I think "progressive" should be dropped as it is normative and there are no norms or standards drawn up as you mention. Furthermore, the whole moderation process is not transparent which is hardly what most of us would consider progressive.
It does not surprise me in the least that some were defending this man and this blogger. When I was a moderator, I found it was far from an educated or enlightened group.
And, in my view, this is more of Scott Tribe's ego-boosting life project than a true effort to unite "progressive" bloggers. My God, he deleted the entire moderator forum because I dared to critique the World Bank and refused to remove my critique on his command.
Of course, the lack of transparency allowed Scott to get away with that and subsequently attack me. It also allows for someone to suggest your emails are equivalent to a lynch mob.
While I have not had friendly feelings towards you since you remained as moderator after I departed, I think I can quite objectively claim that I have never found any of your behaviour to be aggressive towards me, nor did I see you being any more aggressive than you are in your blog entries to any bloggers.
I am not sure how anybody with half a brain could work along Scott who couldn't even bother to inform himself on the definition of "heterosexism."
I think it is unfortunate that this louse heads up an aggregate where so many bright people gather. Progressive Bloggers could be a great project, but unfortunately a fragile ego leads the way.
I vote with you, Dr Dawg.
After our experiences a year or so ago, I decided that I would value PB for what it is -- an aggregator where I can meet lots of people I like every morning -- but also forget fussing about any attempt at political consensus because I think that that is clearly not there and is never going to be.
I agree with you, though, that a Young Liberal is one level of aggro and Diva Rachel is quite another. I can imagine the clueless hand-wringing you've run into on the back channels, and my compliments to you for being patient enough to put up with it at all.
And now, having read all your links, I think I rilly need a cigarette. Ha! The kiddies thought that Arpaio was progressive for proscribing smoking in prisons.
Honestly, Dr Dawg, I think it's time that some of us headed for the hills. The Young Liberals are gonna do us all in.
Furthermore, the whole moderation process is not transparent which is hardly what most of us would consider progressive.
Yup. This. Exactly.
This "militant" feminist has got your back, Dr. Dawg.
While you're at it, perhaps you might consider what an aggregator is supposed to be and why it even needs moderators because to my mind, there's been confusion at ProgBloggers for some time. That impression has only strengthened since the diary function withered away which leaves nothing much to moderate.
The most successful online community I've been involved with yet has had, from the beginning, a mission statement that describes in a fair amount of detail what it is and what it isn't and I think that's had a great deal to do with its success. I hasten to add that I didn't have much input at all in the composition of that statement though I've certainly referred to it in my own duties as an occasional moderator.
Progressive Bloggers, on the other hand, while originally advertised as an aggregator, period, seems to have an identity crisis every year or so.
Case in point: at the moment there's a statement on the right side bar that "Progressive Bloggers does NOT support the proposed Bill C-61." As it happens, neither do I. But I wonder if the management at PB has decided they're in a position to make that call on everyone's behalf. And should they come out against a piece of legislation I happen to support, what do I do about it?
Meanwhile, you may recall that when there was serious discussion about a code of conduct to apply to the content at the individual blogs at PB I was prepared to walk before it was even finalized. I'm not about to grant editorial control to you, Scott Tribe or anyone else other than the authors that actually contribute to the blog. If you want me to join a community in which others are making decisions on my behalf, you need to make that clear up front.
So while you're defining "progressive" you might ponder what happens when you've got the definition finalized. Every time something like this comes up, it makes me reconsider my affiliation. I should start charging for the time involved. 
Bravo, Doc.
While progressive might be on its way out, principled never will be as far this girl is concerned. And that's a word that describes you perfectly.
I do not agree that it's Liberals. I posted several times on Howard's racist policies. I have also asked about bloggers on here that I consider to be anything but progressive but have been told its pretty open criteria and that everyone is approved by the moderators so they must be OK. Maybe there should be an ongoing review process if complaints are submitted about a blog.
I stopped paying attention to Progressive Bloggers quite some time ago - just not enough time in my day when I realized that I was really only interested in one or two of them.
I remember commenting somewhere, too, that there were too many capital-L Liberals there, when much of that party is not at all what I consider "progressive".
As to that word (progressive), however, I still think it has an important meaning. You used it quite frequently, and (I believe) well, in your recent post about the New Yorker cover. To me it means a belief, not in inevitable progress, but rather that progress is possible. A belief that we can make society better.
This contrasts, to me, with virtually all flavours of conservatism and right wing thought, which are almost universally cynical about human nature and unconquerable self-interest.
Also, it's hard to see how the word has any real meaning within the context of the aggregator when someone Andrew Coyne is a member of the (closed) PB Facebook group.
Sorry it's come to this, Dawg, but is this really necessary? There are stupid people everywhere, even amongst self-styled progressives.
I've never been much for joining any 'clubs' in the first place. I'll just simply echo the sentiments expressed by both Dr. Prole and LuLu above.
