Mediaboss Marketing

This article appears in the April 2022 issue of The American Prospect magazine. Subscribe here.

Common Good Constitutionalism

By Adrian Vermeule

Polity

Just as the Supreme Court is poised to achieve many of the stated aims of the conservative legal movement, including overturning Roe v. Wade and striking down affirmative action, leading conservative thinkers are hotly debating alternative approaches to interpreting the Constitution. Originalismthe notion that the words of the Constitution should be read according to some version of their original historical meaninghas been the standard-bearer for decades, promoted initially as a strategy to undermine national economic regulation and limit the protection of civil rights.

But a conservative competitor to originalism has recently emerged in common good constitutionalism. For its leading proponent, Adrian Vermeule, a Harvard law professor, the point of constitutional interpretation isnt to discern what the Founders thought or what some legal text meant to ordinary readers when it was enacted. Instead, the aim is to promote the common good. Vermeule claims that within the classical legal traditionwhich extended from the Roman Empire through early modern Europepolitical officials, including judges, understood that the purpose of the state is to secure the goods of peace, justice, and abundance, which he translates now into health, safety, and economic security. But in Vermeules telling, American conservatives have lost sight of that tradition and its influence on our own legal system. They have been blinded by originalism, which has become a stultifying obstacle to promoting a robust, substantively conservative approach.

In criticizing originalism, Vermeule borrows rather liberally from what he calls progressive constitutionalismthe view that the Constitution should be read with its purposes and principles in mind. He argues that progressives get some important things right about the nature of legal interpretation. Indeed, throughout his book, Vermeule relies heavily on Ronald Dworkin, the most influential American legal philosopher of the 20th century and a liberal critic of originalism. Dworkin argued that our legal system comprises much more than the Constitution, statutory texts, administrative regulations, and executive orders. All those different types of laws are created against the backdrop of often unwritten legal principles, which are drawn from our best understanding of political morality. When judges interpret the law, they are always trying to explain its meaning in a way that is justified by those principles.

Vermeule thinks that Dworkin was right about the importance of moral principles in understanding the law. He just thinks Dworkin had the wrong principles. Vermeule claims that progressive constitutionalism is motivated by a liberal political morality that misconceives the common good in favor of an ever-expanding conception of individual autonomy. His primary examples here involve gay rights. Vermeule heaps scorn on the Supreme Courts decisions in Obergefell v. Hodges, which constitutionalized a right to same-sex marriage, and Bostock v. Clayton County, which read federal law to protect against workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. These opinions, in his view, reflect a liberal political theology that works tirelessly to dissolve the traditional moral foundations of political and legal institutions in the West.

For Vermeule, then, originalism is fatally flawed because it is cut off from political morality. Progressive constitutionalism doesnt make that particular mistake; its sin is to idolize individual autonomy at the expense of the communitys general welfare. Vermeule argues that the classical tradition solves both problems by connecting law to a political morality of the common good.

BUT WHAT, EXACTLY, is the common good? Despite declaring repeatedly that promoting the common good is a proper function of the political authority, Vermeule never adequately explains what it is. He tells us that it is not a matter of aggregating individual preferences or satisfying demands for individual autonomy. He does cite the ragion di stato (reason of the state) tradition, which describes justice, peace, and abundance as the legitimate ends of government, but that explains precious little. No one is opposed to those ends, abstractly stated, and Vermeule doesnt offer an interpretation of them. Instead, he claims to provide a framework rather than a blueprint for thinking about the common good. And yet, almost entirely without argument, he insists that these ends require some specific policy outcomes, including a constitutional right to life for unborn children, most likely a prohibition on gay marriage, bans on pornography and perhaps blasphemy, and restrictions on various forms of dangerous or false speech. We know what policies Vermeule likes and dislikes, but the moral basis for his viewsbeyond vague invocations of the common goodremains obscure.

That is because Vermeules substantive vision of the good is tied to a specific religious view that he nowhere mentions in this book. It is a striking and telling omission, about which Vermeule seems rather defensive. He says that nothing in his account turns on supernatural or ultimate ends, but its difficult to take this claim seriously. Reading Vermeules efforts to avoid stating his own conception of the good is like listening to the director of Hamlet offer justifications for failing to cast the prince.

