I appreciate the perspective here, but I would push back on this piece: "I hope the centrists stop denouncing the “socialists” for disappointing election results and that progressives stop denouncing “corporate democrats.”"
I see the problems with the "corporate democrat" label as manifold, but its tendency to rule out the "bright side of compromise"--as you put it--is enough to question its use.
On the other hand, the charge that those who throw about such labels and seek to enforce "ideological purity" cost votes deserves at least serious consideration. I think Sheri Berman hit the nail on the head in the Dissent roundtable on this point:
"There’s a tension between folks on the left claiming that they’re out there mobilizing people and rousing the troops, and then saying, well, isn’t it unfair that the Republicans tar the Democrats as socialists and defunders of the police, because, after all, that’s not what Biden ran on. You can’t go out there and say, we’re doing all the hard work and making the noise, and then complain that the Republicans are listening to you and using your words against you. I agree that the Republicans are going to try to tar the Democrats with these things regardless. My only point is, why make it easy for them?"
Further, to label those making the charge as "centrist" is already to slip in an unhelpful framing. When an interviewer characterized the disagreement as between moderates and progressives, Rep. Clyburn pushed back, claiming that he and Biden are progressives--but they are tactical. Clyburn isn't against police reform.
As you rightfully pushback against the idea that if one is not for specific policies like M4A then one is not progressive, so I would suggest not to conflate the debate about the 2020 election with one's relationship to being progressive or not.
I appreciate the perspective here, but I would push back on this piece: "I hope the centrists stop denouncing the “socialists” for disappointing election results and that progressives stop denouncing “corporate democrats.”"
I see the problems with the "corporate democrat" label as manifold, but its tendency to rule out the "bright side of compromise"--as you put it--is enough to question its use.
On the other hand, the charge that those who throw about such labels and seek to enforce "ideological purity" cost votes deserves at least serious consideration. I think Sheri Berman hit the nail on the head in the Dissent roundtable on this point:
"There’s a tension between folks on the left claiming that they’re out there mobilizing people and rousing the troops, and then saying, well, isn’t it unfair that the Republicans tar the Democrats as socialists and defunders of the police, because, after all, that’s not what Biden ran on. You can’t go out there and say, we’re doing all the hard work and making the noise, and then complain that the Republicans are listening to you and using your words against you. I agree that the Republicans are going to try to tar the Democrats with these things regardless. My only point is, why make it easy for them?"
Further, to label those making the charge as "centrist" is already to slip in an unhelpful framing. When an interviewer characterized the disagreement as between moderates and progressives, Rep. Clyburn pushed back, claiming that he and Biden are progressives--but they are tactical. Clyburn isn't against police reform.
As you rightfully pushback against the idea that if one is not for specific policies like M4A then one is not progressive, so I would suggest not to conflate the debate about the 2020 election with one's relationship to being progressive or not.