I think you could easily change the population of this blog with a name change. Myself I come to prog blog to read other blogs I enjoy and whose perspective I can either relate to at least most of the time. They also help me to consider different aspects and arguments the media may not pick up. I don't mind reading genuinely non partisan blogs, NDP blogs, Green blogs. Of course I am partial to Lib blogs but I learn a lot from the others as well. In truth I spend more time reading at prog blog than I do at Lib blogs because I want that piece and this is where I get it. If I want to get the opposite I can go to Blogging Tories or the papers. Heck just picking up a paper copy of the National Posts will set me off for a good day or two because its so Con biased (they do seem to make the online stuff a little more palatable than the paper at times). It's why I started writing here as a diarist first (for about a year). Cause I felt like I belonged here.
MORE LIES! DR is NOT Haitian by birth, but we would expect a self righteous racist like you to question her nationality and citizenship because she is black and has an opinion!
Well, finally the cat is out of the bag! The leadership of Progressive Bloggers are not progressive.
Hmm...but wait! That's not news! As Ms Skdadl and Dr Prole have alluded, feminists are quite aware that PB lacks any sense of progressive ideology. I get the direct feed of the few progressives in that aggregator and rarely cast a vote any longer.
Frankly, I think we should be encouraging folks to make the shift over to Blogging Change.
I was going to let this run a little longer before commenting--and thanking various commenters here for their support, and joining the debate. But I'm not going to wait around while somebody calls me a racist (yet again).
Here's my source as to DR's background--only relevant because of her charges of racism. Vicky is a friend of DR's, and a person I happen to know and respect. I'll take her word over that of some name-calling coward any day.
I fully agree with Pogge. No more administrators to post their agenda on side bars or close comments or vote up posts. Enough.
But, then, what would Scott Tribe do with his life?
I don't think Scott is the villain of the piece here. It's a systemic issue, clouded by a lot of political confusion.
Dawg,
You need to be a bit careful with regards to semantics. DR is Haitian, but there is a difference between being born in Port-au-Prince, an Aristide supporter, or a Haitian Canadian who was born in Montreal, Ottawa, or Toronto.
I am not suggesting that you should make a judgment as to whether certain labels should be the cause of her post on Arpaio. You can either agree or disagree with it and the Prog bloggers moderators' decision, which you have made your case with this blogpost.
Dr. Dawg, I can point out that your previous work on Scottish nationalism and socialism may have led you to have a different attitude towards the word "progressive" than your former fellow moderators. I can take both standpoints and as long as we can blog about these matters, then it is fine by me.
mushroom:
I'll reserve my comments on the actual debate until I've had a good night's sleep.
I don't care where a person was born or what the colour of his or her skin is. But if someone is going to charge me with racism, the latter, at least, is relevant. No?
(Damn, by the way, wrong Vicky. My bad. But I met her, too, at the same function where I met DR. I have no reason to doubt what she said in her comment.)
"But, then, what would Scott Tribe do with his life?"
The fact you're still obsessing about ancient history, makes me think you need a life. Oh sorry, did I say that out loud. Geez.
The funny part, some of the holier than thou progressives are actually slaves to their own dogmatic certainty. It really is an interesting contradiction.
This is such a whole big bunch of WHATEVER.
"The funny part, some of the holier than thou progressives are actually slaves to their own dogmatic certainty. It really is an interesting contradiction."
Others become victims of partisan certainty. Of which I am occasionally guilty of.
Funny, that post that angered you about the natives. It is actually not targeting natives but all people on social assistance, and there is a response to the post, in French, from a welfare recipient and mother of several children who AGREES with DR's suggestion!
once again, you look like an angry old dawg.
"It is actually not targeting natives but all people on social assistance... ."
Because authoritarianism is a-ok, as long as the motivations are merely classist, not racist.
*blink*
Laisser-faire is better! Lets make it a free for all! I'm sure the kids will turn out great in anarchy!
Well, we at Birth Pangs are not surprised. 'Progressive' as construed by ProgBlog, we already know includes anti-feminism. Why shouldn't it include pro-authoritarianism?
Well, I come to the PB for the reads. My politics have changed rather drastically over the last 2 years. Would my anti-state and pro-free market (not to be confused with actually existing "capitalism" or what Conservatives call a free market) screeds get me dumped? Would my pro-choice diatribes keep me in (and yes that pun was intended)?
I stay because I like the company, but if I stop liking the company, I'll simply subscribe to people individually.
I don't consider DR a progressive, but I think Mattbastard nailed it perfectly - there are anti-authoritarian and authoritarian progressives. That seems, in this discussion, where the divide is. DR comes across as an authoritarian, who thinks she can dictate how people live - and she clearly likes people who act that way, like Sheriff Joe.
I try to ignore the authoritarians. And if you think DR should be booted, blog about it. Send the mods a message as Dawg has.