Why leave out Hamlet? Because most readers are likely to reject Vermeules religious views as quixotic and reactionary. In recent years, Vermeule has written extensively in defense of Catholic integralism, a radical view that calls for the establishment of a religious and explicitly Catholic confessional state. He has spoken favorably of illiberal Christian regimes like those of Hungary and Poland. And he has been vague when asked about how an integralist state might treat religious minorities, saying only that nothing bad would happen to them. But that is far from reassuring. What might seem bad, or unreasonable, to religious minoritiesdenials of equal citizenship, coerced conversions, suppression of public expression of faiths deemed to be heretical or blasphemousmight be good within Catholic integralism. Incredibly, Vermeule says nothing in his book about religious liberty and its place, or lack thereof, in his account of the common good.

Trying to find common ground with common good constitutionalism is a form of political and intellectual appeasement.

None of this should be surprising. In prior work, Vermeule has been clear about his Christian strategy, which aims to capture existing political and legal institutions and to reintegrate [them] from within. And that is harder to do if people equate Vermeules theory of law with his anti-liberal religious views.

Readers should not be gullible about what common good constitutionalism represents. It is not merely a revival of an ecumenical classical legal tradition. Nor is Vermeules argument merely for a moral reading of the Constitutionan argument progressives have been making for some time. It is an argument that underwrites a dangerous shift in jurisprudence on the right, and one that serves Vermeules larger goal, which is the establishment of a state integrated withor, more accurately, subordinated toreligious ends.

THE EMERGENCE OF COMMON good constitutionalism raises two further questions: First, why is this happening now? When conservatives control the Supreme Court, why is Vermeule busily undercutting their most successful theory of interpretation? And, second, how should readersespecially liberals and progressivesrespond to a theory proposed by an author who has advised acting strategically to advance an esoteric theory of the good?

The answer to the timing questionand one Vermeule is explicit aboutis that originalism has outlived its utility. It was instrumental in casting doubt on liberal precedents, like Roe v. Wade, and in convincing the American public to support the appointment of conservative justices. But now that the Court is firmly in conservative hands, the justices dont need to talk the rhetoric of originalism or walk its supposedly restraining walk. They can remake the state in service of the common good, defined, ultimately, in terms of religious authoritarianism.

But there is another and more profound reason for Vermeules rejection of originalism. Modern originalism was born in the Reagan era, and it was used to fight against the administrative state. Social conservatives and libertarians worked together to fight the welfare state, limit the power of unions, curtail civil rights, eliminate environmental protections, and so on. With Trump, the conservative legal movement has achieved success at the Supreme Court. It now has an overwhelming 6-3 majority, which is already moving into a deregulatory posture, invalidating vaccine mandates, restricting the presidents immigration authority, and hinting at far-reaching limits on administrative agencies.

The originalist program of deregulation is, however, less appealing to a new intelligentsia on the right that calls itself postliberal and that includes Catholic integralists like Vermeule. What postliberals want is more government, not less. They want to use the administrative state to promote patriarchal family policy, protectionist labor and economic policies, morals/vice legislation (bans on porn, blasphemy, offensive speech), restrictions on LGBTQ rights, and public support for religious observance, including the reinstatement of blue lawsall explicitly modeled on the illiberal Christian democracies of Poland and Hungary. (Its no accident that Tucker Carlson has been broadcasting from Budapest. His brand of conservatism is a crude popularization of this postliberal intellectual vanguard.) And common good constitutionalismas developed by Vermeule, the postliberals legal theoristwill be the newest front in their assault on the conservative legal establishment built by Reagan-era originalists.

So how should liberals and progressives respond to all this? As postliberals war with originalists, some progressives may be attracted to Vermeules defense of a moral reading of the Constitution and to his arguments for deference to the administrative state. They might also view the conservative legal movements fragmentation over the legitimacy of big government as an opportunity. As conservatives fight, why not use postliberal arguments to protect against deregulation and the dismantling of the social welfare state?

Other liberals and progressives might decide to throw their lot in with libertarian originalists. Although libertarians are no friends of progressive economic policies, at least they dont favor a religious state and are less enamored of government impositions of morality. What liberals might get from a liberaltarian deal is a check on the ambitions of the far right, and what libertarians would get is the same. Both have a common enemy in authoritarian, populist, and theocratic government.

Which option should liberals and progressives choose? Neither is attractive. The first would be a highly speculative and unstable dalliance with religious anti-liberalism, with outcomes that are morally dubious and that risk legitimating extreme factions within the conservative legal movement. It would mean jettisoning most of the civil rights protections that progressives have spent generations defending. Trying to find common ground with common good constitutionalismin effect, the legal arm of Catholic integralismis a form of political and intellectual appeasement, pinning the hopes of the administrative state on compromising with authoritarians and praying that they dont succeed. If one had to choose, the option to side with old-fashioned, Reagan-era libertarians might be morally preferable, but it faces the very real danger of legitimating and thereby capitulating to the threat posed by the current Supreme Court.

