Eight Rules for Building a Progressive America

When I think about creating a progressive America, there are several overlapping and occasionally contradictory goals.  Chris put out his ruls for progressive realpolitick, so here are my, well I don't want to call them rules exactly, but guidelines on how to build out a progressive and sustainable governing state over the long-term.  In thinking through these guidelines, there are a couple of basic realities of our environment we have to work with.  One, we have to figure out a way to advance progressive policies when Republicans are in charge, because we will not always be in control of Congress and the Presidency.  Our inability to do this during Bush's Presidency has been a disaster.  Two, we have to think about long-term structural changes to make it easier for elected officials to enact progressive policies and harder for them to enact reactionary ones.  Three, we have to reconnect government to the public in a fundamental way, so that citizens feel a sense of civic ownership.

Here are eight rules on what we should be trying to do, as progressives.


  1. Put Democrats in office:  This is a basic threshold for relevance, as we must be able to win elections through one of the major parties in order to have any capacity to wield political power.  

  2. Put progressives in charge of the Democratic party at all levels:  In order to prevent corruption of the Democratic Party structures, we must ensure that progressives are in charge of the party at all levels.  This means that our progressive political elites must be connected to grassroots progressives so that we don't lose touch with the ultimate source of legitimacy, the public.

  3. Increase the number of progressive voters through organizing and ideological education:  We need more voters who are progressive.  This can be achieved through one of two basic organizing strategies.  One, we can convince existing voters to become progressive.  An example of how this can be done is union drives (like Working America) to persuade working class voters to vote based on economic interests.  Two, we can create new progressive voters.  There are three large pools of new potential progressive voters: single women, hispanics, and youth.  Registering and educating these voters is critical to a long-term progressive movement.  

  4. Change the intellectual landscape of public discourse and policy-making to make it more favorable for progressive ideas:  Introductory economics is a really good example of how the right has indoctrinated millions of influential college graduates with totally myopic misreadings of Adam Smith, the magic of free markets, and the role of the public sphere.  A robust set of intellectual institutions that advocate for progressive economics, politics, health, and philosophy is a long-term gap we must fill.  One strategy to make this happen is to endow lots of new think tanks.  Another strategy is to create incentives for current progressive academics to engage in the public sphere.  

  5. Govern efficiently and effectively:  Progressives are asking the public to trust us with their money and faith, and we must govern efficiently and effectively to deserve and sustain that trust.  Right-wingers don't need to govern efficiently, because their argument is that government doesn't work.  We must make government work.  Bill Clinton's technocratic excellence is a good model to follow in this regard, though of course he had flaws.

  6. Govern with an eye towards ensuring that progressive institutional structures grow and prosper:  When Clinton left office, so did peace and prosperity.  When Bush leaves office, he will leave behind massive debts and a fiscal imbalance that we will have to fix before we can do anything else.  That's thinking ahead, reactionary-style.  As progressives, we have to start building large scale public progressive institutional structures that have wide popular appeal and embedded progressive principles.  The internet is the best example possible, but there are others we have to consider, like decentralized energy grids upon which innovation can flourish.  We must also work on a smaller level towards bringing transparency into government at all levels, so that reactionary corrupt forces cannot operate in secret when they do inevitably win elections.

  7. Build up non-government progressive institutions:  It's essential that we work to rebuild labor.  With labor at 20% of the population, this is a progressive country.  At 13%, it's 50/50.  At 7%, it's Red America.  The funding, memory, and institutional competence of labor is substantial and necessary for even the most cursory progressive victories.  We must also build up other institutions of progressive power, like the netroots and universities, as well as further encouraging them to engage in politics, civic life, and governance.  Corporations that flourish in a progressive economy, like Google, Yahoo, and alternative energy industries, need to step up and begin funding progressive ideas and media.

  8. Cripple the funding and media streams of reactionary forces that corrupt our democracy:  This is the hardest one, by far.  Right-wing corporate power is willing to dump billions into politics and lobbying every year, without even flinching.  Right now United Steelworkers are striking against Goodyear Tires, and are going without basic needs, while CEO Robert Keegan can just borrow $1B from the capital markets to make it through the strike and pay himself a bonus.  That's not sustainable for progressives.  Major streams of media and money in this country - from broadcasters to telecom to oil to pharma - have a vested interest in building in more government-guaranteed revenue (free market ha!) for their industries, a percentage of which they can and will dedicate to crushing progressive policies and structures.  We have to get very serious about working to undermine reactionary forces like the Keegan's and the Chamber of Commerce's of the world.

What do you think?  What am I missing?



Display:


Re: Eight Rules for Building a Progressive America (none / 0)

Is J.M. Keynes more towards what progressives ideals should be?  I am asking because I have some knowledge of him, but not enough to make a full judgment.


John McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion
by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 03:12:18 PM EST

Yes, Keynes Is More Progressive (none / 0)

But the Post-Keynsians have a more progressive interpretation of Keynes than the conventional Keynsians.  It's been years, though, since I was really tuned into this--I'm overdue for a refresher.

