Sunday, April 10, 2005
Of Progress and Direction
know thy road, pilgrim
What’s the first thing ya need when setting out to accomplish a goal?
Say that I decide I want to take a trip. If I decide that I want to go to Moab UT, for the purpose of seeing the San Rafael Desert and Arches National Park, I know exactly what highways to choose from hither to yon, about how long it will take [setting aside time to stop and see the World’s Biggest Ball of Twine and other roadside attractions] what clothes and equipment I’ll need, how much money will be required and where and for when to make reservations.
However, if I just decide, “I wanna take a trip,” I might make it all the way to the end of the driveway before the inevitable game of “Which way do we go?’—“I dunno. Which way do you wanna go?” ensues. The “heads we go left, tails we go right” technique might make for an interesting journey. Then again it is just as likely to lead around the block and back into the driveway.
What I need is a clear and concise concept of my goal.
Yale University - center of reason and clarity that it is—has decided that it must choose the direction “progressives” will head in changing the Constitution of the US. They have set their sights on the year 2020, in imitation of the Reagan Justice Department white paper, “’The Constitution in 2000’ which, by taking a long view rather than focusing on the immediate issues of the day, was immensely successful in influencing the Constitution under which we now live.” [from their Conference website]
They further state; “If progressives are to rehabilitate that Constitution, they must now, more than ever, articulate constitutional ideals capable of inspiring the next generation. The goal is to set forth a positive constitutional vision for tomorrow, rather than merely to respond to the crises of today.”
Being unable, myself, to discern “the crisis of today,” much less the need for “rehabilitation of the Constitution,” I have given little thought to this. But the denizens of the Yale Law school have created a blog for just that purpose.
Beginning at the very beginning, a very good place to start, Melody Barnes posts an exploration of the definition of the term, “progressive.” As both a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress and former chief counsel to Senator Teddy Kennedy, Ms Barnes’ qualifications to define the term seem adequate.
Ms Barnes:
It strikes me that we freely use the term “progressive,” but it isn’t clear that we have an articulable definition. While I’m not suggesting that we should or could reach consensus, I do believe we need to achieve some clarity.
Maybe it is my narrow and limiting attachment to the perhaps antiquated notion that clearly defining one’s terms is the sole way for anyone to know whatinhell one is talking about, but why would anyone hesitate to even suggest that consensus should be reached?!?
It is tough to combat a foe with a lion’ head, a dolphin’s body and the feet of a chicken without falling down laughing. Is this actually a clever tactical choice?
... We need to do more than erase “liberal” and substitute “progressive” or add “not” in front of “conservative.”
Wouldn’t want to seem reactionary, now wouldja? Or simply oppositional / defiant for its own sake? Gotta be some principles in there somewhere, no?
...when asked to define “progressive,” journalist Hodding Carter III jokingly responded that a progressive is a liberal in sheep’s clothing.
Or, perhaps, a sheep robed in academic obfuscatory phraseology....
...an answer that I [Melody Barnes] find personally appealing...“A progressive is someone who remembers and reasserts repeatedly that the history of the United States is a history of constantly expanding opportunity, of constantly expanding the protection society affords those least able to protect themselves, and it is that history that makes the country great.”
“constantly expanding opportunity” —works for me; in so far as it goes. But, to be “progressive,” it must be paired with “constantly expanding protection… of those least able to protect themselves.” From my perspective, the “constant expansion” of these two functions of government are at conflict. To say the least.
I won’t even touch on the recent actions in the arena of “protecting those least able to protect themselves.” Suffice to say, the wealth and power of the church is the only reason there was no hue and cry for removal of the Pope’s feeding tube.
[NB The apparent need for repeated assertion as opposed to repeated action is key.]
...In the course of defining ourselves (hopefully before others do it for us)...
I find alarming the idea that so educated and accomplished a voice for the “progressives” would allow for the possibility that “others” would be able to define their goals or nature “for” them. “Others” will always be willing to characterize, and impugn motives—but whether or not one allows that to define one is indicative of one’s character and commitment. OIW ya gotta be a pretty big nebbish to allow your opposition to tell you who you are.
History also speaks to our fumbling around the issues of values, morals and religion. Those are clearly uncomfortable terms for progressives.
And this is the reason y’all are having such trouble with defining your terms—not to mention translating ideas into actions. Without the basic framework of Values upon which to base your Vision of the ideal, there is nowhere to go. Strategies turn to mush and Operations culminate in pointless Giant Puppet Heads.
[see Clausewitz]
Until such time as the progressives’ rejection of the very notion of Values and Morals ceases to be a defiant re-action to their preconceptions of Religion they will continue to be as effective as a rebellious teenager, causing only destructive dust-ups rather than creating anything of their own. They’re making as much “progress” as someone doing the Curly Shuffle.
The bottom line is that on our way to making the progressive 2020 Constitution real, I believe we must also address the base-line question: what makes us progressives.
“Also?!?” Perhaps first y’all oughta decide who you are and what you stand for. Then you might have something useful, or at least substantive to say about the Constitution of the United States.
ThanQ! LGF
Statistics
This page has been viewed 6645783 times
Total Entries: 4321
Total Comments: 3461
Total Trackbacks: 714
Most Recent Entry: 08/28/2008 04:54 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 08/28/2008 11:04 am
{/if}