The problem, of course, is that legal progressives are on the sidelines. The Supreme Court will be deeply conservative for the next generation. So, too, the intellectual apparatus that justifies and legitimates the work of that Court will partake of whatever theory of interpretation does its bidding. The more likely outcome is a politics that marries the worst of both originalism and common good constitutionalisman administrative state that is increasingly corporatist and authoritarian. That is the pattern we have seen play out in repressive and autocratic regimes around the world, including in the states that postliberals seem to admire most.

When it comes to progressive politics, the old saying is wrong. For liberals and progressives, the enemy of my enemy is not my friend. Instead of throwing in with postliberals or accepting an alliance with libertarians and originalists, liberals and progressives should abjure these false friendships and make their own case for a moral reading of the Constitution that points to a more open, humane, tolerant, and decent society.

VERMEULES BOOK HAS a striking cover that depicts three ancient gold coins. Each has some standard abbreviations from Roman imperial currency, including one marked with the phrase fides publica (public faith). If you look closer, the first coin shows a bespectacled man holding a glass vial; the second a concrete mixing truck; and the third has two hands cradling a plant or tree sapling. These are reassuring images, much like those adopted by Roman emperors as propaganda for their coinage. Perhaps Vermeules coins represent scientific expertise, industry, and environmental stewardshipall domains in which he counsels deference to the administrative state in its efforts to promote the common good. But if the front sides of those three coins stand for the temporal ambitions of secular empire, we cant help but wonder about what religious images are on the other side of them. Its those symbolsthe ones that integralists and postliberals dont want readers to seethat are crucial for understanding what the common good really means in their constitutionalism.

Original post:
What Common Good? - The American Prospect

Late last year, the Chicago Teachers Union tweeted that the push to reopen schools is rooted in sexism, racism and misogyny. While the union later deleted the head-turning tweet, that same month little-noticed data released by the Illinois State Board of Education showed just how much pandemic-induced school closures were harming childrens learning. Among high school juniors, SAT scores in math and reading had plummeted across the state, with low-income and minority students seeing the steepest learning losses. Chicagos third-graders saw their reading and math scores plunge. A vice president of the citys teacher union dismissed these dismal numbers as the result of a racist standardized test while praising students who took up jobs instead.

Theres a term for this in the corporate world: woke-washing. This is when a company tries to launder its reputation in the waters of a trendy cause or woke language, such as when REI, the outdoor outfitter, began a recent podcast opposing an employee union drive with the hosts preferred pronouns and acknowledgement that the podcast was originating from the traditional lands of the Coast Salish peoples.

The risk with woke-washing is not only that it exposes tensions in an institutions expressed beliefs but that it brushes past substantive debates over governance and policy decisions. Its a practice thats hardly confined to the corporate world; it's undermining good governance across the public sector, and nowhere more than in local government.

Local activists are hardly helping the matter. Critics of new housing in Minneapolis are demanding racial and social equity analyses in order to slow development or stop it altogether. Nationwide, social justice advocates and their allies in office are now loudly skeptical of greening cities with new parks and greenspace in case adding amenities and improving services might gentrify poor neighborhoods. With such an argument, why even bother paving streets if doing so risks raising property values?

One reason why woke-washed incompetence persists is that local elected officials are too responsive to the results of low-turnout, off-cycle elections overstuffed with activists and public union members, whose interests may deviate from that of the median urban voter (and sometimes even from the groups they purport to represent). The nationalization of politics also means that local candidates can run and win on national culture-war issues they have little control over while having to promise even less in the way of actual local outcomes. And since Democrats are really the only game in town when it comes to most local politics, they havent had much competition from the right, which means any meaningful fights over school boards and more are essentially intra-left battles.

San Franciscos ultra-woke school board was not progressive, noted speaker after speaker at a victory party of mostly Asian American activists in the school board recall, and they have a point. Early-20th-century-style Progressives, with a capital P, campaigned against corrupt machines on a platform of good governance and scientific management. Its this same appeal to competent, outcome-based politics and horror at the results of woke-washed incompetence that is driving some longtime leftists to push back and even run for office themselves. Lets not forget that some of the most successful hard-left progressives in American history were Milwaukees Sewer Socialists, who between 1910 and 1960 more or less dominated local politics by delivering good government and better services, not to mention building treatment plants for the citys sewage.

