I hate to once again be the curmudgeon on this, but I still cringe at the "not left, not right, but forward" line the Bus Project people keep using.

I think Jeff and Adam's video is great...by changing the tag line it could be a great message for a non-partisan effort to restore trust in government.

To me, "Forward" is descriptively accurate, persuasive, hopeful, principled, and critical. "Left vs. Right" thinking is misleading, unhelpful, unpersuasive, and divisive. For details, read on.

MODERN PROGRESSIVES AREN'T "LEFT": As a descriptive matter, with the fall of Communism, there is no real "left" left in the political debate. Setting that bald assertion aside, as a prescriptive matter, the modern argument is not a "left-wing" argument. Modern progressives do not argue to abolish any shred of capitalism, but to ensure social justice, urge fair jobs, serve as stewards of the environment, and ensure that unfettered hypercapitalism not feed on itself. This is not left or right...it's forward. (Sorry. Hee hee.) And as a practical matter, the policy solutions focus on public-private partnership, not public domination over anything private.

"LEFT VS. RIGHT" THINKING IS CRAP -- (i.e. inaccurate): I believe that the left-right spectrum view of political thinking is inaccurate, not to mention divisive and unpersuasive. Many folks don't line up on any spectrum -- rather, they have collections of views. Disliking "small government" is not closely ideologically linked to a desire to invade civil liberties and medical choices. But lots of people hold that set of views -- one that I do not blieve is accurately described as "right." Is the person with opposite views -- comfortable with government services but uncomfortable with laws limiting freedom -- "left"? Does the person who loves God and the Bible, but thinks that we should abandon the poor and wage unilateral war "right"? Where is the libertarian on the spectrum?

More "LEFT VS. RIGHT" THINKING IS CRAP (i.e., not helpful): In my judgment, modern politics and our parties are explained better not by left vs. right ideology, but by historical coalition building and power. 40 years ago, three ideologically different forces galvanized: (1) the Christian Right, (2) the pro-military folks, and (3) the right-wing economic interests (I have called this the coalition of "Guns God and Greed"). This team gathered to battle "Godless Communism," and our current political generals continue to fight that last war. We need to redesign our politics to face the dawn of a new world. I believe the Democratic Party is the party best situated to face this challenge.

THE ROOT DEFINITION OF "PROGRESSIVE" IS "FORWARD" -- NOT LEFT. I believe that our central common concern is building a 60% coalition that can govern, and that moves us to be forward looking rather than backward. The critical question of the new progressive movement is how to solve common problems given new realities of a new era. (See Andrei Cherny's "Next Deal" -- good book if arguable conclusions.)

EQUATING PROGRESSIVE TO "FORWARD" IS A BETTER FRAME: If we can tilt the spectrum 90 degrees from left vs. right to firward vs. backward, it would be a very helpful and strategic frame for progressive folks. For instance, ff the people who embraced social justice (citing MLK Jr. -- "The arc of history is long, but it bends towards justice") were thought of not as "left wingers," which I think to be an absurd correlation, it would be helpful to the cause of social justice. I disagree strongly that environment, health care, fair elections, equal rights, and education are "left wing" values -- indeed, such a frame is one that only those preferring "right-wing" concepts would smartly adopt. (See George Lakoff).

"FORWARD" IS HEALING AND LESS DIVISIVE: If we can start solving problems less by grouping up into little squads and waging ideogical war, and more by putting our best thinking to our biggest problems, we will all be better off. (See "Getting to Yes" by Roger Fisher et al.).

CONCLUSION (aka the big finish): This really is the stuff upon which I am building my life. Some of my argument is about building better dialogue. Some of it's about building better politics. And at least as much is about building a better world.

Love ya all, Jeff

I've always loved the ad when it was the shorter one for the Bus Project. I'm very glad to see it won. I would definitely like to see this on tv across the nation.

Too many people get stuck on the "left" vs. "right" debate. While many see the left and right as wrong, evil, etc., they will then agree with what we believe in as progressives. As such, you're more likely to get people's attention when you talk about better government, as opposed to smaller or larger, and talk about going forward (the Rs want to go back) as opposed to left or right.

Kona -- you're missing the point. You're talking about a left/right spectrum that's useful for political analysis and political science. Jefferson is using the "not left, not right, but forward" concept as a form of political communication.

In other words, he's striking a rhetorical balance between two competing ideas: 1) the American people are distrustful of extremes on the left and right, and 2) the American people are annoyed with squishy moderate politicians ("no difference between the Ds and Rs"). So, rather than standing around and talking about that logical inconsistency, Jeff's formulated a new rhetorical device - "forward" - which describes progressive policy and politics in a framework that assumes it's better, but not left.

He's making a rhetorical argument, not an analytical one.

He's making a rhetorical argument, not an analytical one.

Which perhaps is why people are going to go, "Yeah, well, ok, whatever, but it's still just Democrats."