Calitics alumni David Dayen has a truly excellent article in the latest issue of Democracy magazine, titled Advise and Dissent. It’s a response to Michael Tomasky’s article in the same magazine a few months back that called for progressives to stop criticizing Obama and accept the limits to what he can accomplish.

This isn’t a new discussion, obviously, but Dayen brings not only a very compelling argument about how progressive dissent actually produces more progressive organizing – but he also backs it up with important evidence from progressive history. Dayen tells the story of Francis Townsend, a Long Beach doctor whose plan for old age pensions not only grew into Social Security – but how Townsend’s bitter criticism of FDR’s watering down of the original plan led him to continue fighting to successfully strengthen and expand Social Security benefits in the following years:

In short, Townsend’s reaction mirrored that of the “professional disgruntleists” cited in Tomasky’s piece. Rather than justifying the Social Security Act of 1935 as the product of the art of the possible, he loudly proclaimed Roosevelt a sellout and apostate, and did whatever he could to bring him down, even joining in a coalition with those who mostly shared a vendetta against the President instead of a similar ideology….

It’s difficult to conclude that Townsend’s persistent, forceful critique resulted in negative consequences for the policy-in fact, the result was completely salutary. And Townsend wasn’t alone – pension organizations like Ham and Eggs in California, Upton Sinclair’s EPIC movement, the Share Our Wealth Society, and many others pressured Roosevelt in those years, often quite critically, and in the end Social Security became the successful, expansive program we have today.

It’s worth noting that the EPIC movement, which in 1934 led to the nomination of former Socialist Upton Sinclair as the Democratic nominee for California governor, played the central role in turning California blue in the 20th century. Sinclair faced an unprecedented negative attack ad campaign that year, with Hollywood movie studios running vicious smears between newsreels and the feature film at theaters across California in support of right-wing Republican Frank Merriam. Sinclair also had to deal with moderate Democrats running a spoiler candidate in the form of Raymond Haight to block Sinclair.

Sinclair still got 37% of the vote to Merriam’s 48%. But more importantly, Sinclair consolidated a new progressive bloc in California politics, rooted in the urban working classes and allied to farmworkers who both saw in Sinclair and EPIC the only effort to address their problems in California during the depths of the Depression. In 1938 a left-wing atheist named Culbert Olson won not only the Democratic gubernatorial nomination but the governor’s race outright. He was beaten in 1942 by Earl Warren, who ran as a moderate Republican with progressive tendencies, but the broader trend was clear: California was becoming a majority Democratic state, and much of the Sinclair agenda of using government to provide for prosperity was eventually realized in 1958 when Pat Brown was elected governor (though Brown’s platform was well short of the state socialism called for in EPIC).

Dayen also pointed out that the Civil Rights Movement refused to accept “that’s all we can do right now” as an excuse for Democratic failures to end segregation, and the main reason LBJ pushed through the transformative legislation that he did in 1964 and 1965 was because he knew the Civil Rights Movement and its liberal allies would crucify him if he didn’t. (They crucified him anyway over the Vietnam War, and rightly so.) California had a similar history as well, with progressive advocates of equality persistently refusing to accept “it can’t be done right now” for an answer and eventually producing a body of law that is among the most equality-friendly in the country. The ongoing fight for LGBT equality is further proof of this, as Dayen rightly argues.

Peter Daou also praised Dayen’s article, calling it “THE definitive take on the progressive critique of Obama”:

Critics of this White House should acknowledge some impressive legislative accomplishments. But at heart, the fundamental demand progressives are making is that elected officials adhere to core principles. Without that, we are completely adrift.

Agitating for change doesn’t stop based on the party in power, it is motivated by real world problems. Ignoring those problems out of a misguided sense of loyalty is a path to despair. We’re seeing it play out now.

That last point is what Dayen nails in his article. Ongoing progressive organizing is motivated by a refusal to accept that our values cannot find expression in our politics and our laws. We’re not blind to the present realities, but neither are we blind to the all-important fact that political reality can be changed. After all, that’s what political power is – the ability to overcome obstacles and implement your agenda even when others don’t want you to do it.

Here in California this fall, progressive organizing has to be focused on the November elections, the task which is immediately in front of us. No matter how that election turns out, we will then pivot to continuing progressive organizing in Sacramento and around the state. And we’ll do so whether it’s in support or in dissent, because ultimately, what matters is that we find effective ways to pursue and implement the policies that support our vision for a prosperous and equitable 21st century California.