Residents are getting fed up, particularly when the gap between high-minded words and poor results becomes too stark to ignore. Last year, Austins Proposition B banning homeless encampments passed over the opposition of city officials by a 15-point margin, winning support in every neighborhood as well as from a sizable chunk of Democrats. In San Francisco, a new poll on the recall of District Attorney Chesa Boudin finds an incredible 68 percent of voters favoring ejecting the citys progressive D.A. And the three-decade advantage in polls of Democrats over Republicans on who Americans trust to invest in public education and schools has now been wiped out.

Its time to put an end to woke-washing poor governance. Lets push for better governance and a more active electorate through voting reforms, such as on-cycle local elections, to enhance representation and accountability. More importantly, lets have a debate about the actual policies were meant to debate: Rather than, say, rejecting speed cameras until we address the root causes of speeding, why dont we just debate the effectiveness of speed cameras? Competence is the key, and we should be willing to hold leaders in city hall to account.

As New Yorks legendary mayor, Fiorello La Guardia, supposedly put it, theres no Republican or Democratic way to pick up the garbage. Cities must be safer, cleaner and offer a better future to the next generation. Do the basics, in other words, because woke-washing isnt going to produce those outcomes.

Original post:
The Incompetence of Woke-Washed Governance - Governing

Last Friday, Amazon workers at the JFK8 warehouse in Staten Island shocked the world by pulling off one of the great labor victories in US history, becoming the first Amazon workforce in the country to vote to unionize. A thousand miles away, in the rural setting of Brookwood, Alabama, 1,100 coal miners on strike at Warrior Met Coal have just passed the one-year anniversary of the day they hit the picket line. Around the country, workers are rising up, demanding more, and winning important victories, even though the deck is stacked against them. The question is: Where will the reinforcements come from? How can the fight that workers are waging on the shop floor be supported and empowered by a broad progressive movement that is united around the cause of economic, political, and social justice?

In a recent piece published on CommonDreams, Professor Harvey J. Kaye, an expert on the New Deal and FDR, and Alan Minsky, the executive director of Progressive Democrats of America, call for progressives to rally behind the proposal for a 21st Century Economic Bill of Rights. In this interview, TRNN Editor-in-Chief Maximillian Alvarez speaks with Professor Kaye and labor leader Sara Nelson about the state of the labor movement today and what it would mean if progressive forces within and beyond the labor movement united around a shared vision for a platform of economic policies designed to enable Americans, all Americans, to secure the nations promise of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Sara Nelson is the International President of the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, AFL-CIO, representing around 50,000 flight attendants at 17 airlines. Harvey J. Kaye is Professor Emeritus of Democracy and Justice Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay and the author of many books, including: The Fight for the Four Freedoms: What Made FDR and the Greatest Generation Truly Great; FDR on Democracy; and Take Hold of Our History: Make America Radical Again.

Pre-Production/Studio/Post-Production: Cameron Granadino

The transcript of this interview will be made available as soon as possible.

Editor-in-Chief

Ten years ago, I was working 12-hour days as a warehouse temp in Southern California while my family, like millions of others, struggled to stay afloat in the wake of the Great Recession. Eventually, we lost everything, including the house I grew up in. It was in the years that followed, when hope seemed irrevocably lost and help from above seemed impossibly absent, that I realized the life-saving importance of everyday workers coming together, sharing our stories, showing our scars, and reminding one another that we are not alone. Since then, from starting the podcast Working Peoplewhere I interview workers about their lives, jobs, dreams, and strugglesto working as Associate Editor at the Chronicle Review and now as Editor-in-Chief at The Real News Network, I have dedicated my life to lifting up the voices and honoring the humanity of our fellow workers.Email: max@therealnews.comFollow: @maximillian_alv

Read the original:
From Amazon to Starbucks, workers are rising upand progressives need to support them at all costs - The Real News Network

In politics, framing is the attempt to alter reality by selecting words, slogans and tropes that convince the public to see the other side in a certain negative way. As Robert Entman explains, Toframeis toselect some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendationfor the item described.

Framing is choosing the language, the words, the tropes that will produce the most lasting image in the minds of voters.

Everybody frames everybody with whom they disagree. Evangelicals frame progressives as demons; progressives frame evangelicals as dummies.

Google Democrats as devils, and the web blows up. Headlines scream: Its Almost Official: The Democrats Are the Party of the Devil; The Democratic Party is Satanic, Literally!; Devilfor theDemocrats?; Its all in the details;Its official: theDemocratsare the party of theDevil; The Democrats Are Evil; Democrats Have Become the Partyof Satan. A cursory search produced more than 50 articles insisting that Democrats are devils.

