Terminology and First Blushes

There's an old saying that words have meaning. The exact meaning(s) of any word is up for debate, of course, but would it be too much to ask that people think about the words they use before they use them? A particularly irritating recent example is the free-switching of the words "liberal" and "progressive," terms that are not equivalent. Their juxtaposition has of late been most frequent in the ruminations of self-described progressive liberals who are trying to figure out just what the fuck Jesus Christ Obama is doing in his first go-round as POTUS.

It need not be reviewed here that I, among many, said a long time ago and in no uncertain terms that Obama is not the messianic figure many of his biggest fans believe, and that the cult of O is in their heads and doesn't appear to have any effect whatsoever on Obama's decisionmaking.

But now that we can talk about how that is the case, some people appear to be unable to do even that simple thing correctly. Thus, we have little pieces from various lefty outlets that insist on confusing "liberal" with "progressive." Here's what I think these words mean: progressives are those people who, along with Obama, want to see a government that works, whatever that work may yield. Progressives want "progress," which should be obvious, and it should furthermore be just as obvious that progress in the United States means economic security for the maximum number of citizens, full employment, infrastructural investment, and a massive rehabilitation of the nation's military, humanitarian, and political personae. Liberals, by contrast, want nationalized healthcare, an end to our various wars, at least partial nationalization of troublesome industries, vastly expanded unionization of the workforce, full investigation of the Bush administrations, massive reinvestment in public education and higher ed, and an Obama administration that governs with an eye towards the ideal, not the pragmatic.

Incidentally, I got into an argument a few weeks ago with a very nice policy analyst who submitted that idealism and pragmatism not only are far from exclusive philosophies, but are in fact the same. I won't claim to understand her position, but for what it's worth, you may get some thought-time out of the notion that the pragmatic decision-maker moves towards the ideal in small but sure increments until (someday) that ideal is realized. This argument sounded like a college bong fantasy to me. The refutation is that this sequence of events has never yet happened, and moreover the very assertion that this is possible renders pragmatism a subset of idealism and thus makes fools of us all. I guess I can't see how realism can be overtaken by idealism as a basis for decisionmaking.

Anyway, liberals and progressives are not the same, and to imply or argue outright that they are, and furthermore that Obama hasn't a single "progressive" in his cabinet or circle of advisors, is not only to all but accuse him of being a traitor to some cause he never joined up with, but also to label him as something else. And that something else is...a conservative? A moderate (which is itself a complicated, if useless, term)? A closet Clintonite? What? What the fuck is this person to all the newly-skeptical Obama supporters who don't know what the fuck they're talking about? This is perplexing.

One other thing, of an even older variety: with his suggestion of TV doctor and smearmongering asshole Sanjay Gupta as Surgeon General, Obama seems to be pursuing a very ruthless strategy as far as gaining legitimacy for his policies. To wit, appointing very vocal critics of those policies and charging them with either passing them or, in Gupta's case, supporting them. You want nationalized healthcare? Sanjay Gupta most certainly does not. However, if he becomes Surgeon General and Obama puts a healthcare bill in Congress, Gupta will be on CNN every single fucking day to discuss it, and he's going to pimp it to Wolf Blitzer the way he currently pimps insurance companies and big pharma to the fat, lazy Americans who watch CNN.

Many people have thought of this before me. But if this is in fact a plan of the administration's, it would be a very good indicator of just how "progressive" Obama can be: it matters not at all what opinion any of his appointees held prior to joining the team; all that matters is what they're going to do afterwards. And what that is, is they're going to line up and convince their former colleagues and supporters that the best idea is whatever Obama says. It's a very simple realpolitik approach, take your enemies and force them to be your missionaries.