The big take-away from Keynes for our purposes is that there are multiple equilibria, not just one, so there is no single "natural" state in which all the markets clear.  Massive government spending can kick the economy out of a low-employment equilibrium, in which much of the economy's productive capacity is unused, into a high-employment equilibrium, in which much more productive capacity is used.

Post-Keynsians can be summarized as saying that this is too simple. It's an indication of what's wrong with the neoclassical model, but suffers itself from a formalist illusion. Post-Keynsians point toward a non-equilibrium model of economics, but I'm not aware that anyone has actually put forth such a model, since this is not their only criticism, merely the one that's probably most accessible.  If it means anything to you, their vision is also non-ergodic.


by Paul Rosenberg on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 04:03:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes, Keynes Is More Progressive (none / 0)

Read the book John Kenneth Galbraith: His Life His Politics His Economics.

It's as good an intro to Keynes (and the historical context in which his economics developed and were first implemented) as an macro-econ textbook.  And, it's about JKG, the first titan of progressive economics.


Help build a stronger and more progressive Democratic Party from the grassroots on up
by Peter from WI on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 05:00:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

on teaching economics (none / 0)

Persuade some eminent progressive economist to write a new Economics 101 textbook that avoids the flaws often pointed out here and by Atrios. (Supposedly there are such economists who do not want to get involved in "public discourse"--cursed out on Fox News or somesuch, I guess--and in this way they can contribute immensely while staying out of the hurleyburley.)

Then we all visit department heads to persuade them to adopt the new and better textbook.


by joyful alternative on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 05:35:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What you're missing ... (none / 0)

... is what is always missed by you political strategists.  You never think about a coordinated media strategy, no matter how many times I remind you.
http://makethemaccountable.com/caro/Prog ressive_Media_Strategy.pdf

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com


by Caro on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 03:25:53 PM EST

Re: What you're missing ... (3.00 / 1)

No PDFs!  Everyone hates PDFs!


by Matt Stoller on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 03:28:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well... (none / 0)

...that explains one or two things! ;)


by skeptic06 on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 03:38:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Damn Carolyn, You Beat Me To It! (3.00 / 1)

But since it's already lunch time, I couldn't go without breakfast any longer.

So, I'll add this: We need an integrated strategy that combines the generation of ideas with the propagation of ideas, and the implementation of ideas.  Think tanks over here (with tiny media offices), media outlets over there (with faddish bookers) and legislators way over yonder just doesn't cut it.  We need integration of all these folks, all these institutions.


by Paul Rosenberg on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 03:39:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Damn Carolyn, You Beat Me To It! (none / 0)

So start writing how to do it! Because I didn't realize they weren't.


by MNPundit on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 04:35:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Damn Carolyn, You Beat Me To It! (none / 0)

The media problem is a much bigger issue than just coordinating our message.  It's symptomatic of larger structural forces that we have to be able to fight before we can affect how broadcasters and media companies structure their content.


by Matt Stoller on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 05:06:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Damn Carolyn, You Beat Me To It! (none / 0)

I'll be quoted in the next WaPo ombudsman column on the topic of diversity of thought in the MSM. I keep flailing away in rapid response.


by joyful alternative on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 05:17:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Media (none / 0)

Mass media is critical. Most people in this country only hear the right-wing and the moderate conservative perspectives. They never hear a progressive perspective from the mainstream media, and many don't even know that there is a more progressive perspective than what they hear.

It will be really hard to win more than we have while a third of the country is listening to Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, etc. every day.

At a bare minimum, we need the mainstream media to interview progressives in the labor, women's, environmental, and peace movements. AND/OR we need to build a completely separate media infrastructure (like Democracy Now! but covering TV, radio, newspapers, blogs, etc.) and bypass the corporate media mainstream altogether.

In January, there is a major conference on media reform in Memphis. I hope reports from it will be posted here.


by RandomNonviolence on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 11:07:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Damn Carolyn, You Beat Me To It! (none / 0)

Sorry to take so long to get back to you.  We bloggers can make it happen if we work together.  But every time I suggest a common effort, I get dead silence.

I have no idea why.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
caro@makethemaccountable.com


by Caro on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 07:58:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

ideological education and social institutions (none / 0)

i would group items 3 and 8 together.  spreading the liberal ideology is an important pillar of continued progressive governance.  i've spent some time looking into how this is done on my blog, partially motivated by chris's many posts on ideological conversion.  i think that, on the whole, we need to make the liberal ideology relevant to people's everyday lives and immediate needs in a tangible way.

the labor movement is a great example of how to do that: they take a signature liberal value - mutual aid and cooperation - and turn it into tangible benefits that make an enormous difference in the lives of their members.

a good part of the strength of the republican movement is built on doing that as well.  conservative churches produce real benefits for their congregants - meaning, togetherness, etc - which is built on traditionalist values that are central to conservatism.  focus on the family is a good example of an organization which takes the conservative ideology and makes it relevant to parents in need of advice for how to handle their kids.  and so on.

i believe that ideological education must be based on a similar effort to push the liberal ideology into more and more everyday problems in ways that will help people lead their lives.  liberalism should be made relevant and meaningful to first-time parents, soldiers going to war, people searching for meaning and togetherness, and so on.  to be sure, some of that is already happening, but we need to keep it going and expand the effort.