The arguments of the Democrats are devils trope are working. Here are representative samples of the bombarding of the public with the major trope:

Evangelicals, on the other hand, have been framed by liberals as dupes, dummies, backward hillbillies, rednecks, racists and ignorant. The primary pathos of liberal persuasion is shaming. Civil virtue has shamed evangelicals for not supporting gay marriage or feminism.

Shame is a primary liberal pedagogy. Since framing is an attempt at persuasion, it always intensifies what is perceived as the weakness of evangelicals and exaggerates those perceived weaknesses to the maximum.

Shame is a primary liberal pedagogy.

American historian David Blight says, Liberals sometimes invite scorn with their devotion to diversity training and insistence on fighting over words rather than genuine inequality.

Evangelicals, in other words, have reasons for deeming progressives as elitist and hypocritical. In the court of public opinion, perhaps it is hard to discern if liberal framing of evangelicals has stuck.

George Lakoff, in The Political Mind, says progressives have been framed by conservative rhetoric that is deeply emotional and has powerful appeal for voters. Polls show that Americans support Roe v. Wade by large margins. But in conservative framing, abortion is still the go-to issue to show that Democrats and progressive Christians are undermining morality.

Likewise, 70% of Americans support same-sex marriage and 67% of Americans believe in evolution. Even 68% of Republicans support alternative energy development. Yet Republicans continue to win elections by opposing the issues that the majority of the nation supports. The frame job has worked.

Whereas once American Christians lived in the Methodist frame, the Baptist frame, the Episcopal frame, the Catholic frame, the Lutheran frame, or the Presbyterian frame, now conservatives have framed progressives as non-Christians. This has nothing to do with the affirmation of all these mainline Christians of the Apostles Creed. They are framed as non-Christian because of their positions on abortion, marriage and gender.

Now conservatives have framed progressives as non-Christians.

The valedictorian of the progressive Christians are devils class is Robert Jeffress of First Baptist Church in Dallas. Jeffress has framed all Democrats with the charge of paganism: Well, apparently the god they worship is the pagan god of the Old Testament Moloch, who allowed for child sacrifice. The god of the Bible doesnt sanction the killing of millions and millions of children in the womb, I think the god they are worshiping is the god of their own imagination.

Jeffress has called Democrats a godless party and said the God (Democrats) talk about is not the God of the Bible. It is the God of their imagination a God who loves abortion and hates Israel, whereas the true God that most Jews and Christians are familiar with is a God who hates abortion and loves Israel.

No one likes to be shamed, but shame is the primary product of the liberal frame job. Eve Sedgwick asks: Can anyone suppose that well ever figure out what happened around political correctness if we dont see it as, among other things, a highly politicized chain reaction of shame dynamics?

Political correctness becomes a pedagogy, a sweeping masterwork of shame designed to rip residual structures of degradation from speech.

Evangelicals often are confused when people lose jobs because of the use of politically incorrect language. They think they are making jokes, but when shamed by the new civil virtues of acceptance and diversity, they fight back. People get shamed, or lose their jobs, for example, when they believe theyre just having a little fun making fun.

The evangelical angst revolves into a mantra: I feel unfree. It would be cavalier to deny these are legitimate feelings. Evangelicals feel they are being denied freedom of speech.

In the court of public opinion, the evangelical trope seems to stick to progressives; the progressive trope doesnt stick to evangelicals as well.

Democrats and progressives have been framed, and the jury has returned the verdict and found them guilty as charged not on the evidence but on the emotional appeals of the conservative testimonials.

Democrats and progressives have been framed, and the jury has returned the verdict and found them guilty as charged not on the evidence but on the emotional appeals of the conservative testimonials.

In Will Campbells novella, Cecelias Sin, a group of Anabaptists face execution for their faith. The night before their anticipated arrest, they discuss that the authorities claimed they were communists. Goris tries to help Peter understand that it doesnt matter that the charge of communism is false. But they believe we are communist, Goris said. And that is enough. If they think we are seditious, we are seditious. That is what sedition is. It is what they say it is.

No progress can be made in understanding the conservative appeal until we grasp that its about emotional arguments. Facts, truth, reality, policies evaporate like morning dew; emotions of rage, outrage and moral indignation stick like Velcro. The right-wing mantra possesses contagious feelings.

People catch feelings as easily as the common cold. Affect leaps from one body to another, evoking tenderness, inciting shame, igniting rage, exciting fear. Feelings not only spread, they stick, according to Sara Ahmed in The Cultural Politics of Emotion.

