A Longtime Delaware Senator Just Beat Back A Progressive Primary Challenger

JacksinPA said:

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/articl...-kerri-harris-delaware-senate-primary-results

Sen. Tom Carper defeated Kerri Evelyn Harris, a gay, black community activist and Air Force veteran.

Longtime Delaware Senator Tom Carper fended off a spirited challenge from the progressive movement in Thursday’s primary election.

The 71-year-old senator, seeking a fourth term, faced a primary challenge from Kerri Evelyn Harris, a gay, black community activist and Air Force veteran. Harris was backed by a host of progressive groups — including the Working Families Party, Justice Democrats, and Our Revolution — that have sought to put the Democratic establishment on notice and shift the party’s politics further left throughout the primary season.
====================================================
No Blue Wave in the DE senatorial primary. Carper has been in DE politics for 40 years. Despite his support for Brett Kavanaugh as a wedge issue, the gay black woman could not edge him out.

Click to expand...

JacksinPA said:

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/articl...-kerri-harris-delaware-senate-primary-results

Sen. Tom Carper defeated Kerri Evelyn Harris, a gay, black community activist and Air Force veteran.

Longtime Delaware Senator Tom Carper fended off a spirited challenge from the progressive movement in Thursday’s primary election.

The 71-year-old senator, seeking a fourth term, faced a primary challenge from Kerri Evelyn Harris, a gay, black community activist and Air Force veteran. Harris was backed by a host of progressive groups — including the Working Families Party, Justice Democrats, and Our Revolution — that have sought to put the Democratic establishment on notice and shift the party’s politics further left throughout the primary season.
====================================================
No Blue Wave in the DE senatorial primary. Carper has been in DE politics for 40 years. Despite his support for Brett Kavanaugh as a wedge issue, the gay black woman could not edge him out.

Click to expand...

Beaudreaux said:

One of the many things I love about our country, is the way our states and the citizens of those states retain power. Each state is different. The people within each state are different from those in other states. Our system allows for those different people to be represented more often by a person that closely aligns with their priorities.

I see this election result mire as the people of DE choosing their more favored choice to represent their values in Congress, and less as a negative to the Progressive/Socialist movement - aka, a major part of the Blue Wave

On a side but related note, I still feel that the Senate should be have the Senator's chosen by the state legislatures, as the Constitution was first envisioned, so that the House represented the people, the Senate represented the states, and the President runs the Federal government - repeal the 17th, which was one of the first onslaughts of the Progressives on our Constitution and our government model. But, I digress.

Click to expand...

Xelor said:

Off-Topic:

Populism vs Progressivism

Let's get one thing straight: the creation of the 17th Amendment was a thing of early 20th century Populists, not Progressives, and the amendment's tenets had, by 1913, been implemented by quite a few states under the auspices of the Oregon System, thus making the 17th something of a "rubber stamp." In any case, it was a Populist thing.

​

Populism:
The populist movement started during the 1880’s. Farmers or those associated with agriculture believed industrialists and bankers controlled the government and making the policy against the farmers. Farmers become united to protect their interests. They even created a major political party, the Populist party.

The Populist party drew its strength from rural areas. Populists initiated a program in 1882 in Omaha, Nebraska. They aimed to impose more income tax on wealthy people, sought government ownership of the railroad, telephone, and telegraph systems. Embracing government ownership, they also wanted to end laissez-faire (aka, capitalism, as opposed to some share of capitalism and socialism found on the continuum having capitalism and socialism as endpoints). Populists also wanted the secret ballot and direct election of the senators from their states which the government acceded to through the 17th Amendment. The others demand such as the regulation of banks and industries, civil services reforms, 8 hours in a day of labor class were also accepted by the government.

Progressivism:
Middle class and well-educated people started the progressive movement in the early 1900s and, unlike Populists, have to a degree remained part of the political mainstream. Progressives' animus toward extant election systems, exploitations of workers, women and children, corruption among the business class and within legal system are the major ideological drivers of the progressive movement because they despise that those policies give concessions that one must be rich in order to avail oneself of them. Progressives, in turn, vilify rich people (regardless of what party they belong to), branding them as the enemy of Progressivism. The movement was a reflection of the dissatisfaction among the urban classes and those belonging to the middle classes. Overwhelming majorities of their demands were acceded by the government.

Key Differences

• Progressivism focused on changing the political system itself, whereas Populism focused upon reforming the economic system.
• Populism arose in the late 19th century while progressivism stated at the beginning of the 20th century.
• Populism came from the farmers and the poor sections of the society while progressivism came from middle classes, who were fed up with the corruption of the rich and the against the government policies.
• Populists espoused government ownership.
  [*]In nutshell (though clearly an oversimplification)
  
  • Populism –-> “Life is miserable, and it’s all [group of people’s] fault!”
  • Progressivism –-> “Let’s all work together to make life better for everyone!”