Strengthening the progressive movement through liberal entrepreneurship http://www.plantingliberally.org
by Shai Sachs on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 04:02:41 PM EST

Re: ideological education and social institutions (none / 0)

You took the words right out of my mouth when it comes to social structures.  Unions are in decline for a number of reasons, one of which is that they served not only for economic reasons to be beneficial to members, but also for social engagement reasons.  And solidarity is/was purposeful.  Unions don't just align with Democrats because Republicans are evil, but because of the values that are shared.  So we advance liberalism by advancing organized labor, and we advance liberal politics by advancing organized labor too.  Win-win-win.  


Help build a stronger and more progressive Democratic Party from the grassroots on up
by Peter from WI on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 05:11:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Eight Rules for Building a Progressive America (none / 0)

defeat Non-progressive Democrats in primaries


by doughnutman on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 04:03:50 PM EST

Re: Eight Rules for Building a Progressive America (none / 0)

Expell people and organizations from the Democratic coalition if they actively work to undermine it.

That means the DLC for supporting Bloomberg, it means the LieberDems, it means telling the LCV that we would love to give them a seat at the table as soon as they stop supporting Republicans who undermine both their cause and ours.


Progress is Personal | PCCC
by msnook on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 08:56:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Eight Rules for Building a Progressive America (none / 0)

I think it might make a good title for a book and that each of the 8 points could be its own chapter with case studies and the like. But what do I know? Also, it might need a phrase before it that's catchy or scary to the MSM like Crashing the Gates.


by Jill Tubman on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 04:04:33 PM EST

Re: Eight Rules for Building a Progressive America (none / 0)

I agree in principle.  But it seems like this and Chris' rules should get a longer hearing here before it goes to book development phase.

One of the best points, that I think has been underplayed, from Crashing the Gate was that the progressive blogosphere can be its own think tank, where the democratic process of our own content and comment brings the best ideas to the top (as opposed to the right's top-down approach).  And not just a think tank, but "house of ideas," where things like these lists can be fleshed out within a supportive but not un-critical community to come to be the best lists possible.  The upside is that the discussion also brings out other people who can contribute to a book (or something) because of their involvement in the conversation, and that the best groundings to argue on behalf of any particular rule will have come out - and not just the one that the original author thought of.  

How about a post the puts the lists together and solicits the contributions of others, and the feedback of all.  Hell, this could be its own website - and in the end the people who've contributed get together to write the book or select who does that.  


Help build a stronger and more progressive Democratic Party from the grassroots on up
by Peter from WI on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 05:17:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Eight Rules for Building a Progressive America (3.00 / 1)

There are severe limits to what the netroots can do without institutional backing.  There are basically no resources to do what you're talking about, even though it is a good idea.


by Matt Stoller on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 05:25:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Eight Rules for Building a Progressive America (none / 0)

[After reading this, I think my response could come across dickishly, but I'm not intending it to do so.  Just a caveat.]

My boss once told me that while she despises his politics, she learned the best lesson in executive management from Newt Gingrich.  He only wanted to hear "yes, if" answers and not "no, but" answers.  As in, "yes this can be done if" versus "no that can't be done but x, y, and z are other options."  So the question that I always ask people is 'what's the "yes, if" answer?'

So what's the "yes, if" answer here?

What would be the makeup of the institutional backing?  What would it look like?  Are there precedents in achieving parts (but not the whole of it)?  Who else might know the answers?  

Oh the next lesson I learned from my boss is that if the "yes, if" answer proves to be beyond the scope of resources or will, see what the "no, but" answers do for you.  

So what do the "no, but" answers look like?


Help build a stronger and more progressive Democratic Party from the grassroots on up
by Peter from WI on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 08:20:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Eight Rules for Building a Progressive America (none / 0)

Matt:

"In order to prevent corruption of the Democratic Party structures, we must ensure that progressives are in charge of the party at all levels."

I get that you see this as a preventative measure, but progressives are no less subject to the allure of power than any other group.  Without real teeth in the laws governing governance, and serious penalties (jail time) for governmental corruption, an all-progressive leadership would, over time, become as corrupt as any other.

(Okay, maybe not as corrupt at Tom Delay's bunch, but still pretty close.)