When these ancient feelings were attacked by a new civic virtue that promoted diversity, acceptance and a new ethical consciousness, conservative thoughts were dislodged and became unstuck. What has followed has been a furious denial of culpability.

The old evangelical paradigm, like a giant white egg, developed cracks and fractures, and panic ensued. The new pedagogy of antiracism, gender emancipation, queer emancipation, new horizons of political enfranchisement turned evangelicals into rebellious students unwilling to be taught by others. Confronted by new ethical paradigms designed to make persons more hospitable, more open, more sensitive, more thoughtful, more moral, evangelicals reverted to the old paradigms and attempted to patch the fractures and cracks.

Perhaps this explains the desperate attempts to revise American history and oppose science in the classroom. The epistemic foundations of evangelical faith are coming loose. Instead of claiming that evangelicals are resentful, Lawrence Grossberg says we should examine the terror of the humiliation of being a victim. One avoids the humiliation of loss and victimage by humiliating the other, by diminishing their status and capacity, destroying their sense of pride, reducing them to a lower state of being. Therefore, evangelicals have intensified attacks on gays, women, transgender persons, immigrants, scientists, historians, liberals. They have framed everyone as devils and demons.

The evangelical feeling machine delivers a constant flow of emotional frames.

The evangelical feeling machine delivers a constant flow of emotional frames. Like a chocolate fountain at a wedding reception, evangelical emotions pour forth to the public feelings, feelings and more feelings. What underscores evangelical argument is emotion.

Progressives, on the other hand, mistrust emotion and at times make fun of emotional arguments as if Aristotle didnt insist on its persuasive power. Progressives can come across as austere, thick-minded, stubborn and insistent on not exhibiting feelings. In place of emotional frames, progressives tend to use intellectual, scholarly, elitist frames.

Progressives are seen as the ones taking away the nation, taking away morals, history and the future. Conservatives insist they are the ones aligned with freedom and rights. They claim they are protecting the nation. Evangelicals feel justified in these claims when they think progressives are no longer taking the Bible seriously. Progressives would be better served by attempting to understand the evangelical frames.

What can progressives do? Perhaps the first move would be to stop playing the frame game. Instead of depicting evangelicals as enemies, return to seeking any possible common ground. Failing to find such an ideal place to stand, at least surrender the language of framing that labels evangelicals as dummies and rednecks.

Admit that conservatives have successfully won the framing war and progressives have failed. Then, develop and articulate a moral vision for the future of democracy. Instead of embracing conservative frames, progressives must construct their own frames. Stop pretending that conservative, evangelical morality is anything other than self-righteous moralism. Insist that the civic morality of acceptance comes far closer to the practice of Jesus than that of evangelicals. Defend democracys anchor institutions. And maintain professional ethics while refusing to buy the lie of the devil that Gods work can be accomplished with the devils means.

Admit that conservatives have successfully won the framing war and progressives have failed.

Progressives should stop trying to use conservative frames and instead use their own language: empathy, compassion, truth, hope, justice, grace, mercy, righteousness. Stop being afraid of emotional arguments. Frame arguments with legitimate emotional appeals. Always speak from moral vision. Progressive policies follow from the morality of empathy and hospitality.

Instead of dismissing evangelical arguments, do a deep dive into the abyss and learn to understand the power of the frame job that has turned progressives into devils. Be able to explain why conservatives believe what they believe without making fun of what they believe.

The great challenge for progressives is to keep the arguments from spiraling out of control into hateful, resentful emptiness. Kenneth Burke argues: The process of human enlightenment can go no further than in picturing people not as vicious, but as mistaken.

If evangelicals would speak of progressives as misguided instead of as devils, perhaps a small crack would occur in the door to make possible renewed conversations with one another.

It is time to break out of the cycle of framing, blaming and judging.

Rodney W. Kennedycurrently serves as interim pastor of Emmanuel Freiden Federated Church in Schenectady, N.Y., and as preaching instructor Palmer Theological Seminary. He is the author of nine books, including the newly releasedThe Immaculate Mistake,about how evangelical Christians gave birth to Donald Trump.

Related articles:

Progressives have a problem telling their story | Analysis by Rodney Kennedy

The Trump Card: How white evangelicals are being played| by Joel Bowman Sr.

