Matt Yglesias prefers the term "liberal" to the term "progressive," saying progressive has something of a problematic history. I tend to this this has just become a means of rebranding the left, attempting to give it a populist spin along with avoiding the stereotypes that the right has pegged to liberals.

What do you think?

    During the 2004 primary election, the Conservative Club for Growth wrote about then-front runner Howard Dean, "Howard Dean should take his latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving,  Hollywood-loving, left-wing freak show back to Vermont, where it belongs." While this quote is quite funny (it's given me some good laughs), it is evidence of a sharp divide in the left-wing community between people who are "of the left" and people who are "to the left."

    The Club for Growth is describing the "of the left" people, and it is understandable that they associate liberalism with these characteristics. After all, "of the left" people have become the face of progressives. They hail from big cities and spend their time in SoHo in New York or Valencia Street in San Francisco. Some are Hollywood actors, but more frequently they are upper middle class to wealthy people, who identify more with left-wing lifestyles than left-wing ideas. These are the people who think politics consists of cracking jokes about when John Ashcroft covered the breast of the statue at the Justice Department. These are the people that laugh hysterically to any "Bush/Dick" double entendres. The "of the left" crowd knows very little about what actually goes on in the political world, except for on sexy issues like abortion, gay rights and global warming (not to diminish the importance of these issues).  They generally spend their time in capoiera classes, slam poetry events or trendy bars. The "of the left" crowd never really concerns itself with issues such as war, the military industrial complex, economic inequality, or anything else that has marginal importance in most American's lives.

    It's not that these people are bad (although they can be really annoying and self-righteous). In fact, they do a lot of good. Hollywood actors and moveon.org (big "of the left" institutions) have raised awareness on a lot of issues and have won important victories for progressive causes. And let me be perfectly clear, they are still FAR better than any right-wingers, bar none. But ultimately, they do damage to people like me , who are "to the left." (Disclaimer: I have many "of the left" qualities, I admit. I'm from a city and have spent time in coffee shops and enjoy Chai Tea).  The elitist attitude of a lot of these people is that their lifestyles of looseness and faux rebellion are far superior than "middle Americans." Because the "of the left" crowd has such a megaphone through its Hollywood prominence and big city prowess, many Americans associate liberalism with these folks. The perception begins to take hold that "liberalism" is about coffee houses and alternative lifestyles and not about freedom, justice, diversity, equality and caring for the least among us. 

    The "to the left" crowd, which is much more of a silent constituency, is actually the majority of progressives (as hard as it is for some conservatives to believe). These are the people that helped the Democrats win Senate seats in Montana, Missouri and Virginia. They are concerned about soliders dying for a disaster of a war. They are appalled that our economy is so inequitable. These are also politicians like Ann Richards, Jim Webb, Bob Casey and Sherrod Brown. (If you don't know who these people are, you are "of the left") These politicians may not listen to Indie music and they may not think gay marriage is the most important issue of our lifetime, but they champion things that are really important for the everyday lives of Americans, like Universal Health Care, ending the War in Iraq and expanding the equality of opportunity.

      The real harm of the "of the left" crowd is that they turn off people who otherwise would have progressive views from voting for left-wing candidates. Middle Americans are angered that the "of the left" people look down upon them and scoff at their values of sacrifice, community and family. Ultimately, aren't these good values? Sure, some of these values have been hijacked by Right-Wingers to mean things that they are not. But, they are values that I respect more than "getting to know myself in a foreign country." (an ultimate "of the left" obsession). Even though some Americans may hold progressive views, they become MORE angry at the perceived attitude of the "left-wing elite," that they end up voting Conservative. That is why self-identified "liberals" have declined in numbers in the past 25 years.

    All of us in the left-wing community (myself included) should start paying attention to the way we are perceived. There is nothing wrong with being "of the left," but we should also rethink what our core values are. In my view, being liberal has nothing to do with vague lifestyle and cultural qualities, it is a philosophy of ideas that make people's lives better.  