Progressives more than any other group should be willing to accept limits on power in exchange for wielding power, and that's an advantage to press both within the party and in the general public.  Run candidates on a platform of serious, hard-hitting ethics reform -- with tough penalties for breaking the new laws -- and I think you'll get votes.  Probably in bunches.


by MarkB on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 04:09:17 PM EST

Does everyone agree (3.00 / 1)

on what a progressive America should be? I think it's important to frame clearly what progressive values are, especially on economic and national security issues.


by Jill Tubman on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 04:15:55 PM EST

Re: Does everyone agree (none / 0)

I actually don't agree with this.  Let the philosophers fight that out, in the real world politics is about fights and identity.


by Matt Stoller on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 04:32:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Does everyone agree (3.00 / 1)

If we don't know what we stand for, the fight doesn't matter.

Take the war. Most of us here oppose the war, but we really need to know whether it's because we violated a state's sovereignty, because it destabilized the region, because war is always wrong, because the war wasn't fought to secure the peace, because the UN didn't bestow legitimacy, and on and on.

What do progressives think we should do about Darfur? If we don't agree on some first principles, then we're never going to be able to answer the difficult questions and be a movement.


by CT student on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 04:49:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Does everyone agree (3.00 / 1)

Conservatives were successfully able to build a case that everything that they were doing was for God, Nation and Family. They framed themselves as the protectors of all three and that image has finally begun to cave in under the weight of the hypocrisy.

Was it FDR who said: a car in every garage and a chicken in every pot? He was talking about a basic level of financial security and prosperity for everyone (at a time when many were struggling to survive) and then pinned his reforms to that progressive vision. We need a new vision that will compel Americans to support a progressive agenda in their interests. Perhaps you can help define what a progressive America looks like. One, for example, where no one is turned away from a hospital because they can't pay. One where every kid gets a internet-wired laptop at school. One where New Orleans is the safest, cleanest city in America run on alternative energy. I don't know -- I'm sure there are some better ones.


by Jill Tubman on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 05:09:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Does everyone agree (none / 0)

Let's take it a step further back from policy, even (though talking about NOLA is tactically and morally necessary - good call!).

For me, progressives want equality of opportunity and everything follows from that. Health care for all, equal educations for every kid, a human rights foreign policy, strong unions and all the rest - it's about giving everyone agency over their own lives.

MyDD - what's your first principle?


by CT student on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 11:40:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Eight Rules for Building a Progressive America (3.00 / 1)

Remember that people care about issues, not the politicians

We ask voters to support us at election time and profess to care about the issues important to them, but too many political insiders spend all of their time thinking about the game and not the reason people are progressive in the first place. The result? The sometimes justified sense that progressive candidates and political operatives talk a good line, but don't care enough about progressive issues to trade in an afternoon hobnobbing to cleanup the local park, mentor a child, etc.

Over the long term, putting your values into action yourself is just as important as electing progressives in the short term. It strengthens your base in the community, and since it is an excellent media opportunity, is a great educational tool.

My local club does a community service project each month and our numbers have exploded as a result. New members are shocked that we "actually do something" about the aspects of our community we deem unacceptable. It increases our perceived integrity exponentially when election time rolls around.


by dallas young dem on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 04:19:33 PM EST

Re: Eight Rules for Building a Progressive America (none / 0)

Hurray for you! I've been pushing this in my church--to physically help people who need help and not just send money--but I hadn't thought of doing it with local Democrats. (This may take considerably more salesmanship!)


by joyful alternative on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 05:24:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Eight Rules for Building a Progressive America (none / 0)

That 8 is possible. When has any non-governmental or non-individual group humbled a corporation without resorting to violence?


by MNPundit on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 04:27:25 PM EST

Re: Eight Rules for Building a Progressive America (none / 0)

We need rules for the Democratic Party that promote internal democracy including fair primaries and allocation of Party resources in a fair manner.

Rahm and the DCCC should not have been involved in any primaries.  That is up to voters not the bosses.  The progressive part of the party got reamed and overall we cut short on our potential because "moderates" were favored.  I would rather see fair allocation than progressive control of the spigots (which seems to be advocated in Point 2).

Democrats support the winners of democratic primaries Get that Joe and about 40 of your Senate buddies.

Democratic office holders don't make behind the scenes deals with the Republicans or criticize their own leadership while praising Republicans.  STFU, Ellen Tauscher and the DiFi wing of accomodationists.


by David Kowalski on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 04:29:09 PM EST

Re: Eight Rules for Building a Progressive America (3.00 / 2)

Hate to break it to ya, but on a local level unions are far less progressive than they may seem from the East Coast.  

Hidebound, tactically conservative/lazy, bureaucratically slow-moving, turf-ey, who-you-know cronyist (which often translates into corrupt), deeply sexist, and just plain wrong on many progressive topics-- just like many businesses.

They look a lot better on paper--or from DC-- than they do in practice, on the ground. For example,
anyone who disagrees with the UAW in Michigan is ostracized, as liberal as they may be in DC.

A subset of item 7 has got to include supporting progressives within unions, keeping them from sliding into ideological wing-nut isms, and being able to speak truth to their bureaucratic power without being demonized as scabs.  


by jouster on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 04:39:53 PM EST

Re: Eight Rules for Building a Progressive America (3.00 / 2)

Hate to break it to ya, but on a local level unions are far less progressive than they may seem from the East Coast.  