I think the identity problem is the problem. PB is just an aggregator. If it had said "We are a community that upholds these principles..." then people who don't share them won't join. That narrows the voices, but we won;t worry about DRs or MyBlahgs or Werner Patels again.
Otherwise, we can vote with our feet...if DR is so egregious that we do not want to be associated with her, we leave for another aggregator..I'm sure James Bow would be glad to have us.
I have yet to make any decisions on my future or my position on this.
Michele dear, if you can't use your indoor voice then perhaps you need a time-out. Now run along while the grown-ups talk, hmmmm?
"Laisser-faire is better! Lets make it a free for all! I'm sure the kids will turn out great in anarchy!"
Yep. I agree. Or were you being trollish and facetious?
If not, you may want to define your terms then get a blog and blog about it...
Laisser[sic]-faire is better! Lets make it a free for all! I'm sure the kids will turn out great in anarchy!
Nothing says 'fuzzy logic' like a false dichotomy (I'll ignore the terminology FAIL because I'm seriously amused by the absurd notion of anarcho-capitalist social assistance).
Anyway, even though I enjoy playing Night of the Long Knives (Online Edition) as much as the next blog-nerd, alas, I must bid adieu. Try not to get too much blood on Dawg's carpet, y'all.
Where to start? Perhaps I should have made more of an effort in the past to get past my aggro with the process of having to register for a Google or Blogger or whatever account in order to leave a comment at DR's blog.
Many of her posts made me angry because they appeared to be ill-informed opinions; some I found to be offensive pronouncements that did not really seem to invite discussion. So I stopped reading her months ago, and assumed that her presence in a Progressive Bloggers Aggregator was some strange occurrence that was not really worthwhile complaining about.
But applauding the abusive, violent, borderline legal actions of Sheriff Arpaio? That is something that I would expect from Small Dead Animals, not from a member of Progressive Bloggers. DR is free to express her opinion, but I am free to find it revolting and disgusting.
I'm sorry to hear it didn't work out for you at ProgBlog. I'm not much help for your question, but do want to leave the original posting of the Diva. Support for Joe Arpaio could well be Liberal (here in BC Liberal Gordon Campbell supports all kinds of killers!), but I don't think Joe's "Arbeit macht frei" is all that progressive.
But who knows. Did you ask Jason Cherniak yet? He's got plenty of ideas about progress, including support for keeping the antiquated FPTP, bombing Iran, getting rid of minimum wage in Canada, and so on, and so on.
Don't you love all Liberals at ProgBlog? They're such a lovely bunch.
Put all the terminologies, "liberal", "conservative" & "progressive" up against a wall and shoot 'em, I say!
There are only half-a-dozen genuine Progressives in Canada anyway. One of them is the western-canadian anarchist. The rest of them are/were the catapult crew. The catapult crew were Progressives, because they were damned hilarious! They were funny long before the catapult, back when they worshipped toasters on Whyte Avenue right beside the Friday Night Evangelicals.
Most self-professed "Progressives" I've seen since then are occaisionally funny but only unintentionally.
Up with pot & pan clad teddy-launchers! Down with stuck-up pseudo-stalinists! Yarboo!
And another thing...rant, rave...
Billy Bragg's version:
"Stand up, all victims of oppression
For the tyrants fear your might
Dont cling so hard to your possessions
For you have nothing, if you have no rights
Let racist ignorance be ended
For respect makes the empires fall
Freedom is merely privilege extended
Unless enjoyed by one and all
Chorus:
So come brothers and sisters
For the struggle carries on
The internationale
Unites the world in song
So comrades come rally
For this is the time and place
The international ideal
Unites the human race
Let no one build walls to divide us
Walls of hatred nor walls of stone
Come greet the dawn and stand beside us
Well live together or well die alone
In our world poisoned by exploitation
Those who have taken, now they must give
And end the vanity of nations
Weve but one earth on which to live
And so begins the final drama
In the streets and in the fields
We stand unbowed before their armour
We defy their guns and shields
When we fight, provoked by their aggression
Let us be inspired by like and love
For though they offer us concessions
Change will not come from above"
Yea, verily.
tempest in a pisspot. prog blogs is an irrelevant list of sites that i haven't found a use for in ages. i have bookmarks and there are plenty of excellent blogrolls to make use of. as for the term progressive, if it ever had a meaning, it is lost. i'm with you dawg, if the tent is big enough to hold support for sheriff joe, i won't be hanging around that tent. my applause to you.
But applauding the abusive, violent, borderline legal actions of Sheriff Arpaio?
deBeauxOs : exactly where does she say she applauds the abuse? did you even read the post, or get your info from a skewed source (Dr. Dawg).
Yes, I read her blog post. I may not have read others, but I certainly wanted to see for myself what she wrote this time.