At the Take Back America conference held in Washington DC this week, the top Presidential candidates spoke to the 3,000 progressive activists, policy wonks and politicians presiding to convince them that they are the true progressive candidate going into 2008. Yet, what a remarkable shift in political ideology from the past 4 cycles. It seems that a new progressive movement is afoot and it is gaining steam not just due to the massive dissatisfaction with the Bush era and conservative policies, but through the enthusiasm of Democrats in recent months for the chance to seize the moment and move the country farther to the left to a magnitude that hasn't come to fruition since the days of the civil rights era of the 1960s or maybe even the New Deal Roosevelt Era of the 1930s and 40s.

Candidate after candidate rolled on stage uttering words such as the need for a "progressive agenda in America." We all may recall how Democrats have strayed away from their progressive-liberal roots in recent cycles post-Reagan era stigmatization of liberalism in American culture. The byproduct of that was the Democratic Leadership Council and the Presidency of Bill Clinton, a moderate Democrat at best. Therefore it is very fulfilling to hear the Democratic Party of today use "progressive" in a new light, a re-energized way of signaling a new direction for the country. It has signaled the beginning of a new progressive movement and a movement that is actually winning at the polls.

The 2006 mid-term elections ushered in Democratic control of both Houses of Congress. The more important victory was the large number of progressives that got elected into the Senate that year. At the conference, some of these movers and shakers in the progressive movement were featured speakers on panels including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), and Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH). Can we imagine for one second the magnitude of this massive political shift. The Senate, post 2006, actually has its first self-described Socialist. Sherrod Brown, a progressive populist, won in a state that has been solidly Republican for decades yet Ohio now has not only Sherrod Brown but a very progressive governor, Ted Strickland who recently signed into law gay rights legislation. The same goes for Colorado and its rising star governor Bill Ritter and their anti-discrimination bill. Ladies and gentleman, this is not just a temporary blip on the radar screen caused by deep dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq. The former governor of Colorado was a conservative Republican, as was the state historically, yet they elected a majority Democratic legislature, a very progressive Governor, and a Hispanic Senator in 2004. The 2008 Senate seat in Colorado is open and the door for liberal Mark Udall representing liberal Boulder to win is wide open. In fact he is heavily favored to win. Can you imagine Colorado, a Western state bordering Wyoming, Utah, Kansas and Nebraska being a bastion of deep blue in the West by 2008? The answer to that is definitely yes and thats exactly whats happening in Colorado. One cannot parallel the blunders in Iraq for such a deep political realignment. It is indicative of a larger political realignment that is currently in the process of developing in this country.

Going back to the Presidential election, the successes of 2006 were part of a larger process going into 2008. Howard Dean, the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, in his closing speech for Take Back America 2007 stated that the 2006 election was the watershed beginning of a massive shift. The 2008 election will seal that shift for a generation. Again I strongly reiterate, it is much more than just the Iraq War. Conservatism in this country has grown and flourished since Reagan's ascension in 1980 and Carter's embarrassing defeat ala the Iran hostage crisis. Liberalism was dead at that point as we were perceived as weak, incompetent, and wrong for the country. Anti-gay activists and pro-Lifers gained power and momentum. That era continued into the 1990s, and gained even more influence in the 2000s as an atmosphere of fear plagued the post-9/11 world. Can you imagine Al Gore in 2000 using "progressive" to categorize the political ideology of his policy proposals? Never. That is why, I emphasize again, the magnitude of this moment. Every candidate on that stage that we can actually take seriously (excluding Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel) including Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards and Bill Richardson basically sounded the same more or less on health care, education, the War in Iraq, national security, terrorism, the environment, global warming, the AIDS crisis, Darfur, spending, corruption, competence, and world leadership. Something remarkable was evident at that conference. Although we may all support varying candidates based on personality, style, experience, or approach, we were all part of the same emerging movement.