Unions are not a monolith; good luck getting prison guard unions on board progressive legislation for crime reduction.  But that's true of any large institutional model.  By and large unions create a huge amount of progressive power and transform voters to progressive Democrats who are cross-pressured by the NRA and religious right.


by Matt Stoller on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 04:49:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Eight Rules for Building a Progressive America (3.00 / 1)

I'll read your example of the UAW in Michigan far more credibly than the generalization.  There might be some unions on the local level that are not that progressive.

But where I am, the close-by UAW is pretty progressive and wholeheartedly democratic, but is pretty much all-male (not necessarily by virtue of being sexist).  There is another local union that is not very democratic but is definitely not sexist and has female leadership.  Another is almost entirely female-led, very progressive, and very democratic.  And another union votes Republican and is corrupt.  

There is no hard and fast rule on unions, just like most other things, I think.  But by and large, and in principle, and at their core, unions share progressive values and advance them as well or better than any other particular body.  

And if you're at one of their events, they know how to feed you good, hot meals.


Help build a stronger and more progressive Democratic Party from the grassroots on up
by Peter from WI on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 05:22:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Eight Rules for Building a Progressive America (1.00 / 2)

       You can't build a Progressive America based on what you are talking about. Econ 101 is not right wing!!!! Economics is not ideological!!! How many times do I have to say it? If you think economics is ideological, say you are a socialist or communist; not that you are devoted to a liberal, free market democracy. As for voting for you economic interests, what the hell are you talking about? Nobody does that! The Northeast is the richest part of the country, yet it is the most Democratic. Wealthy people vote Democratic overwhelmingly, especially the uppper middle class professionals. So talking about ecnomic self interest is ridiculous. As for building a "progressive" America (funny, no one has the balls to say they are liberal because the right wing is so weak, right?), that requires people being poorly off and voting. That simply doesn't happen. If you bother to read exist polls, the income of the median voter is 40% higher than that of the median income. You can't cripple corporate power, except by getting rid of the free market and making the US a socialist democracy, with nationalized industries. Otherwise, the corporations will fight you. If liberals ever become strong in this country, you can bet your ass that there will be a dictatorship installed, or facism. The Nazis got and retained power based off America's wealthy and corporations in the first place, after all.


by alexsycara on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 04:40:11 PM EST

Re: Eight Rules for Building a Progressive America (none / 0)

What compelling logic!


by Matt Stoller on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 04:50:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Eight Rules for Building a Progressive America (none / 0)

Alexsycara,

Looking over your diary I see I'm closer to you ideologically than Matt (who admits to being pretty far to the left), but I don't understand this comment.  I saw very little to complain about in Matt's original post.  In particular, I thought Matt's #5 covered Econ 101 quite well, even if Matt doesn't realize it.

Can you point to any specific area of disagreement with this list?  Which items would you drop and why?  What would you replace them with?

I agree about the term "progressive," though.  Personally, I think we should just stick with "liberal" and fight to promote the term.  Simply changing names every time the other side demonizes whatever is currently in vogue is a poor long-term strategy.


by Mark Matson on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 06:04:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Eight Rules for Building a Progressive America (none / 0)

Rich progressives vote progressive/dem precisely because it is in their economic interest to do so.

at least, imo, they should.

i must confess it's hard for me imagine a progressive/populist version of the hard line conservative who would vote so clearly against his or her family's economic self-interest based on a fixation with something they perceive as morally right or wrong.

"voting to save unborn babies is more important to me than providing my children with health care."

i have heard conservatives make such a statement.

it's the kind of statement i can't see a progressive making.

something like.  "bringing the troops home is more important to me than providing my children with health care."

maybe i don't know any real progressives.

the first question a progressive would ask is "why should i have to choose?"

a conservative would choose.

but basically.  even super rich progressive entrepeneurs understand that a suffocating middle class is nothing short of a suffocating customer base.

that's economic self-interest.  progressive style.


by Stewieeeee on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 06:20:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Eight Rules for Building a Progressive America (none / 0)

I couldn't agree more.  While these rules/tactics are very good to helping move progressives forward, what are the defining principles of progressives?  When few understand what liberals, progressives, or democrats stand for, it's hard to implement any of these 8 tactics.  Establish clear, succinct principles first, THEN follow these rules.

That said, I think #8 can be made a bit more specific.  Instead of "Cripple the funding and media streams of reactionary forces that corrupt our democracy", this should be "Push for and get publicly financed elections at the local and national level."  This roots out much of teh corrosive and corruptive forces of money in politics. It frees up ploiticians from having to spend so much time raising money, especially from corporate interests.  The legislation then is not for sale to the highest bidder.


by Alejandro442 on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 04:57:58 PM EST

Bravo for... (3.00 / 1)

...the long-term planning horizon and - in particular - the recognition that a Dem Federal trifecta turns up as regularly as Godot: last time was the 103rd; last time there was a Dem trifecta for a full prez term was under Carter (95th/96th); last time a Dem trifecta was re-elected was in 1964.