Understanding the evangelical civil war| Analysis by Alan Bean

Excerpt from:
The futility of framing one another as progressives and evangelicals, devils and dummies - Baptist News Global

Rep. Ritchie Torres (photo: Jeff Reed/City Council)

As congressional representatives seek re-election this year, there is one member of Congress who doesnt need to worry about having an opponent: Rep. Ritchie Torres. At the time of this writing, there is no word of a candidate circulating petitions to challenge Torres in this Junes Democratic primary. As political insiders well know, it is rare for an incumbent in New York not to have a challenge.

Many may have taken notice of Torress popularity in his congressional district, as is evident in this Data for Progress poll. According to the poll, Torres enjoys a 73% favorability rate in the 15th Congressional District.

The rise of Ritchie Torres is one that I foresaw in these pages some years ago. I believe the rest of the country will continue to share our New York experience of Torres as a thoughtful legislator who has an uncanny ability to dig through complex policy issues and who articulates his positions clearly and concisely.

Equally fascinating to me has been Torres political philosophy since 2013, a posture of pragmatic progressivism. The pragmatic part of this posture has earned Torres the scorn of some other progressives.

Contemporary political progressivism in the United States has several variants. The current trajectory of progressive politics can perhaps be distinguished between those on the socialist left and those on the liberal left, who consider themselves more pragmatic.

By pragmatic I am not referring to the philosophical school of thought of pragmatism made popular by the likes of William James and John Dewey in the 20th century. Rather, I refer to pragmatic as an electoral and governing approach to politics that seeks to achieve social ends through the most practical means possible.

These two distinguishing markers of political progressivismthe socialist left and the liberal left are hardly a recent phenomenon. Since the 20th century, progressive politics has been quite diverse. Interestingly enough, the socialist left once had a similar influence in New York and national politics to what it has now, though the impact is perhaps a bit greater now if we consider the number of socialists that are being elected to local office. The recent electoral successes of socialists are due to their intentional efforts to work within the Democratic Party instead of functioning as a third party as they did decades ago.

Perhaps the most prominent and influential socialist figure in 1930s electoral politics was Norman Thomas, a member of the Socialist Party of America. Thomas charm, charisma, and intellect helped to catapult the socialist agenda into the national political discourse.

Yet this socialist influence began to wane with the social progress achieved through FDRs New Deal initiatives. What replaced it for the next few decades was the influence of the liberal left.

What has been deemed liberal left I call pragmatic progressivism. And it is in this wing of progressive politics that Ritchie Torres resides. Pragmatic progressives seek most of the same goals as other progressives: universal healthcare, adequate funding for education and housing, fair wages, among others. The pragmatic element in this type of progressivism acknowledges that to function, politics must maintain a healthy equilibrium between competing interests.

The key difference between the socialist left and pragmatic progressives lies in the paths they take to achieve progressive aims. Pragmatists assert that the attainment of progressive goals may entail negotiating with those competing interests that are at different points along the political spectrum. Therefore, pragmatists make no bones about the fact that they must work within an imperfect and indeed broken system full of people with different opinions and constituencies that make these negotiations necessary. Pragmatists see these negotiations as necessary for the work of progress.

If Norman Thomas was the face of the socialist politics that preceded current socialist movements, like the contemporary Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), then the theologian and ethicist Reinhold Niebuhr, in the same era, represented the pragmatic progressivism exemplified today by Ritchie Torres.

In the 1930s, Niebuhr was part of the Socialists of America party and even ran for office twice on their ballot. The realities of World War II and the social and economic impact of FDRs New Deal changed his politics, leading him eventually to co-found New Yorks Liberal Party and later the Union for Democratic Action, which eventually became the Americans for Democratic Action. Niebuhr understood that the seeking of political perfection was far from realistic; therefore the necessity to seek compromise. He believed that the idealism of the socialist left, as was evident by their propensity to clamor for pacifictic alternatives during World War II, was indeed an attempt to seek the perfect. Yet, Niebuhr would assert that the perfect cant be the enemy of the very good.

Torres reflects in word and deed the type of progressive politics espoused by Niebuhrseeking progressive goals by balancing realities of politics and governance.

When have we seen Rep. Torres inclination toward this kind of pragmatic progressivism? Lets take a look at his stance on the Defund the Police movement prominently espoused by those on the socialist left. Speaking to Jose Diaz-Balart on MSNBC last month, Torres said, ...any elected official whos advocating for the abolition and/or even the defunding of police is out of touch with reality and should not be taken seriously. Torres prefers to speak of a reform the police type of movement, one that acknowledges the necessity of policing for ensuring public safety while acknowledging also that there are structural deficiencies within police departments that need deep and sustained reform. Torres says, What most New Yorkers want is not less policing or more police, but better policing more accountable and transparent policing.

