Civil Disagreements

As readers know I use the term Progressive Conservative to describe my own political leanings. My ‘pedigree’ goes straight back to the early Progressives, namely Teddy Roosevelt and Benjamin Disraeli who both used the same label as myself. Unfortunately that same label has been bastardized for the last century and now means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. For the majority of Americans who talk politics, like our friend Ames over at Submitted to a Candid World or to people like Dana Hunter at En Tequilla Es Verdad ‘progressive’ just means really liberal. That’s unfortunate because it demeans the legacy of the word as a school of though outside of our two political spheres. But it’s also understandable because Republicans officially abandoned Progressivism in 1912. Despite flirtations with a return to Progressivism at times (see Eisenhower, Dwight) no Republicans since TR have been successful at returning the word to its former glory.

Since the Republican party took a beating last November there has been a lot of various sites springing up that are devoted to the mission of resurrecting the GOP’s hopes for the future. Sites like Rebuild the Party, Next Right, and a few others have lead the charge, with mixed results. RtP is primarily focusing on laying the groundwork for electoral victories. Next Right is mostly hosting a place for various Republican factions to state what ideas mean the most to them and/or they think are key to future gains. All serve a purpose. What is also true is that they all have competing ideas of what various labels mean. Some use moderate, some centrist, some progressive to describe their particular bent of thought.

I was asked some time ago to contribute some stuff to another new site called Progressive Republican. The request came from my friend Dennis Sanders over at NeoMugwump and so I was happy to try and help out. As I said, the Progressive label now means a lot of things to a lot of different people. I wanted to share my beliefs on how to move towards a more solid interpretation. My first few entries at The Progressive Republican were mostly part of an ongoing debate I have been having with Dennis about socially liberal Republicans and their place within the party. To distill my side of the discussion I am happy to include socially liberal views within the GOP so long as they honestly identify themselves as such and they adequately explain how their positions fit into the larger Republican platform. The debate was civil and while we are both passionate about our views, I think we were having a healthy dialogue. Then yesterday I received an email from Travis Johnson, founder of The Progressive Republican, asking that we end the conversation because he didn’t think it was a constructive. I believe his exact word was ‘disturbing’.

My reply to Travis was that we needed to be having these kinds of conversations to move the party forward and I thought an interaction between myself and Dennis was productive. I also explained to Travis that at I am inspired by the very SUCCESSFUL League of Ordinary Gentlemen, which is formatted around several bloggers all engaging one another in a dialogue, with a robust comment section adding color. One blogger begins a topic with an initial post then the others respond with posts of their own. Admittedly since the various League members are of different political stripes there is much more ideological ground covered and far less of the ‘how do we fix the parties’ talk. But it’s a good format and one I think would work well with PR. Travis seemed to disagree. Here is his reply to me (bold emphasis mine):

You’re not wrong that the Party needs that discussion. In fact, I’m building a site right now called Project: Big Tent where that discussion should happen @ length. The Progressive Republican, however, is about defining the Progressive Republican viewpoint and building that “brand.” Frankly, if we need to rely on the arguments of a conservative to define us, then I don’t think there’s much reason to try this.

This statement was somewhat confusing, considering that after my first post at PR Travis told me he really liked it and requested more. That post was anything but a fluff piece. Readers can judge for themselves. As you can see Travis has already decided a couple of things. The first is that Progressive Republicanism needs to be defined. I will agree with that. The second is that conservatives cannot be part of that discussion because they can’t be Progressive (I wonder what Roosevelt and Eisenhower would have said about that?) It seems Travis was only looking for co-bloggers that share his particular vision of being a Progressive Republican and will blog about those principles, not challenge them. I find that interesting in light of a statement he made in his most recent post:

We will never be ready to tackle the many issues facing us in the future if we do not take stands based on our beliefs.

Lofty rhetoric so long as you toe the line. Travis is the type of Republican who rails against those non-inclusive Republicans like Rush Limbaugh or Newt Gingrich, yet he has already decided that a Progressive Republican must adhere to a certain set of beliefs and the purpose of his site is not to debate but to re-enforce. My conversation with Travis continued for a couple more emails and followed a predictable trajectory but his remarks above really struck home with me. So much so that I made the decision to delete my posts at PR, since they were clearly not what Travis was looking for.  Maybe this is bad blogging form, and a bit immature. If so, my apologies to my readers who hopefully expect higher standards from me. But I stand by my actions as warranted in light of Travis’ stated agenda.

At various times I’ve thought it might be better to quit using a modifier and just claim the un-modified conservative label, understanding that even then it doesn’t imply ideological purity. But the affictionado of political intellectualism in me refuses to accept that. I like specifics and I think labels can be helpful, but once again I find myself wondering if for someone like myself, perhaps the ‘Progressive’ label is lost forever. Maybe  the correct label for me to use is ‘dynamic conservatism’ which was a label that Eisenhower applied to his own way of thinking, much of which mirrors my own (and is frankly more modern and applicable than the Progressivism of TR, even if he remains my hero). I don’t know. One problem is that I’ve spent 18 months working hard to build a reputation in the blogosphere as a Progressive Conservative and have gotten a lot of encouragement from like minded or sympathetic individuals along the way. Another is that it would certainly feel like a surrender of sorts.

Whatever my ultimate decision it is unfortunate that The Progressive Republican turned out to be a bust. I had hoped this group would spark interesting debates within the Republican ranks. But I guess that is what I am most hungry for is debate. I’m not interested in standing on soapboxes and saying, “THIS is the correct way to believe,” and watching people nod their heads in agreement. I’m interested in challenging ideas and more importantly in being challenged.

When I was on vacation a few weeks ago I asked some of my friends to contribute posts to fill the void at The Big Stick. Two of my guest posters were liberals and I found their posts to be just what the doctor ordered. I guess for me I need that tension, that spark of disagreement. It’s often where I find I am at my best. Patting like-minded individuals on the back to build a political ‘brand’ just doesn’t rev my engine.