Sheriff Arpaio ensures that the inmates serve out their sentence by treating them like sub-humans. I see nothing in the descriptions that DR provides that suggests that the deprivation techniques and brutal environment are carried out for the purpose of rehabilitation. It would seem that some of them are extremely punitive and vicious.
Furthermore, the types of pen guards that one would have to employ to deploy these kinds of tactics would require, at the very least, the capacity to enforce by all means necessary and likely, take pride and pleasure in using brutality and violence to maintain the jolly prison environment that the Sheriff has created.
You're not answering the question, deBeauxOs! DR did not endorse the brutal Tent City tactics. that part is just in your head.
"Can't we clone him?"
Scram, "Michelle." You haven't even had the decency or good manners to apologize for calling me a racist. Don't make excuses for the inexcusable on top of that.
Dr. Dawg :
Let me recap on the whole thing: You find DR posting on Arpaio, you denounce her privately and after an argument (which also occurs in her comments section on her blog), you decided to denounce her in front of prog. bloggers. In the mean time, you post something calling her post Liberal Fascism (or not, because it’s a book cover and we’re all suppose to recognize the reference) and the debate continues on the comments section on your blog. Meanwhile, the prog. bloggers moderators, which you are a part of, decides to not do anything after a democratic vote, and you resign in protest.
Do I get this right?
What amazes me in this whole story is the cavalier way that you’ve decided to take. It didn’t matter that DR changed her post twice to clarify her position because you keep mentioning her original post. You don’t seem to recognize the nuances between a partial support for Arpaio (she did call it: Some of this make sense) and a full 100% pledge in his favor. Worst, you bring fascism and racism in this issue. It didn’t occur to know that other people might not come to the exact conclusion. You had to link a post in which you accuse her of “supporting a racist regime” (note: you will have to explain to me how this is not blatantly calling someone “racist”… how do you support a racist regime and are not racist?) yet didn’t bother to research something else that would obviously argue the exact opposite: http://deevarachel.blogspot.com/...on-to-
curb.html (note for those who are too lazy to read that link: DR is giving kudos to Australia for kicking out racist Howard). That DR is publishing contradicting posts sometimes isn’t the issue here; you wanted a full prosecution of her case and you were not stopping at anything.
It also occurs to me that last year at the progressive bloggers gathering, you said to Scott: “some of these bloggers doesn’t belong there”. And I truly think this is the problem here. Never mind DR. You don’t have the monopoly over what’s progressive and what’s not. In this case, you were the prosecutor and the jury (which you were a part of) decided to throw away the case for lack of evidence. But now you are quitting everything and calling on the judiciary process itself in discuss. Don’t you think you may be a little overreacting? Can’t you just agree to disagree?
In your defense, I do find it very unfair that some commentators have decided to call you a racist, even if I find you brought it upon yourself.
Anyways, good luck to you regardless.
Good for you, Dawg. The dubious definition of "progressive" is why I never joined the group in the first place. Once you accept Liberals as "progressive", then you accept the full range of Liberals from Scott Tribe to Jason Cherniak. I just couldn't swallow that. Progressive as it is defined by the group, is a smokescreen for Liberals, as a means of fooling both themselves and the voters. I am glad you have given up the moderator's role.
Michelle, given that the (now cached) original title of the post suggested that DR wanted little carbon copies of the Sherif, given that she only started pointing out what she thought was good after the "lynching" started, given that her defense is that of a race card first and then an attempt at qualifying her point (this is particularly dishonest given that dawg never attacked her based on race - because he's not a racist).. given all these things it is completely reasonable for a person to think that she supports all his actions.
Trying to separate the good with the bad with a person like this, a person who has created a system where his correctional officers feel and behave like they are above the law, is like saying "well at least the silk route was safe under Khan" or "well the trains ran on time under fascist rule in Italy".
It. Can't. Be. Done.
Do you have anything to add to this debate, or are you just going to stand around shrieking lies?
Still not ready with comments on "progressive," but the personal criticisms are a little hard to take.
Leo (DR's financial agent):
I don't think I did anything wrong by posting a comment at DR's place, raising the matter with my colleagues, and posting something of my own. You seem to suggest that this was dirty pool.
DR originally suggested cloning Arpaio, then changed her title, then issued a clarification wherein she called me a racist, in so many words. I don't think I brought that on myself. It was gratuitous, and came out of the blue.
All this seesawing back and forth (on Howard, for example) is what Liberals seem to do all the time. But, as you state, that's neither here nor there. Except for this: a person who can endorse a racist policy one minute and oppose it the next is not taking racism seriously.
In any case, I don't see the point of selecting one of the most vicious individuals in the US of A and saying, in effect, that he's not all bad. Godwin be damned: I don't look to Hitler for advice on highway-building or health care, and I don't look to a tin-pot sadist for advice on prisoner rehabilitation.
