The Flawed Logic in Defining Progressivism

I have been very perplexed and disillusioned by the continuous debate by some Politicians in the City of Berkeley about who is more Progressive when it comes down to issues in this upcoming election cycle. You would think that all discussions would be centered on how to reach viable solutions that will advance the interest and well being of all the citizens and all of the very diverse communities we posses. The opposite is the mark.

We continue to see statements by some about who is a "true Progressive" and as a candidate so ineptly put it by describing others as "green spam" and part of "quasi progressive" elements. In the City of Berkeley, believed rightly by most of us to be the greatest bastion of Liberal, Inclusive and Progressive politics, one must wonder about the ulterior motives and the flawed logic.

Wikipedia rightly defines "progressive Politics" as:
"a political attitude favoring or advocating changes or reform. Progressivism is often viewed in opposition to conservative or reactionaryideologies. The Progressive Movement began in cities with settlement workers and reformers who were interested in helping those facing harsh conditions at home and at work. The reformers spoke out about the need for laws regulating tenement housing and child labor. They also called for better working conditions for women.

In the United States, the term progressivism emerged in the late 19th century into the 20th century in reference to a more general response to the vast changes brought by industrialization: an alternative to both the traditional conservative response to social and economic issues and to the various more radical streams of socialism and anarchism which opposed them."

Now this is a very interesting definition as it specifically refers to the creation of the Progressive movement not only to fight conservative values but also to balance more radical and anarchist movements. We can certainly say that any politician of any right wing conservative value would not be in politics in Berkeley , the same can not be said about extremely radical members. When does common sense and pragmatism come into play? When does a conversation predicated on results and reality get obfuscated by name calling and derisive politics?

If you believe in a viable green plan for downtown then you must not be a Progressive

If you believed that some level of viable compromising could have been reached about the Rapid Transit Plan program for Berkeley and Oakland then you are not Progressive.

If you don't believe that a slate is the only way to truly represent the interests of tenants and landlords when it comes to Rent Control then you are not Progressive

If you don't believe that all military personnel are 'baby killers" as defined by some fringe radical members then you are not Progressive enough. Please note that the same framing of the issue is employed by Fundamentalist Conservatives when addressing a woman's right to choose.

On the other hand if you still believe in the above and continue to strive for human rights, inclusiveness, diversity, housing rights, non-discrimination, marriage equality, a fair wage and health insurance for all, you are still not Progressive enough.

We have seen the same tactics by the religious right in defining each other as "not Christian enough" or "not Conservative enough". I bet the comparison will not sit well with a lot of people but the fact remains that the way the definitions are being used have eerily similarities in common.

I would have to argue that in the absence of substance and when the only way to avoid compromising is to employ the tactics of obstructionism, calling each other a lesser Progressive has an advantage. Some Council Members actually wait to see how one votes before voting as to not affect change and to stall progress.

Whatever happened to looking at issues impartially and reaching a decision that benefits all? What about PROGRESS? Is this another way, as George Lakoff writes, of "Dont look at the elephant!". Are we framing arguments and our inability to look past wedge issues and ideological differences in a way that harms and stalls the advancement of the City and its citizenship? Is Berkeley only comprised of one, two or three districts or should our ideas, plans and policies be inclusive of all the other districts and votes?

Progress is defined as:

"the idea that the world can become increasingly better in terms of science, technology, modernization, liberty, democracy, quality of life etc.." and social progress as "the idea that societies can or do improve in terms of their social, political, and economic structures"-Wikipedia

I hope that the voters in Berkeley will look past the derisive and divisive comments and vote for  diverse, inclusive and FOR PROGRESS politicians and community leaders. Leaders that look at issues impartially with viable solutions in mind in order to keep Berkeley moving forward.