Progressive Politics: Reformative Or Performative?
When push comes to shove, progressives are the ones prioritizing grassroots movements
If there is one golden nugget meant to sift through the pan of bullshit served to the voters for this year’s Illinois primary election, it’s the P-word.
The progressive movement presents as a direct reaction to the growing number of people who are tired of corporations controlling our elections and neglecting social safety nets for profits. This foundation presents a sound argument that effectively incorporates buzzwords consistent with populist demands. However, at the ballot box, progressive candidates’ wins have been few and far between.
If I had to diagnose the disappointing result of the Illinois primaries, it is likely because progressives are forced to operate within the Democratic Party structure. Oftentimes, this means candidates don’t have the capacity to develop and promote their distinct platforms. Therefore, voters must navigate through the Democratic Party’s weak justifications for neo-liberal policies. This is why the label progressive, though seemingly inclusive, might be casting too wide a net.
If New York Mayor Bill de Blasio and Illinois Congressional Candidate Kat Abughazaleh can both identify as “progressive”, how are voters supposed to know who is really at the heart of the movement?
Since there is no official progressive third-party option, there is no independent infrastructure to build the movement upon. And since the societal goalposts are constantly shifting around progressivism, there are no consistent policies tied to the movement.
So what are we left with?
If I had to assume the positions of today’s progressive candidates based on the perpetual streaming ads and TikTok campaign videos, I would highlight these three issues that came up the most.
No PAC money
Affordability
Abolishing ICE
All of these positions are very important and ones I have found to be deal breakers for any candidate I’m serious about voting for. Though these issues might seem fairly obvious in theory, the way they manifest in policy could vary widely from office to office.
Strategy is the wind to the sailboat of ideas. If the strategy of this new left flank is consistent in theory alone but contradictory in practice, then that ship of ideas will implode quicker than the Ocean Gate submersible.
When push comes to shove, progressives are the ones prioritizing grassroots movements, while establishment Democrats are manipulated by powerful corporate lobbyists. Since progressives are forced to work within the established Democratic party framework, they are mostly trying to jam a round-shaped peg in a wrinkly-Chuck Schumer-sized hole.
As it stands, the progressive movement must be serious about its distrust of the establishment. They must platform community leaders to fight on behalf of the masses over the protected elite class. That being said, if the left is supposed to present as an opposition to the right, then where is our opposition party?
The Democrats failed to resist the greater interests of the Republican Party because they ultimately have the same interests: private interests. Without a single party willing to represent the majority of voters, we are constantly flipping two sides of a loaded coin. This lack of contrast is most glaring when examining both parties’ blatant failure to improve the material conditions of the majority of Americans, who are struggling to keep up with ever-rising prices.
The question at hand: is this progressive movement capable of holding strong in representing the people and their populist demands, or will it be co-opted by the established media and corporations to serve solely as a controlled opposition?
What makes me nervous about the term progressive as the main signifier of the new left is its potential to distract from the heightening of working-class consciousness, with generations of struggle and real-world practice behind it.
The Democratic Party has a 35% approval rating, which is still less than the party that bombed 175 schoolchildren in Iran. The Democratic Party is a sinking ship. Whether progressives who hope to secure robust social safety nets should support a Socialist, third-party alternative is neither here nor there. I do, however, take issue with the inherent reformist attitude foundational to progressivism, which separates the movement from its revolutionary counterparts.
At its core, the progressive movement does not propose a permanent alternative to the crony-capitalist system that has perverted our elections. When analyzing the reformist position, there is no denying that more reliable social safety nets are an objectively sound argument in a vacuum. But when looking at past reformist movements, they have served better as pressure-release valves than as genuine attempts to permanently limit the hoarding of wealth at the top.
The results of the March Illinois primary election hinted at the answer to the fundamental question of this article. Out of a heavy handful of promising progressive candidates who ran, only a few were victorious against more than the 50 million dollars in special-interest money funneled against them.
Even if the progressive movement were to succeed from the two-party system, would they be capable of beating the billionaires on both sides? Still, they would be putting themselves in a better position to sway far-right swing voters, who are focused on affordability and harbor distrust of the establishment, making them much closer to the leftist position than the invisible moderate.
If a third party can clear the hurdle of the baggage stacked up by the Democratic Party and free itself from the influence of lobbyists, then I believe that common ground could be found on the fringes.
The most successful third-party movement in American history was the Bull Moose Party, founded by Teddy Roosevelt. The Bull Moose party advocated for progressive social and economic reforms. This movement stemmed from Roosevelt’s disapproval of the conservative economic and social policies of his former ally, William Howard Taft, whom he accused of betraying progressive values by supporting monopolies.
After losing the Republican nomination in the 1912 election, Roosevelt decided to run as a third-party candidate. After the election, Roosevelt beat his Republican opponent, winning 88 electoral votes to Taft’s 8, but ultimately lost to the Democratic candidate, Woodrow Wilson, with 435 electoral votes.
Let the record show, Teddy Roosevelt and the Bull Moose campaign are far from perfect. Though the Republican Party was the progressive party at the time before the great party switcheroo, he still ordered the eradication of indigenous communities in the colonialist American expansion project of the early 20th century.
If the progressives of today are looking to win elections, they should start by building something new. Something to excite people again. To give them hope that the government will, for once, prioritize Americans over the small minority of increasingly rich weirdos.
They should refuse to dilute their populist messaging and hold firm in building genuine grassroots movements, powered by people, without taking a single dollar from PACs.
As I think about the potential need for a third-party movement in the general election, I am reminded of the recent No Kings III rally, where I worked as a journalist. The energy was palpable when surrounded by thousands of angry soccer moms.
It felt both important and validating to be among people ready for change. Yet, when I looked at the people on stage, there was a clear contrast. Standing among the genuine progressive leaders in this city, like Mayor Brandon Johnson and newly elected Senator-elect Juliana Stratton, there were also figures like Daniel Biss, Brendan Reilly, and Dick Durbin. All of whom support sending weapons to Israel and are backed by special interest groups.
Maybe that’s where the progressive movement here in Chicago can take the next steps. By forcing the representatives who desire the optics of identifying as progressive, but truly support the old guard of the Democratic Party, to decide on one thing:
Are you with the people? Or against the people?
The choice is theirs to make, but the rest is up to us.