Now, to the actual question at hand:
I think that your second to last paragraph ".. rendered meaningless by being inclusive of just about everyone who lays claim to the label, no matter how odious and reactionary their political beliefs?" strikes right at the heart of the matter, or at least part of it.
Over the years the whole idea of inclusiveness has lead to a lot of pretty disgusting views being tolerated simply because the person is on side sort of most of the time. It's a symptom of the whole "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing that lets people cuddle up with others who would normally disgust them.
Part of this is what lead to the Euston Manifest (with all it's flaws).
I also think that some of this fails to take into account the multi faceted nature of human opinions... take me for instance. I have a lot less problem with military force than many people on the left. I'm against the invasion of Iraq (based on lies, no plan for after etc etc etc) but I'm onside for the idea of the Afghan mission. I'm also of the mind that we've broken Iraq (the general Western "we") so now we've a responsibility to do something towards fixing it.
Anyway, all of this rambling to say that you did the right thing Dawg.
"I don't think I did anything wrong by posting a comment at DR's place, raising the matter with my colleagues, and posting something of my own. You seem to suggest that this was dirty pool."
No I don't. My position is a lot closer to yours that DR on this matter (even if you try to google my name for the possible links... oh-oh, you caught me. I'm a friend of DR too. But at least you said you were respecting my wife Vicky. So can you respect my opinion on this matter too?). Where I think you have step out of line is posting about this whole thing, may-or-may not have suggested Liberal Fascism and ultimately resigned because the moderators at progressive bloggers weren't seeing the situation the same way. You may call it principle, but I call it "my way or the high way" attitude.
Leo,
If DR doesn't want people to comment on her blog postings, then, and this is just a thought, why doesn't she turn of comments?
I don't know Cameron. Why don't you ask her?
The dubious definition of "progressive" is why I never joined the group in the first place.
That didn't bother me when the point was simply to provide a place that encouraged bloggers to blog and readers to explore -- a place that wasn't the Blogging Tories which meant that the worst of the wingers were filtered out. I'll repeat that my own concern ratchets up at the point where the site presumes to be more than that because then a consensus on policy and goals becomes more of an issue. Speaking strictly for myself and to choose just one example, it's a pretty safe bet that when Jason Cherniak and I are in the same room you're not going to get unanimity on much that's significant.
If the place isn't helping in the pursuit of more specific goals, then maybe the answer is to build something that will.
Well Leo, you're the one who raised Dawg making comments over there as a problem.
So I figured, being a reasonably bright fellow, that I could ask you. Since you seem to think that making comments on a blog that has comments is a problem.
my wife Vicky.
Leo, this is getting downright incestuous. : )
I think the wider question is worth exploring. Every so often we at ProgBlogs stop and ask ourselves the existential question: why are we here? I'm trying to address that question.
My way or the highway? Well, I'm the one who took the highway, I guess. And I left the marbles behind (no cheap shot there, please). But given that there were serious political issues involved, I saw nothing wrong with raising them on my blog as I do other political issues.
The "Liberal fascism" reference, I had thought, would have been immediately obvious to everyone. Goldberg has been a hot topic in the blogosphere, excoriated throughout the port side and lionized on the starboard side just a few short months ago.
In any case, I think it was fair comment, given the monster that Arpaio is. He normally draws his support from the likes of Malkin and other far-right screaming meemies. It was bizarre to see his name cropping up in an admiring context on a "progressive" blogroll.
So let's agree to disagree. May I expect, by the way, to hear from your whole family on this? : )
I don't know, we are expecting a daughter in a week or so. Perhaps she can be the next moderator?
Allow me to clarify, if I may.
I enjoyed calling myself a Progressive, during the years when the principle manifestation of "Progressives" was the anti-globalization movement. I enjoyed it, because it was a Big Tent and pretty much welcomed anyone who wished to huddle together beneath it.
I stopped using that term as a personal reference, once people started trying to own it and attempting to "purify" the movement by purging people they perceived to be in some way ideological heretics.
Hence, my reference to Bragg's version of The Internationale. The Working Men's International was an archetypal Big Tent at one time, but later degenerated into factionalism as "the left" always seems to do. The ideal remains, nonetheless.
There is the old joke about the Student Socialist conference in the '60s. Dozens of representatives from factions ranging from Trotskyists to Social Democrats show up - but only two Maoists. The various factions spend the conference critiquing each other, except for the two Maoists who spend the conference angrily denouncing EACH OTHER as revisionist swine...
If the Big Tent isn't acceptable, if factionalism and purging of heretics is the order of the day, then I'll retreat to my Radical Individualism - because there is nothing progressive or even liberal about subsuming your individuality for the sake of group coherence.
I like this Euston Manifesto that was mentioned. I can't find anything to dislike about it, but I'd never call myself a "Eustonist" for fear that some self-appointed purist might then denounce me as a fraud because of some opinion I might have voiced on some subject at some point in my 50 years of life on this planet.
