Progressives take 3 Months to Come Up With the Creepy, Already Taken “One Nation”?

Krissah Thompson of the Washington Post characterizes the coalition of groups forming the new “One Nation” as “liberal,” but that’s not necessarily the best term. Liberals are interested in reforming the political process to protect the constitutional civil liberties of individuals and minimize the prerogatives of corporations to overrule those liberties. The ACLU and EFF are liberal groups. Liberal priorities are not the current primary focus of the NAACP, National Council of La Raza, AFL-CIO, SEIU and United States Student Association, the groups Thompson names as the core of the “One Nation” effort. Those groups, at least in their current incarnations, would be better characterized as “progressive” in nature, focused on ensuring that policies meeting the needs of their membership base (students or workers or ethnic groups) are promoted in national politics. Often the priorities of the two sets overlap, but often they don’t. Apart from the names of the involved organizations, you can tell that “One Nation” is a progressive coalition, not liberal, just from its name. Progressives are comfortable talking about unity of purpose and coordinated action. Liberals, on the other hand, chafe at the notion of being shoved into a conformist, obedient pigeonhole of “One Nation.” Who gets to decide what “One Nation” that is?

Speaking of “One Nation,” if Thompson is right that these groups took 3 months to come up with that name for their coalition, they really should be embarrassed. Somebody might have googled the name and found out that “One Nation” is already:

The name of an American Muslim nonprofit organization;
The name of an American Christian supremacy effort;
The name of a nationalist, socially conservative, white-centered political party in Australia;
The name of a socially conservative political movement in the UK.

Perhaps these progressive groups should have worked for four months on that name.