So - as you say, Dems need to deal with divided government.

But that militates against the possibility of enacting progressive programs, because of the Senate supermajority and presidential veto powers.

Beyond that - when you say Put progressives in charge of the Democratic party at all levels, that's as likely to be achieved as continuous unified Dem government.

And that's even abstracting from the horrendous definitional problem of who is a progressive?

I get that you're thinking high-order thoughts, without wanting to get bogged down at this stage in ways and means.

I just wonder whether the rules are at such a high level of abstraction as to be not as useful as they might be in trying to put some of this stuff into practice.

For instance, when you say

It's essential that we work to rebuild labor.

I find it hard to think what this rebuilt labor would look like, not to mention how one might get from here to there: I think that, in general, there's a dearth of knowledgeable discussion on union matters in political blogs like DKos and here.

Thus, I have no feel for how the AFL-CIO/CtW split is working out, where and how the power is shifting - not to mention the state of the Sweeney-Stern rivalry. (An outside observer might be forgiven for thinking that labor's own priority was not rebuilding but dismantling!)

Plus - what can outsiders like bloggers do to help the rebuilding that the unions can't do themselves?

And when it comes to Cripple the funding and media streams of reactionary forces that corrupt our democracy, I'm afraid my mind just boggles.

How would you manage that? By punitive taxes, or regulation or - I don't get how it would be possible in this universe.

I'd contrast this with the 50 State Strategy - which is also looking to the long term (and has been subject to a certain amount of skepticism itself as being pie in the sky!):

Getting a party structure in place down to precinct level in all parts of the country is essentially not ideologically driven.

And - my guess - the marginal effect on the ideology of Dem elected representatives of the successful installation of such a structure across the country will probably be to shade it rightwards (ie, more moderate, less progressive).

The result, if fully realized, should, however, be an injection of untapped talent into government at all levels, and a rebalancing of party affiliation of elected officials in favor of the Dems.

Which will be a good thing - and meets your point 1.

The others, I'll have to think some more about!


by skeptic06 on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 05:03:07 PM EST

Building a Progressive America (3.00 / 1)

Matt,

It might sound pretty basic, but I think it would be quite helpful to write a definition for the term 'progressive.'   I kinda sorta think I know a progressive value when I see one, but I would have a very hard time articulating it in a discussion with my Mom or my brother-in-law.


by global yokel on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 05:03:48 PM EST

Re: Building a Progressive America (none / 0)

I tried to start a Diary series to help solve this problem, but the response was... underwhelming to say the least, and almost hostile in some of the comments.


by maddogg on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 05:13:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Question: Is there a Progressive Approach to War? (none / 0)

Or, OK, Defense? Bill Clinton the wonk-technocrat worked on modernizing military armament and improving soldiers' working conditions, benefits, etc.

He was CiC, it was his responsibility, he did it. But I would look at Clinton's repair/rebuild of FEMA and characterize that as "progressive" or "populist." Investing in defense he did as a technocrat, matter-of-factly. Yet, when a Repub CiC does it, it's straight from his DNA, it's a holy crusade with pomp attached. He's a Protector. He gets twice the credit, whereas if you do it technocratically you get, like, none.

(btw his wife would be the dullest dryest technocrat even to take the oath)

Can progressives find language and themes and visuals that tell the public Your Dem Could be an Even Better Protector than Repub-man??.... or is war and militarism so inherently non-Progressive that we can't??


Within weeks they'll be re-opening the shipyards And notifying the next of kin --Elvis Costello
by ShagBark on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 05:39:06 PM EST

Re: Question: Is there a Progressive Approach (none / 0)

This is a big topic, but I only have enough time for a few comments, with the realization that many progressives may have little-to-no experience in this area and there are many people who have spent their entire lives connected to the Department of Defense who don't have a clue as to what's going on.

I think there is a progressive approach to war/defense, but the organizing, training, and equipping of the armed forces should be discussed separately from actual combat operations.  I will omit discussion of combat operations from my remarks.

In theory, organizing, training, and equipping the services should be based on future threats, effective strategies to defeat the threats, a force structure to carry out the strategies, and a budget to procure and maintain those forces.  All  of this needs to be done within available resources.  

To actually go from threat to strategy to force structure to budget requires (1) brains to see the threat coming, (2) a defense organization agile enough to respond quickly (from procuring new weapon systems to reorganizing existing forces into different types of units if necessary), and (3) more agility: the ability to scramble at the speed of lightning if the "brains" fail to see the threats coming.  

Unfortunately, the current process seems to run backwards.  It looks like it goes:

from the budget (the maximum amount of money that can be shoveled from the Deaprtment of the Treasury to the Department of Defense with the shovelers -- Congress -- helping themselves to handling fees -- political pork for their district and campaign contributors)

to force structure (buying the premier weapons systems of each service -- Army: tanks, Navy: aircraft carriers, Air Force multi-purpose fighter-bomber-attack jets -- without regard to associated systems such as submarines in the case of aircraft carriers)

to strategy (now that each service has bought an unbalanced set of weapon systems, how does the Defense Department coherently describe what it will do with it?)

to threat (let's find a threat that conforms to the strategy and hope reality doesn't interfere).