If I was going to apply any criteria to what I find a necessary trait in "fellow travelers", it would be the need to have a sense of humor and the ability to laugh at oneself. I could never back that up by citing any doctrines, but if you don't have that you aren't fully human in my opinion and you likely won't be very good company regardless of what labels you hang upon yourself.
"The dubious definition of "progressive" is why I never joined the group in the first place.
That didn't bother me when the point was simply to provide a place that encouraged bloggers to blog and readers to explore -- a place that wasn't the Blogging Tories which meant that the worst of the wingers were filtered out."
That's my vision of what ProgBlogs is and should be - a cool listing of interesting blogs where it's more likely than not that you'll find someone smart who has political commentary on a subject of interest to Canadians. I don't think the members have to be perfect, just right more often than wrong. It's why I was against kicking My Blahg off, and was against action against DR as well.
It's unfortunate that Dr. Dawg felt he could do more by quitting in protest than staying involved, but I respect his choice. He's not the first to quit, and won't be the last. Life goes on.
First, my thanks for the support from so many commenters. I truly wasn't expecting it. I figured I might meet, instead, with an embarrassed silence. I don't like breaking ranks. All my years in the labour movement have schooled me against it. But in this case I really had no choice.
OK, on to the notion of the "progressive":
Adam C. had a good point earlier: he notes that I have used the term myself quite a bit, and, in his view at least, to good effect.
I have indeed used it, as a kind of shorthand for "the Left," although that's fudging. I consider "the Left" to be socialist, or at least social-democratic. I coexist uneasily with liberals, even left-liberals. But I do so in the face of a common enemy.
"Progressive" for me, then, has meant "the Left plus." And we might be stuck with it--not as an analytic term, but as a vague reference to a non-conservative grouping, an array of (at least tactical) allies. Why stuck with it? Because is has more currency than any new term we might try to dream up. It's a bit like "culture": I wince every time I use it, but it's hard to avoid. Both words, to use Derrida's phrase, should be placed "under erasure."
But anyway, that's in a different context. My "progressivism" includes feminists, socialists, left-liberals, anyone active in the cultural and political struggle against conservatism, its projects and its constellated values.
The difficulty only arises when we look at the word so closely that we begin to see its "signified" disintegrate, as it were. On this, I suspect both sides of this debate might agree. Not "what is progressive," but "who is a progressive" is the crux of the problem.
When does that question become salient? When we find that our numbers contain some who espouse values that we are committed to fighting against. When we are actually (as opposed to in some abstract sense) brought together as a group to act on our convictions. Otherwise, who really cares?
In the case in question, ProgBlog is a gathering of people who call ourselves progressive, and we are doing our bit, even as a loose aggregation, to counter various Great Satans. We didn’t just wander into the room. We saw, in some sense, a bunch of like-minded people that we wanted to be with—in some sense.
But someone has to sweep the floors, make sure the place is warm and the roof doesn’t leak. There are keepers of the blogroll, even an owner. But, as the old questions go, "who is ‘they’? Who put them in charge?"
(cont'd)
(cont'd.)
And when that question arises, there is really no answer for it, at least not one that makes any sense. Blogrolls don’t run themselves; nor, on the other hand, can they be run on a day-to-day basis by literally hundreds of people either. Personally, I think the moderators I have come in contact with have been more or less equal to the task, although obviously not (IMO) always. But we haven’t been accountable. Not really.
Should we be?
If, say, we had an elected executive, then we’d have to have an agreed-upon statement of principles. There’s really no avoiding it. And good luck with that, with this crowd. That’s when things would fall well and truly apart. We spent a lot of effort on a Code of Conduct once upon a time. Eye-opening, as I’ve said before. We couldn’t agree. We kept thinking of more possibilities, and the language just growed. The experience moved me personally a few notches away from speech codes and towards the unfettered speech position. The letter killeth.
So I’m comfortable with a loose aggregation. And with people who are willing to do the upkeep, accountable or not. But only up to a point.
Because the word "progressive" shouldn't apply to anyone who appropriates it. Because, while we might never agree what is "progressive," or who, we should at the very least be able to identify what, and who, are not. Any label like this implies an anti-label, maybe several (I’m struggling to move away from binary thinking). We have to stay general, of course—otherwise we’d get into bureaucracy, and Stalinist correct-lineism, and micromanagement—but even with that restriction, we can at least say that we aren’t what we’re fighting. And when we join a group, however loose, it’s hardly asking too much, is it, inclusive as we might want to be, for us to know our enemy?
Maybe pogge is right: "If the place isn't helping in the pursuit of more specific goals, then maybe the answer is to build something that will." But on the other hand--perhaps debates like this one, paradoxically, are why the current loose aggregation known as "Progressive Bloggers" has its merits. I don't want to help "run" it any more, but I think I’ll stick around--and precisely for that reason.
"person who can endorse a racist policy one minute and oppose it the next is not taking racism seriously."
