John Fetterman surprised political junkies the other day by announcing in an interview that, “I’m not a progressive.”
Apparently this is partly about his near-unconditional support for Israel, a conviction which is not shared in the far left regions of his party.
And it is about immigration. Sen.
Fetterman takes the view that simply ignoring the problem, and pretending that a de facto open border is a policy, makes little sense.
He is right about that. But what policy does he advocate?
It seems to me that both of these stances are just that and little more – postures, bumper stickers, slogans.
“I stand with Israel,” is not a policy, not a program, not helpful.
And neither is “The border problem is real.” Or the Trump version: “Impure blood is coming across the border.” (The all-time low keeps getting lower.)
Progressivism, which the senator previously embraced rhetorically, is, precisely, the disposition to go beyond slogans to policy.
A progressive is someone who thinks that good public policy, implemented by government, is not only possible, but what government is here for.
If we must have government, with the power to police and tax, we ought to use it to make progress – to ameliorate some of our problems and to help people seek better lives.
This is what the Democratic Party used to be – progressive.
And there is not much point to a Democratic Party, or a John Fetterman, without progressivism.
We have all seen the signs in windows of businesses and homes: We oppose racism. We believe in science and in love. We support trans kids.
Fair enough. But not enough. We have to make the leap from posture to policy.
Wokeness does not put food on the table. A living (higher minimum) wage does.
Wokeness does not protect human rights: Voting rights laws do. Child labor laws do. Social Security does.
This is progressivism. Practical doing.
How do we protect the trans kid in school? Where do his rights to participate in athletics end and another kid’s rights begin?
How do we pass immigration reform that gives illegals and their children a path to citizenship? How do we both control our borders and keep America open? We need new workers and families that produce new generations of workers.
How do we help families stay together? How about a shorter workweek or work year?
No issue is as easy as simply being pro or con. Rather, where is the proper balance and how do we fashion a policy?
That’s the test.
With trade.
With Israel.
With Ukraine.
I am “pro” Ukraine and pro-Israel. But how do we promote peace and U.S. interests?
Unconditional support for any government cannot be justified.
I care as much about displaced Palestinians and the death of innocent Palestinians as I do the deaths of innocent Ukrainians.
And I am sure that isolationism, and indifference to human suffering, the current GOP position, is intellectually flaccid and morally repugnant.
Every once in a while I hear someone say: Words matter.
Perhaps a parent or mentor taught that lesson.
Words matter.
They should.
But I fear that they do not – not to most people, not to virtually any politicians, not even to most journalists.
We collect clichés and make word salads.
Mr. Fetterman strikes postures, as does almost every GOP member of the U.S. House. As do most priests and ministers. Words flow forth. But not sentences – complete thoughts.
The internet has made us incontinent of words, yet indifferent to them, just as Muzak made us indifferent to music.
But words can still matter. Consider what Paul Ryan said about Donald Trump the other day.
He said Mr. Trump is not a conservative but a populist, an authoritarian and a narcissist.
He chose strong, clear words and used them in an accurate way. And when that happens our experience is clarified.
Ryan also reminds us that we need a conservative party in America, just as we need a progressive one.
We have neither.
The essence of conservatism, whether Burkean or libertarian, is skepticism – to question the reach of positive government. To question progress. Not to say that either government is useless or that progress is impossible, but to acknowledge that there are limits to government and limits to progress.
There are times when we must seek to improve and to move forward. There is too much injustice. We need policy and action.
And there are times when we need to slow down, reassess, and acknowledge what we do not know and cannot fix.
Mr. Trump is indeed no conservative. Mr. Fetterman says he is no progressive. And the yahoos in the House who want to impeach Joe Biden are not leaders. They are reckless poseurs.
So let’s name a constructive conservative. One who led.
How about Dwight Eisenhower? Or Calvin Coolidge? Both knew that sometimes less is best. Both also knew that government exists to help its citizens move forward.
We could learn a lot from those two men. Speak less. Promise less. Posture less. Do more.
Very well thought out and articulated.