleagues. If he sincerely believes what he says he believes then he can have no collegiality with these people. In fact, he can only regard them with visceral hatred.
I’m sorry, but if this is the only take-away that everybody has, nothing will change. Instead, there needs to be a sustained effort to primary the faux progressives. Unfortunately, in spite of your public profile, you do not seem interested in leading such a charge.
Well, OK. In no way should that preclude you writing a sincere diary, laying out how you see things the way you do.
However, does not common sense suggest that, even if you, personally, don’t want to be involved in a muscular effort to primary ‘bad Democrats’, that some folks need to step up to the plate, to lead an organized effort? Why did you not even mention the need for an organized approach of dumping CPC members, who are effectively mis-labeled?
The PDA is too mousy. I wrote “muscular”, for a reason.
The American people collectively deserve their dysfunctional political system, since they collectively don’t even attempt to fix it. You are not helping ignite some sparks of activism by just blandly saying “we should take note”. “Taking note”, and $1.59, will get you a coffee at McDonald’s. Nothing more.
Norman, an excellent thread and discussion!
And since I disagree with all that has been said, feel free to “Give Me Hell! for my contrarianism.
When I look at the House’s Progressive Caucus, I am quickly reminded that there is no Senate Progressive Caucus. And why not?
As to what the House Progressive Caucus does or doesn’t do, I am thankful that there is a Progressive Caucus. There are times when I can ‘quibble’ with what’s not been accomplished, but compared to what occurs in the Senate and when it’s not favorable to “progressives” writ large, our political battle should be taking place in the Senate.
In this vein of thought there is much to be said, and yet, if a Senator were to be aligned with either the Green Party or the Justice Party, the presumptive Senator of either of these two Parites, would still not be a Progressive nor would either of these Senators would establish a Progressive Caucus. The stellar example for a lack of a Progressive Caucus, is found in Bernie Sanders since he is a socialist and registered as an Independent.
Now, I am not in favor of any perceived Litmus Test of Purity, espeically when I see and hear that Chris Chocola of the Norquist “brand” has established a web site to raise serious monies in order to attack nine ‘conservative’ Republicans and who are not sufficiently ‘extreme.’ Thus, today’s politics is all about “normal” extremists and “abnormal” extremists, and which tickles my heart strings for this self-destructive bahvior that is sure to have a national impact in the next few years. And given that Rove, like Chocola and Norquist, he is ‘attacking’ the ‘abnormal’ extremist among the candidates for the Senate.
In closing, only the Senator from Iowa, has, over many years, demonstrated his character trait for being a Progressive, and yet, he never had the audacity to establish a Progressive Caucus. Perhaps, in his autobiography, he will announce hiimself as a socialist, and not as a full-fledged Progressive, but at a well-demonstrated ratio, he was there for us at an approximate 90% of the time. And that’s far better than “shabby.”
Of course, I could go on and on, but I think I’ve make my point.
Jaango
When the Progressive Party was founded in 1912, its left-wing Republican founders were to the left of the Democrats on many major issues, notably women’s rights (Jane Addams gave the nominating speech for Teddy Roosevelt, the Progressive presidential candidate) and the rights of African-Americans (Roosevelt publicly dined with African-Americans during the campaign, while Democrat Wilson was a racist who, as president, removed African-Americans from federal employment and hosted a showing in the White House of D.W. Griffith’s “Birth of a Nation”, which glorified the Ku Klux Klan).
Economically as well, the left-wing Republican/Progressives were in many ways to the left of the Democrats, taking the more realistic attitude that since large corporate combinations were an integral part of industrial society, it was better to regulate them through such measures as workers’ compensation, child labor, and minimum wage laws. In contrast, Wilson took the unrealistic, Jeffersonian position of a return to small business dominance through more vigorous anti-trust enforcement.
Finally, it was the Progressive/Republican left, led by Roosevelt and his forestry chief Gifford Pinchot, who were the prime movers in efforts to protect nature and natural resources (they were “conservationists” rather than “preservationists”–unlike more radical “preservationists” such as John Muir, they sought to combine natural preservation with resource extraction).
What I’m trying to long-windedly say is that, looking at history, it is a mistake, even now, to simplistically view the Democrats as the “left-wing” party and the Republicans as the “right-wing” party. Even today, with the Republicans completely out of control with wacky right-wing ideas, it is they who are in fact protecting Social Security against Obama’s repeated attacks. And it was the Republicans, not the Democrats, who offered some (albeit weak) opposition to the financial bailouts of 2007-2008.
One more historical note: While the Republican Hoover administration of 1929-1933 has been much vilified compared to that of the saintly FDR, it was in fact Hoover, not Franklin Roosevelt, who put in place the programs that Roosevelt greatly expanded in scope to create his New Deal. Specifically, Hoover did the following:
–Put in place the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, really the first New Deal Agency, which provided loans to businesses, farm organizations, and state and local governments in an effort to stimulate the Depression economy;
–Initiated massive public works projects by beginning construction of the Hoover Dam;
–Protected the rights of labor by signing the Norris-LaGuardia Act (two Republican sponsors), which outlawed yellow-dog labor contracts as well as banning injunctions against strikes and peaceful picketing; and
–Initiated a program of farm price supports.
where would the political discussion of national issues be if we had a real, honest press? no one that i know of on this site has agreed with me that you have to go after the media outlets that support anti middle class policies, go after their advertisers. this media cover allows people to be phony sellouts without risk. the libs of this country are all sound and fury that signifies nothing
Who had an ounce of confidence in these people to begin with? Change cannot be affected from within a completely broken system.
Many of those Democrats are PINOs (Progressives In Name Only).
As you may have noticed, no Democrats in the Senate now identify as Progressives: The Senate Progressive Caucus is Bernie Sanders.