I guess you'd expect an old WHITE man to take racism more seriously than an "haitian immigrant", then, would you?
Typical Dipper: make no sense!
I guess any good circus needs a sideshow.
So let's agree to disagree. -- Dr. Dawg
How come you can't take that civilized tone when addressing a black immigrant woman liberal, but have no problem using that tone with a white non-immigrant male liberal?
Dawg: You're the biggest clown in here!
What this boils down to is an Old Dipper who appropriated the word "progressive" to HIS specifications and wants to impost it on others. On a whole blog roll. My way or the highway. You're either with us or against us.
Stomping his feet while crying like a baby on a blog, asking his friends to join in to support his skewed views and over-the-top flamings, including allusions to citizenship and place of birth -- like that makes a diff -- being caught in several lies himself. (still no correction has been made).
This is definitely a circus and the biggest clown = the Dawg.
Like the saying goes, I'll let sleeping dawgs lie. You're good at it.
Does Murray know you're playing with his computer?
[IP 132.246.2.25. Belongs to one Murray Mantz, who works at the National Research Council.]
Michelle, you're a troll and I don't know why the good Dawg tolerates your spewings.
I won't for much longer, I assure you. But it's salutary to see the kind of supporters DR attracts. (Yes, "Michelle" is a Liberal too.]
Liberals make up most of this country and most of the Progressive Bloggers. So deal.
*yawn*
Shorter Michelle: Pardon me while I deliberately misconstrue everything that has been said here in order to fit my perpetual victim worldview.
"When does that question become salient? When we find that our numbers contain some who espouse values that we are committed to fighting against. When we are actually (as opposed to in some abstract sense) brought together as a group to act on our convictions."
Ok. Except that the application of this principle always seems to be arbitrary, or based on very personal hierarchy of values which cannot help but smack of hypocrisy.
Where is the denunciation of the blatant, real world (not abstract), trampling on the human rights of a variety of socially disadvantaged groups - by the Health Promotion industry? It seems to be ignored by those placing a higher value on anti-corporatism or "promotion of good health".
Where is the denunciation of the blatant anti-democratic & anti-free speech tendencies within radical environmentalism? The environmental values trump the democracy & freedom values, it seems.
I don't see how such a principle could be applied with any consistency and my experience has been that it never IS applied with rational consistency.
Michelle, you're definitely trolling and certainly not helping your case.
The criticism of RD here has not been limited to only people who are old, white, Anglo-Saxon and/or male. Far from it.
I have a feeling we won't be seeing "Michelle" around any more. And not because I banned him/her, either.
Leo said:
What amazes me in this whole story is the cavalier way that you’ve decided to take. It didn’t matter that DR changed her post twice to clarify her position
Did you read her original post, Leo? Do you remember the title? It was "Joe Arpaio: please clone him."
I don't see how any change would "clarify" the original title or position (neither do I see any room for misinterpretation).
Clone this?
- Arpaio believes that inmates should be treated as harshly as legally possible to emphasize the punishment aspect of their incarceration.
- Arpaio reinstituted chain gangs (i.e. learn some work ethic!)
- Arpaio believes that chain gangs are not a form of punishment, but of rehabilitation.
Leo, I agree with Dr. Dawg that it can be hard to define "progressive", but I'll eat my hat if you can find one more Progressive Blogger who considers re-instituting chain gangs is "progressive".
It isn't, and it shouldn't be.
Blogging Tories, that's where this type of bullshit belongs - and you know it too.
I'm not sure I buy the "clarification" either. Suddenly the list of "SOME" things that were admirable shrunk down to a list of things that were incredibly trivial (an in-house radio station) or already commonplace elsewhere (inmates getting education and drug counseling). Why even bring up this thug if these are the specific policies you want to promote?
Dr. Dawg, I think you're taking a principled stand and that's good.
I have a little concern about defining what's "progressive" -- to me, more personal liberty (which, in my view, includes less government intrusion in our lives) is progressive, but not every "progressive" sees it that way (ie. gun control).
Hopefully the line would be drawn somewhere obvious (ie. racism), and we'd amiably agree to disagree in other cases where we have conflicting views.
JJ:
I agree. That's why I said we should keep matters at a sufficient level of generality that we can avoid line-ism.
"Smash the bourgeois counter-revolutionary line-ists!"
"I'll retreat to my Radical Individualism - because there is nothing progressive or even liberal about subsuming your individuality for the sake of group coherence."
Amen to that....
D'oh! Sorry, Dr. D, I see that now. Next time I'll try reading the whole thread before I beak off; )
Sorry myself, JJ--didn't mean to bark! : )
Well, I'm the one who took the highway, I guess. And I left the marbles behind (no cheap shot there, please).