Two other major topics ripe for discussion under "organizing, training, and equipping" are (1) the overall organization of the Defense Department and (2) the expense of the weapon systems and the few number of manufacturers

So, here are a few themes for starters for a progressive approach to war/defense are:

(1) force the bureaucracy to go forward (threat to strategy to force strcuture to budget), not backwards

(2) get the Department of Defense to prepare for coming threats, not fight the last war

(3) force the Department of Defense to be more agile

(4) cut the lard

(5) put the Nation first and the defense contractors last

There is so much more to be said on this topic, but here is a quote from retired General Merrill McPeak, the former U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff (top General in the Air Force) in response to the GOPigs 2001 proposal to increase defense spending up to over $330 billion:  

"If we can't defend this country for $300 billion a year, we ought to get some new generals." (Washington Post, Feb 8, 2001)


by Airpower on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 03:07:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Question: Is there a Progressive Approach (none / 0)

Well put--thanks!


by joyful alternative on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 11:03:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Question: Is there a Progressive Approach (none / 0)

I completely agree with what you've written.

However, you are focusing completely on the military. If we are talking about national defense, then we need to take a few steps back and evaluate more deeply.

It is always better to dissuade someone from attacking you than to have to respond to an attack. One way to dissuade is to threaten massive military retaliation. But an even better way is to find out why people want to attack you and change their minds.

There are many reasons why people in the rest of the world might want to attack Americans. Some of these reasons are really bad ones such as dictators with big egos wanting to take over the world and religious conservatives upset with American women wearing bikinis and gay men having sex with each other. But few of these people really have that much desire to attack Americans and most have little or no capability to do so. Even a tiny US military could dissuade most of them.

However, some other reasons are more reasonable and, unfortunately, they are more compelling for most of the potential attackers. These reasons are based in the United States supporting dictators in other countries (for example, Saddam Hussein in the 1980s, King Saud in Saudi Arabia, Papa Doc in Haiti), overthrowing democratically elected governments (for example, Mossadegh in Iran in 1954, Allende in Chile in 1973), or exploiting workers or natural resources (think sweatshops, copper, and oil). Most Americans believe the rhetoric that we fight for democracy and freedom, but the US has carried out some pretty nasty foreign adventures in the last century that have killed and terrorized millions of people and destroyed the economic viability of whole countries. Many of the survivors and their relatives are now very angry and want to attack Americans. [For a good review, see the book Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq by NY Times reporter Steven Kinzer.]

A progressive defense policy addresses this by calling for a foreign policy that is really based on democracy and freedom, not on promoting "American interests." Progressives also call for negotiation and international laws that work towards peaceful resolution of conflict, reparation for past wrongs, and development help so that people around the world can enjoy a decent life.

Another point: in the past 30 years, there have been more than a dozen nonviolent revolutions that have successfully overthrown dictatorial regimes (for example, South Africa, the Soviet Union, Poland, East Germany, Lithuania, The Philippines) and most of these countries are now significantly more free and democratic than before. [For more, see this 2005 study by Freedom House.] Over the same period, the record for military wars has been much worse.

Nonviolent action has been effective and is almost always a lot less destructive of humans, their psyches, and critical infrastructure. War has not been nearly as effective and it is horribly destructive. So a progressive defense policy calls for developing nonviolent means of struggle.

Implementing a progressive foreign policy is really difficult because the US spends more than $400 billion each year -- money that gives corporations very lucrative contracts and that is used to indoctrinate tens of thousands of young people into the military mindset (in military bootcamps and academies). Militarism also sells a lot of movie tickets. Also, the United States and other major powers (Russia, France, etc.) plus various arms traders have done a good job of arming the whole world, so there are many more threats now than there once were -- threats that can -- and have been -- used to frighten people into supporting militarism. And, of course, our Western culture has for several thousand years taken militarism for granted.

Still, a progressive defense policy must be built on progressive principles, not on militarism, so it must emphasize justice, opportunity, nonviolent conflict resolution, cooperation, honest negotiation, and law.


by RandomNonviolence on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 12:58:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Question: Is there a Progressive Approach (none / 0)

I focused on the military because ShagBark mentioned war and defense.  And I agree with you about stepping back and evaluating more deeply.  That takes up one level to the three instruments of national power:  military, political (i. e. diplomatic), and economic.  "Defense" policy focuses on the military while "foreign" policy has traditionally concerned with the political.  Now, to the economic.