​

Click to expand...

Xelor said:

Off-Topic:

Populism vs Progressivism

Let's get one thing straight: the creation of the 17th Amendment was a thing of early 20th century Populists, not Progressives, and the amendment's tenets had, by 1913, been implemented by quite a few states under the auspices of the Oregon System, thus making the 17th something of a "rubber stamp." In any case, it was a Populist thing.

​

Populism:
The populist movement started during the 1880’s. Farmers or those associated with agriculture believed industrialists and bankers controlled the government and making the policy against the farmers. Farmers become united to protect their interests. They even created a major political party, the Populist party.

The Populist party drew its strength from rural areas. Populists initiated a program in 1882 in Omaha, Nebraska. They aimed to impose more income tax on wealthy people, sought government ownership of the railroad, telephone, and telegraph systems. Embracing government ownership, they also wanted to end laissez-faire (aka, capitalism, as opposed to some share of capitalism and socialism found on the continuum having capitalism and socialism as endpoints). Populists also wanted the secret ballot and direct election of the senators from their states which the government acceded to through the 17th Amendment. The others demand such as the regulation of banks and industries, civil services reforms, 8 hours in a day of labor class were also accepted by the government.

Progressivism:
Middle class and well-educated people started the progressive movement in the early 1900s and, unlike Populists, have to a degree remained part of the political mainstream. Progressives' animus toward extant election systems, exploitations of workers, women and children, corruption among the business class and within legal system are the major ideological drivers of the progressive movement because they despise that those policies give concessions that one must be rich in order to avail oneself of them. Progressives, in turn, vilify rich people (regardless of what party they belong to), branding them as the enemy of Progressivism. The movement was a reflection of the dissatisfaction among the urban classes and those belonging to the middle classes. Overwhelming majorities of their demands were acceded by the government.

Key Differences

• Progressivism focused on changing the political system itself, whereas Populism focused upon reforming the economic system.
• Populism arose in the late 19th century while progressivism stated at the beginning of the 20th century.
• Populism came from the farmers and the poor sections of the society while progressivism came from middle classes, who were fed up with the corruption of the rich and the against the government policies.
• Populists espoused government ownership.
• In nutshell (though clearly an oversimplification)
  • Populism –-> “Life is miserable, and it’s all [group of people’s] fault!”
  • Progressivism –-> “Let’s all work together to make life better for everyone!”

Click to expand...

Beaudreaux said:

Teddy was a Progressive. Look into the Senators and Representatives that pushed for the 17th - all Progressives. There is a very active attack on anyone trying to point out Progressives across our history and an incorrect labeling of Progressives as Populists as if they cannot be both. Bernie Sanders is a Populist, and also a Progressive, and a Socialist.

They are not mutually exclusive. They describe different things. One describes a political tactic, one describes a political ideology, and one describes a government controlled economic philosophy.

The basis for the 17th was that state legislatures had disenfranchised many people and therefore the state legislatures didn't represent the people of those states. That, although correct on it's face, was wrong in it's foundation in that the Senate was not ever supposed to be a representation of the people of a state, but rather the representative of the state itself.

Click to expand...

• Populist, Progressive and Socialist are the names of parties and are thus proper nouns. Though one can, at will, variously belong to whatever party captures one's fancy, one cannot simultaneously belong to more than one political party at a time.
  • Progressive Party
  • Socialist party
  • Populist party (technically called the People's party)
• Small init-cap "populist," "progressive" and "socialist" are modes of political thought/ideology, thus not proper nouns and are not mutually exclusive.
• The denotational significance of the capitalization is much the same as that applicable to "Republican" and "republican" or "Democratic" and "democratic." A writer's choice of capitalizing the first letter, or not doing so, is how one knows which is meant, though when any of the terms appears as the first word of a sentences, one must use the context of the surrounding remarks to know what s/he means.

Xelor said:

Off-Topic:

Populism vs Progressivism

Let's get one thing straight: the creation of the 17th Amendment was a thing of early 20th century Populists, not Progressives, and the amendment's tenets had, by 1913, been implemented by quite a few states under the auspices of the Oregon System, thus making the 17th something of a "rubber stamp." In any case, it was a Populist thing.


Populism:
The populist movement started during the 1880’s. Farmers or those associated with agriculture believed industrialists and bankers controlled the government and making the policy against the farmers. Farmers become united to protect their interests. They even created a major political party, the Populist party.