Damn. Not quick enough. ; )
Gee, Dawg, getting labeled a racist by a person of colour is a pretty serious allegation. Enjoying, as you are, all of the privileges of your white skin, you should be more sensitive to the voices of the diversity. Just because they do not make "sense", according to the dictates and morals of your position of privilege, does not mean that they do not make sense. You should shut up so that peoples voices can be heard. You should make an example of yourself, too, you racist.
Shut up and pay your taxes.
Well, neo-communist describes you pretty well.
'Progressive Bloggers'???
Never heard of them
What a brilliant thread!!!
Hmpfff.
Looks like the typical shit fight amongst childish people with childish views. Now a bunch of liberal idiots are calling each other racists to try and shut each other up.
May I suggest you use firearms instead of childish names? Be happy to lend ya the bullets, kids.
Odd that you hate Sherriff Joe for his treatment of prisoners. As a marxist you must realize that Uncle Joe Stalin and his breed of marxists were a lot harder on their prisoners. Millions of them. Your indignation is pathetic.
I suppose that "progress" is in the eye of the beholder. I would consider it progressive to find solutions to societal problems. Of course, this becomes difficult when we insist on maintaining absolute positions on ideas that prevent us from having an open mind.
Please, all of the time and energy wasted on goofy definitions and semantics here. Hey, "progessives", the bottomline to Big Dawg's basic whine is that he couldn't CENSOR someone. Everything else is a distraction.
Any chance that any of you grasp how damn unprogressive/illiberal the censorship of other's opinions is?
Here's a shock for most of you, your attitudes are more like fascists no matter what name you give to yourselves.
Grow up.
Your of a marxist mind set? Well instead of Progressive why not call yourself a Communist?
I am curious as to what the term 'racist' means anymore. It appears to be used to label anyone with whom you disagree.
I might add that anyone you disagree with Mr. Dawg, is likely to be 100% right.
Dawg
I read with interest your comments (reached by a link from FreeMarkSteyn). I lean towards Libertarian ideas, but I found the last couple paragraphs you wrote to be interesting posits. I am presently reading G. K. Chesterton's "The Everlasting Man", and have only made it to the fourth chapter. Already I think it should be required reading by every thinking person, especially the first three chapters where he lays a good groundwork as to what's wrong with most "progressiveness" and the frequently muddled thinking that perpetuates mistaken ideas.
nothing like watching some leftoid bozo auger into meaningless navel gazing.
'These people, they, they're, it's like, so WRONG....'.
Shoot man, grow up, grow some stones, and realize your singular opinion is not only one of millions, but that your asshat beliefs in Marxism are dead Comrade (as is Lenin).
The people in sheriff Arpio's care are there on their own free will and accord.They WANT to sleep in tents in the desert,they WANT to wear pink clothes,they WANT to eat baloney,they WANT to work in gardens and stables or they WOULD'nt be there.THey KNOW where they will be housed.I am all for freedom of choice even if some are'nt.
Doggie-dude: You know that normal folks are laughing at you right now right?
You scream at Harper and his MPs because they supposedly tow the GWB line and then you complain because another "progressive" blogger isn't towing your own line. That's freakin' hilarious!
I stoppe dreading after the fourth paragraph when I realized Dr. Dawg is just another reactionary, knee jerk left wing moon bat. Sheriff Arpaio is hardly the villain made out, and to compare his jail to "Arbeit Macht Frei" is insulting to anyone of Judaic Heritage. Dr. Dawg is just another meshugganah goyim, and he probably also likes Chaves.
What does Gravitar mean? I see it on some of the comments here and not part of the comment text.
I think the real issue here Dawg is that you lack nuance in your criticism and your priorities are all messed up.
First of all, you show quite a bit of insensitivity to a woman of colour without understanding the root socio-economic cause of her opinions. You call her out in a fashion typical of a bully.
Secondly, you would have the progressive cause diverted to suit your secret racist agenda when there is much work to do figuring out what to do about the genocide in Darfur, the imminent collapse of the world's eco-system caused by big oil's carbon orgy and the fact that there are secret Nazi's living in suburbia who steal from the poor. I think you should apologize for being a racist misogynist, genocide supporting, polluting robber baron.
Dr. Dawg: I couldn't resist.
http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2008/
0...rogressive.html
Progressives like you, Dawg, don't mind stealing money from me for your little programs and your wallets.
Which makes you not much different from John Howard's occupation of Northern Australia, or Joe Arpaio's strangling of a prisoner, by your own definition.
Its funny you cannot see it.
"Stealing"?
Excuse me, and I'm not asking this in a loaded way, but did you just come out against democracy?
Excuse me, and I'm not asking this in a loaded way, but did you just come out against democracy?
Pure democracy is nothing more than mob rule. It begins to fail as soon as 51% of the population figures out that they can vote themselves entitlements at the expense of the other 49%.
hahahah...
Thank you for not answering me....
Don't tell me, a link from Small Dead Arseholes?
Gotta love when they show up and fling pooh around.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