Perhaps this stance of Torress points to his inclination to work within a broken system in order to seek necessary changes from within rather than seeking a total abolition of a system that doesnt work for many, particularly for communities of color. Hence, Torres has developed positions and backed legislation that seek to attack root causes of crime like poverty and housing instability, and pursues policies to address them.

Torres position on the Defund the Police movement and his penchant for reforming systems from within deficient structures could perhaps be seen in a police reform bill fight in 2017, during his tenure in the New York City Council.

The 2017 Right to Know Act, a controversial and much-debated set of police reform bills, sought to deter police abuse and to ensure transparency in any interaction between an officer and an individual.

There were two bills in the Act, one introduced by then-City Council member and now Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Reynoso and the other introduced by Torres. After hearings and negotiations, Torres made changes to his bill.

The Reynoso bill was championed by many police reform advocates, earning the praise of Monifa Bandele, a spokesperson for a prominent coalition, since Reynosos bill would bring transparency and accountability regarding searches during non-emergency policing encounters that have no legal basis other than a persons supposed consent."

Of Torres bill, Bandele said: This NYPD bill being advanced by Torres is neither the Right to Know Act nor a compromise, but political backroom dealing and a surrender of legislative independence to the NYPD and the Mayor. Bandeles statement reflected the sentiment of other reform advocates, who felt that the updated version of Torres police reform bill conceded too much to the NYPD.

Torres indeed negotiated particulars of the bill with NYPD representatives and the mayors office. But he insisted that any concessions made to the de Blasio administration would ensure the needed transparency in a number of interactions between police and individuals.

Torres earned the scorn of both police reform advocates and the police unions. History has shown that this type of criticism from both extremes is often the result of political decisions made by pragmatic progressives. Acknowledging the need for negotiations between disparate political interests and views in order to achieve progress on behalf of the citizenry never earns them friends at the extremes and most devoted parties, but does win them broad support among the more pragmatic general population.

Torres has done this again with his position on the status of Puerto Rico, siding for statehood for the Caribbean island, a position favored by conservatives on both the island and the mainland. A little over two weeks after winning his congressional race in a historically majority-Latino (and Puerto Rican) congressional district that was once represented by Herman Badillo, Torres penned an op-ed declaring his support for Puerto Rico statehood. His statehood stance can be succinctly captured by his declaration that As Americans, we must speak out forcefully against the de jure disenfranchisement of our fellow citizens in Puerto Rico, for it represents a deep rot at the very core of American democracy, not to mention a manifestation of the very systemic racism against which millions have stood in protest.

Using the lens of systemic racism to critique the current status of Puerto Rico is in essence utilizing a progressive principle (the fight against systemic racism and the acknowledgement of Puerto Ricos colonial status) in order to stand on the side of statehood, a position long held by mostly conservatives in Puerto Rico.

This position places Torres on the opposite side of the issue from the other two Puerto Rican congressional representatives in New York City, Reps. Nydia Velzquez and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, both of whom have introduced the Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act of 2021. The bill seeks to give Puerto Ricans on the island the opportunity to finally determine their status through an elaborate process that would include publicly-financed elections and a convention with delegates elected by the Puerto Rican people. Torres believes that Puerto Ricans have already determined their will by a recent referendum in which voters selected statehood as their preferred option.

While the police reform bill and Torres position on the status of Puerto Rico may cause some to question his progressive bona fides, it is also important to remember his championing of a myriad of progressive issues. For instance, Torres has introduced a bill that would require the Federal Home Loan Banks to drastically increase investments in affordable housing, community development, and small business lending. And of course, on the issue of public housing, few elected officials in New York have been as relentless and consistent on the need to revamp our public housing facilities through massive federal investment. More recently, Torres led a push, supported by Ocasio-Cortez, demanding that billions in funding be secured for public housing and rental assistance.

It is difficult to peg Torres solely on one end of even the progressive spectrum. Throughout his career as an elected official, Torres positions have reflected the thinking of a pragmatist who acknowledges the need to balance interests for the greater goal of achieving progressive values.

***Eli Valentin is an adjunct professor at Iona College. He writes regular columns for Gotham Gazette, largely focused on Latino politics in New York City, and is a frequent guest political analyst at Univision NY. On Twitter @EliValentinNY.

***Eli Valentin is a political analyst and author of the forthcoming book, Reinhold Niebuhr: A Political Life. On Twitter@EliValentinNY.

***Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? EmailThis email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Read more from the original source:
The Pragmatic Progressivism of Ritchie Torres - Gotham Gazette