The Populist party drew its strength from rural areas. Populists initiated a program in 1882 in Omaha, Nebraska. They aimed to impose more income tax on wealthy people, sought government ownership of the railroad, telephone, and telegraph systems. Embracing government ownership, they also wanted to end laissez-faire (aka, capitalism, as opposed to some share of capitalism and socialism found on the continuum having capitalism and socialism as endpoints). Populists also wanted the secret ballot and direct election of the senators from their states which the government acceded to through the 17th Amendment. The others demand such as the regulation of banks and industries, civil services reforms, 8 hours in a day of labor class were also accepted by the government.

Progressivism:
Middle class and well-educated people started the progressive movement in the early 1900s and, unlike Populists, have to a degree remained part of the political mainstream. Progressives' animus toward extant election systems, exploitations of workers, women and children, corruption among the business class and within legal system are the major ideological drivers of the progressive movement because they despise that those policies give concessions that one must be rich in order to avail oneself of them. Progressives, in turn, vilify rich people (regardless of what party they belong to), branding them as the enemy of Progressivism. The movement was a reflection of the dissatisfaction among the urban classes and those belonging to the middle classes. Overwhelming majorities of their demands were acceded by the government.

Key Differences

• Progressivism focused on changing the political system itself, whereas Populism focused upon reforming the economic system.
• Populism arose in the late 19th century while progressivism stated at the beginning of the 20th century.
• Populism came from the farmers and the poor sections of the society while progressivism came from middle classes, who were fed up with the corruption of the rich and the against the government policies.
• Populists espoused government ownership.
• In nutshell (though clearly an oversimplification)
  • Populism –-> “Life is miserable, and it’s all [group of people’s] fault!”
  • Progressivism –-> “Let’s all work together to make life better for everyone!”

Click to expand...

JacksinPA said:

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/articl...-kerri-harris-delaware-senate-primary-results

Sen. Tom Carper defeated Kerri Evelyn Harris, a gay, black community activist and Air Force veteran.

Longtime Delaware Senator Tom Carper fended off a spirited challenge from the progressive movement in Thursday’s primary election.

The 71-year-old senator, seeking a fourth term, faced a primary challenge from Kerri Evelyn Harris, a gay, black community activist and Air Force veteran. Harris was backed by a host of progressive groups — including the Working Families Party, Justice Democrats, and Our Revolution — that have sought to put the Democratic establishment on notice and shift the party’s politics further left throughout the primary season.
====================================================
No Blue Wave in the DE senatorial primary. Carper has been in DE politics for 40 years. Despite his support for Brett Kavanaugh as a wedge issue, the gay black woman could not edge him out.

Click to expand...

holbritter said:

How does this : Progressives, in turn, vilify rich people (regardless of what party they belong to), branding them as the enemy of Progressivism. The movement was a reflection of the dissatisfaction among the urban classes and those belonging to the middle classes. Overwhelming majorities of their demands were acceded by the government.

Be summarized as this :Progressivism –-> “Let’s all work together to make life better for everyone!”

Click to expand...

• Did you click the link found at literally the very beginning of the post to which you replied and, in turn, read the content found there? Were you to have done those two things, you'd have found that the, as you put it, summarizing statement isn't mean to summarize the two sentences you culled from my post, but rather a great deal more.
• How did you manage to miss my caveat regarding the two "summarizing" statements?

• I presented the link I did because it struck me as more germane -- it focuses on the differences between Progressives and Populists rather than presenting an exposition of both -- than the other ones I had read and chose not to reference. Perhaps, however, you'd have preferred one of them:
  • Populism and Progressivism as Constitutional Categories -- Graduate-level legal analysis of a very specific dimension
  • Populism and progressivism in a political context -- Basically an outline, thus also an oversimplification; also it doesn't highlight differences
  • Farmers and the Populist Movement -- Doesn't adequately address progressivism
  • Relevant high school US history textbook chapters -- Fine, but a lot more to read because it presents the two movements in the context of their relationship to everything else that was going on at the time. And, of course, because it's a textbook, it's written with a critical thinking learning objective, thus calling the reader to accurately identify, evaluate and weigh the natures and extents of those relationships.
    • Western Expansion, the New South, and Industrial America, 1870–1890
    • Populism and Imperialism, 1890–1900
    • From Populism to the Progressive Era, 1900–1912
    • The Late Progressive Era and World War, 1912–1920
• In any case, the rhetorical purpose of my mentioning the distinction between Populists and Progressives was to remind the other member (and to a lesser degree other readers) of distinctions that, frankly, I figured s/he may have simply forgotten from high school U.S. history class lectures and readings. Nothing I presented in post 4 should have struck anyone as novel.
  • Additional teacher's lesson plan for progressivism and populism (non-AP US History)
  • Unit Outline for the Progressive Era (AP US History)