Yesterday, Glenn Greenwald had an important post, one that frequently quotes Matt, which goes a long way toward defining an important aspect of a movement candidate. Rather than a movement candidate being defined by detailed, left-wing policy proposals, a better criteria to look for is a candidate who seeks broad, reform within the world of institutional, Washington, D.C. politics. From the article (emphasis in original):

Our political system and ruling Beltway culture are broken so far beyond any specific issue, and can be addressed only by ideas and critiques that far transcend any specific policy proposal. A truly "substantive" campaign will stand in stark opposition to the whole tone and mindset of Beltway orthodoxies.(...)

Thus, any candidate who does not address those systemic political diseases is not actually being "substantive" at all, no matter how many thick white papers they issue chock full of think-tank-developed "plans." Between (a) a candidate who understands our fundamental political problems but who has yet to issue a detailed health care plan and (b) a candidate who has all sorts of detailed, wonky legislative policies developed by aides but who has no real critique of our political culture and will do nothing but feed off of it and perpetuate it, candidate (a) is clearly the more "substantive" candidate in the way that matters.

At least in my view, Howard Dean's 2004 candidacy prompted such passion and excitement not because of any specific policy plans or even views on issues which he advocated (even including Iraq). Far more important was the fact that he looked, sounded and smelled like (and I think actually was) an insurgent candidate -- someone who emerged outside of our corroded Beltway system and seemed legitimately opposed to it, even hostile towards and disgusted by it.

He sounded like an American citizen who was running in opposition to the prevailing Beltway political culture and its rancid operating procedures, not as someone who was a by-product of it eager to prevail within it by adhering to its rules. That was the real "substance" of Dean's campaign, what distinguished it and made it interesting.

While I certainly agree with the sentiment expressed here, part of Glenn's post is that Obama has a broad critique concerning the way Washington operates, and I am not really sure what that is. Also, another thing is that the progressive movement makes use of several established institutions to achieve its ends. On the volunteer level, we work through the two-party electoral system to build Democratic majorities around the country instead of turning to third-parties, we use the institution of the Democratic party itself to run for party office and run primary challenges, and we use the legislative process to call and otherwise pressure members of Congress about upcoming votes. On the professional level, we work as campaign and congressional staffers, become paid consultants for advocacy organizations and think tanks, and conduct interviews with established news outlets. As Matt pointed out last week, MoveOn.org, the largest progressive movement organization of all, is overtly institutionalist in nature. Overall, we spend more time critiquing the nuts and bolts of progressive, institutional political machinery because it is ineffective at achieving progressive goals than we do because it is corrupt and thus an affront to progressive goals (although the latter often leads to the former). Reform, yes. Burn it down? That isn't something that can easily be read in any of our rhetoric or our actions--not even back during Howard Dean's 2004 campaign.

There is an innate tension within the progressive movement resulting from a belief that the institutions in which it works (elections, major political parties, advocacy organizations, media outlets, legislative bodies, etc) can, if functioning properly, protect us from the installation of a reactionary oligarchy, and the knowledge that either reactionary oligarchies or ineffective modernist counterweights are largely in control of those same institutions. In a nutshell, it is about tearing down the establishment within a wide range of institutions, rather than about tearing down the institutions themselves. That isn't always the easiest line to avoid blurring, because if anti-progressive and / or corrupted forces take control of progressive institutions designed to ensure transparency and accountability, often times the institutions themselves will be fundamentally altered. A further tension is created when, in an attempt to achieve this goal, we work on setting up a wide range of alternative institutions--the blogosphere, new mass member organizations like MoveOn.org, alternative media like Air America, new think tanks, etc--and then often find ourselves in the position of needing money and support from the same establishment we decry. And when it comes to funding, what other choices to we have? To date, small donors have proven ineffective at maintaining the financial solvency of new ventures like Air America, or even a living wage for all but a handful of prominent bloggers.

Over the past few days, I have spent a decent amount of time reading about the French Revolution, which I think is somewhat more applicable to the situation facing the progressive movement than is the American Revolution. While in America the revolution allowed a class of individuals already in charge of the most powerful local institutions to break free from a foreign power, in France the revolution took place as a means to wrest control of the most powerful local institutions (the church, the courts, the military, taxes and tariffs, executive power, legislative power, etc) from a class of individuals residing in the same country. Like the French, and unlike our founders, we are fighting to wrest control, not for freedom from outside influence. The former is always a bloodier, more chaotic, and drawn out process than the latter. Every single compromise, every step the early French revolutionaries took to make reforms within the system was resisted to the hilt by those individuals, both inside and outside of the country, who were invested in the acien regime. This was the case even if those individuals had been granted a continuing, if compromised, role in the new order. To combat this, the revolution itself gradually became more and more radical. Despite several great victories, after a few years, eventually those backing the revolution created a reactionary oligarchy of a different sort. Later on, they saw themselves overthrown by Napolean, and only a decade or so after that the acien regime was ultimately restored.

Now, you may ask, what does this all have to do with determining progressive movement candidates? Simply this: in the difficult situation the movement finds itself, determining our leaders will be equally difficult. Just as we face the contracted, compacted, and comprised position of trying to wrest control of institutions without destroying those institutions, so does any candidate who seeks to lead us, work with us, or support us. Surely, any candidate who is either simply a wonky technocrat or who comfortable with the current operation of Washington, D.C. is not who are looking for, but determining the characteristics of our desired leader is more difficult than figuring out what we don't want. More and more, I find myself coming back to the criteria Matt laid down in his famous article, The Bar Fight Primary. In what will ultimately be a long, bloody fight over institutional control in Washington, D.C., and where any advances made by the progressive movement will be met with the most extreme resistance from both the conservative movement and the Democratic machine establishment, the minimum we should expect is someone who is at least willing to engage the fight. Further, in order to be willing to engage the fight, you have to at first recognize that the fight is taking place, which is something you just can't say about most candidates. There are, of course, other things to look for as well, including organizational competence, policy positions, campaign and media ability, etc. However, if someone is not willing to assist or engage in this fight to retake control of our vital political and public institutions, much less not even realize such a fight is already underway, that person is just not on our side, no matter how high they may score when measured against other criteria. That goes as much for someone running for President of the United States as it does for someone running for Mayor of Philadelphia. We can't win if whomever we choose to be our leader is fighting an altogether different series of battles than us.