The Fight For Progress Means Taking On The New Dems Too
Conservative ideology isn’t just about preservation of traditions, morals and family values; a key element is the preservation of economic structures that favor so-called free markets, capitalism and the status quo of wealth distribution. This manifests itself in policies that protect property rights, benefiting those who already own significant assets; support for lower taxes, particularly for higher income brackets or businesses; oppose anything that smacks of wealth redistribution.
The preservation of social strata has been crucial to conservatives, leading them to advocate for maintaining class distinctions and resisting to changes to economic policy, especially when it comes to labor. Fiscal conservatism emphasizes balanced budgets, which generally lead to cuts in social programs that benefit lower-income groups, thereby preserving the status quo.
The opposite is progressivism, which favors regulations to protect workers, consumers, and the environment, even if it means higher costs for the very wealthy and businesses and advocates for government intervention in the economy to correct market failures, promote social equity and reduce income inequality. The idea of progressive taxation, where higher earners pay a larger share, is meant to gently redistribute wealth.
Where conservatism values tradition, social order and patriarchal family structures and opposes changes in social norms, progressivism promotes social justice, equality, and inclusivity, often pushing for changes in social norms, including rights for women and minorities, while advocating for policies that address systemic inequalities.
Conservatives see inequality as a natural outcome of differences in talent, effort or choices, opposing policies aimed at reducing economic inequality, while progressives view inequality as a result of systemic issues, including economic systems, education disparities and social structures, leading them to support policies aimed at leveling the playing field, such as universal healthcare, free education and other social safety nets.
It is next to impossible for conservatives to win in electoral politics with their policies so oppositional to the majority of people. So they've come up with strategies to reach out to the very voters who their policies would hurt most. The strategies are based on lies, fear and divisiveness. Conservatives have mastered the art of political sleight of hand— whipping up cultural grievances, manufacturing outrage over nonexistent threats, and stoking resentment against marginalized groups— all to distract from the fact that their economic policies actively harm the vast majority of their own potential voters. They rail against “elites” while serving the billionaire class. They sow panic over immigration while keeping wages low for their corporate donors. They weaponize religion, race, and gender to pit working people against each other, ensuring that the real enemy— the ultra-wealthy hoarders of power and resources— remains untouchable.
This is why the Republican Party, not that long ago a party of conservative ideology, has devolved into a party of authoritarianism. Democracy itself is a threat to their agenda. So, they gerrymander, suppress votes, defund education and pack courts with far-right judges to cling to power by any means necessary. Because in a fair fight— where voters truly understand what’s at stake— they lose.
If the Republican Party represents conservatism with a more and more hard right reactionary agenda, the Democratic Party has been the vehicle for progressivism. Mostly. There have always been conservative strains inside the Democratic Party, among Southern Democrats and other racists when I was growing up and today in a corporate-financed grouping called the New Dems. That’s why even now, while it serves as the only viable counterweight to a GOP slipping into outright fascism, powerful— even controlling— elements within the Democratic Party are far from being reliable champion of progressivism, instead remaining compromised by corporate influence. The New Dems— essentially a rebranded version of the old pro-corporate, neoliberal wing— talk a good game about economic opportunity and social justice, but when push comes to shove, they serve their donors first. That explains why progressive policies with overwhelming public support— Medicare for All, a living wage, student debt relief— struggle to gain traction even under Democratic majorities. It’s why fossil fuel giants, Wall Street and Big Pharma continue to wield outsized influence. And it’s why the fight for real progress isn’t just about beating Republicans— it’s about holding Democrats accountable and forcing them to stand with the people instead of the powerful.
On Friday, Mica Soellner, reported that as the New Dems have grown in power within the Democratic Party, they are more overtly eschewing progressive values and slipping into the mainstream conservatism the Republicans are abandoning for fascism. With 110 members, the New Dems are getting picky about who they’re willing to admit, even to the point ion labeling some applicants as “too progressive.” The grouping, which thrives on classic DC-corporate corruption, is “worried that newly interested members with leftist voting records are only joining to boost their reelection efforts… One member of New Dem leadership added that the group is going to take positions that progressives ‘aren’t comfortable with’ and that’s something these Democrats need to consider when vetting who joins the caucus.”
The irony here is that in the past, corrupt conservative New Dems have joined the Progressive Caucus to protect their left flank. Corrupt corporate whore, genocidal maniac and New Dem chair, Brad Schneider (D-IL) told Soellner that “he expects the group will be adding ‘multiple members’ in the coming weeks and that applicants must meet with the group’s leadership and be voted on by the whole caucus to be admitted. ‘We have a strong sense of who we are and what we want to accomplish,’ Schneider said. ‘We look at everyone on a case-by-case basis.’”
Soellner noted that “To Democrats who belong to New Dems and CPC, it’s a politically advantageous way to express personal progressive values while being able to tout their bipartisanship by floating their New Dem status.” She didn’t mention that there is also a financial advantage, since the New Dems are supported by corporate interests that avoid progressives. ‘I’ve got a traditionally industrial base in my district and the poorest big city in the country, so there’s a lot of cross-cutting issues,’ Mary Gay Scanlon (D-PA), who belongs to both groups, told us. ‘Membership in both helps me navigate a lot of competing interests.’”
In recent weeks, you find conservative New Dems consistently voting for the Republican agenda, undermining progressive opposition on an almost daily basis: HR 35 on Thursday, an anti-Climate bill two weeks ago— where corrupt reactionaries like Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (WA), Greg Landsman (OH), Jim Costa (CA), Adam Gray (CA), Henry Cuellar (TX), Jared Golden (ME), Chrissy Houlahan (PA), Vicente Gonzalez (TX) all voted with the GOP that up the planet— as well as a number of really ugly, anti-immigrant GOP messaging bills.
The GOP stopped being "conservative" by any reasonable definition of the term long ago. There was nothing "conservative" about the theft of the 2000 presidential election, about McTurtle sitting on the Garland nomination, or about a whole host of SCOTUS decisions casually casting aside prior precedents.
Now, the GOP is a herd of nihilists. One can argue that the likes of Adam Kinzinger or William Kristol or George Conway are conservatives. They're all pariahs in today's GOP.
Danielle Sassoon is an actual conservative. She was forced to resign for standing up for the basics of the rule of law.
Language matters, and going along with the charade that there's anything conservative about today's GOP is a mistake.