On that stage, the candidates spoke to the liberal base of the party. It was evident from the beginning that not only was Barack Obama well received, but it was a pre-conceived fact that that would occur with the multitude of Obama wearing attendees at the conference throughout the three days. Obama's speech was very positively received and I must say that for a guy who strongly prefers Hillary Clinton, I must give him a lot of credit. The crowd went wild for him, clapping at almost every line that he uttered. I will also express my deep sympathy for John Edwards, who has a great message, but was in the predicament of going right after Obama. This created an atmosphere where about 1/3 of the audience left right after Obama finished all the while people stampeding (and I will admit I stood on a char desperately aiming to get a closeup photo) to the front of the stage to get autographs and photos taken. It was just unimaginable that someone could top his speech. People were overwhelmed and emotionally drained creating a very awkward situation for Edwards where the crowd was enthusiastic but not nearly as much as for Obama. Unfortunately, I resorted to watching Bill Richardson's speech online and it seemed like a good speech, and well received but not a first tier breakout speech by any means.

I will devote an entire paragraph to Hillary Clinton because I feel her speech asks for such. First and foremost, her speech was very dull and what I would call "safe." She said nothing that got booed in the first 25 minutes nor much applause either. Now I say that because the progressive crowd at Take Back America isn't too cozy with Hillary because of her stance on the war and funding. People just weren't excited by her. I blame the early morning hour (8am) which was strategic timing so that she wouldn't go on the same day as Obama and Edwards. It was actually announced in the latter part of the first day of the conference that she would speak on Wednesday instead of Tuesday which I understood as a tactical campaign move. It was also strategic for her to talk about Iraq last which was a way for the negative atmosphere not to set the tone for her entire speech. She was indeed booed, as media reports have circulated, for a comment she made referring to the fact that the US military has done its job and that it is time for the Iraqi government to step up and do its job too. I, for one, agree with that. But people like "code Pink" attack people on the left and eat them alive. I actually was very angry at the Code Pink women for heckling her and Nancy Pelosi and I actually struck a conversation with one of the ladies from their organization. It was very discouraging to see that people don't understand the limitations of a certain number of votes in the Senate. I expressed my frustration with the ability within the Republican Party to unite under a mantra that is winnable and as the record has shown has won in the past with great success. Yet our side bickers for not going far enough and we just destroy each other and lose.

With the anger came optimism. There is a new emerging progressive era coming and this country is ready for change. People are sick of conservative government. People are sick of vetoes on stem cell research funding. People are sick of the lack of good health care. People are sick of an incompetent government that destroys our reputation around the world. People are done with the Conservative Era. Our generation is vastly different from any before us. We are much more likely to be pro-stem cell research, pro-gay rights and gay marriage, pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-living wage, and pro-universal health care. Our generation hates the hawkish foreign policy that has dominated this country since the Vietnam War. A new progressive majority is building with the help of the influx of Hispanics. People are ready for not just turning the chapter, but writing a new book. People are ready for a completely different kind of politics. There is something brewing, and I sensed it at Take Back America 2007. Again, its not just about Iraq. We, as progressives, must look at the broader picture.

A new progressive era is upon us as Americans are ready to embrace liberal values because liberal values ARE American values. This mantra was constantly reiterated at the conference. I knew at Take Back America 2007 that progressives have taken control of the Democratic Party and they aren't being alienated but embraced. Progressives are replacing the moderates. Progressivism is becoming mainstream. Universal health care is supported by all the Democratic candidates. Such a plan would have been heretical and Socialist only 10-20 years ago. Every candidate supports Civil Unions for gays and lesbians publicly and enthusiastically. Although I acknowledge that isn't enough, the country is moving in the right direction on the issue. I'm confident that privately many of these candidates support full marriage equality such as Hillary Clinton or Chris Dodd. 46% of Americans support full marriage equality, according to a newly released Gallup Poll. That's the highest in history. It is, after all, nearly a majority. A vast majority want us to do something about global warming. A vast majority are willing to do their part to help that happen. This country is based on liberal values. We cannot forget that nor shall we abandon that. A massive political realignment is on the horizon and it is developing right as I write. A new Progressive Era is upon us and we must embrace it and propose our plans to the American people. We must do it in a way that breeds consensus and fairness. I embrace the impending Progressive majority with open arms.