Economic

My impression of history is that the United States stands by while the private sector (corporations) flex the economic instrument of national power in their own name (for profit).  Then when problems arise, the United States Government tries diplomacy, and if the diplomats/politicians fail, then the military gets the call to clean up the mess.  What makes our current situation in the Middle East really bad is that the GOPig politicians preferred to go directly to the military to "solve" what they (incorrectly) saw as a threat to our vital national interests in Iraq, and, to top it off, our "national interest" in the Middle East is, by and large, one sector of the private economy (oil).  We now have the revolting situation where members of the U. S. armed forces are dying for the economy of the United States, not for the nation itself.  As long as the private sector is the dominant factor in exercising our economic power (discounting relatively small and ineffective foreign aid programs), there will be a disconnect between the economic and political (and military) instruments of power, the latter two being completely exercised by the U.S. Government.  

But when private corporations run the government, it gets worse beyond all description.  The fundamental problem with our foreign policy today is that decisions on using the economic instrument of national power are made in the boardrooms of multinational corporations and supported and de facto ratified by their GOPig tools in the Congress and the White House.  The foreign policy of the United States should be made by duly elected representatives of the people in Washington DC and no one else, anywhere else.  The only fix that I can think of is for the people to pry the reigns of the federal government from the corporate tools (GOPigs), and force corporations to behave in the national interest of the United States.  This implies a long list of changes:  customs and excise taxes on imports to make the exporting of jobs unprofitable, changes to the way corporations are taxed:  very high marginal tax rates on profits coupled with deductions for long-term investment to force the private sector to produce more than it consumes as well as to force the re-creation of a healthy American middle class, elimination of "personhood" for corporations, and so on.  We got Congress last election.  We need to keep it in 2008 and put a Democrat in the White House.  Then we will have an opportunity to start to clean up this mess.

Political

As far as finding out "why people want to attack you and change their minds", this requires wisdom and leadership.  Both have been in short supply in Washington in recent years.  It also assumes that people will make what we might view as a rational choice between democracy and oppression.  Then there are those who can't be enlightened.  As Eric Sevareid said many years ago, "there are some people who like to goose step."  The successful 12+ nonviolent revolutions in the last 30 years you cite had change driven from within, admittedly inspired by ideas from without, but led by people within.  Domestically driven change lasts a lot longer than externally-imposed change.  The trick is to figure out how to make last beyond one or two generations.  Nevertheless, the trend is encouraging and the U.S. Government should encourage it or, at least, nothing to stop it.  

Aside:  your observation that "most Americans believe the rhetoric that we fight for democracy and freedom" points to a domestic education problem that needs to be fixed as well as oligarchical media ownership and concentration.  Another domestic problem that needs to be fixed.  We have work to do.

Military

I addressed the military instrument of national power (without using the phrase) in general in my first comment posted above.  I should have simply stated the primary military policy of progressives should be "War is a last resort, not a first resort."  The rest of my comments concerned secondary policies and management processes.  I did not attempt to discuss desired military capabilities as they can the subject of whole encyclopedias.

Also, I need to stress again the difference between a defense (military) policy and a foreign (political/diplomatic) policy.  The two are not the same, but they should be coordinated (along with an economic policy) so they reinforce each other instead of working against each other.

Additional thoughts

Your last five paragraphs are great for formulating a Foreign Policy, although I have two questions:

(1) You seen to imply in your sixth paragraph (from the top) that a foreign policy based on democracy and freedom dies not promote "American interests."  I see them as pretty much one in the same.  Am I missing something here?

(2) Negotiation and international laws are good as long as all parties adhere to them, and most democracies seem to do that.  What happens when there is an actor on the international stage that opts not to comply?  

Your point on war not being nearly as effective as nonviolent action is true IF our national leadership has the brains to see the problems arising and the leadership to act and act correctly.  Otherwise, we can face a world War II situation analogous to Chamberlain and Hitler.  Getting leadership with brains into Washington is critical.

In addition to the effect on people, there is an economic angle on how horribly destructive war is:  only very wealthy nations can afford war and nothing can bankrupt the national treasury faster than war, especially one that does not need to be fought.  And a once wealthy nation that ends up bankrupt can soon find its political and military power reduced to near zero.  The corporations and their GOPig friends should think about the implications of that.

Finally, everyone ought top be disgusted with the inability of our $469+ -billion a year intelligence-defense-foreign policy establishment to find one 7 foot tall guy running around the Himalayas hooked up to a dialysis machine.  If that isn't grounds for a wholesale housecleaning, I don't know what is.  Well, there you have it ... another progressive platform for our defense and foreign policies:  Fire all the idiots.  (And there seem to be a lot of them.)


by Airpower on Sat Dec 16, 2006 at 04:06:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Question: Is there a Progressive Approach (none / 0)

How could I have forgotten to state the obvious?  A key progressive national security (defense-foregin-economic) policy must be to end our reliance on foreign oil and find alternative energy sources.


by Airpower on Sat Dec 16, 2006 at 04:12:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Question: Is there a Progressive Approach (none / 0)

I think we agree about the basics: I like most of your analysis of the economic, diplomatic, and military aspects of dealing with the rest of the world. And I couldn't agree more with "fire all the idiots."

However, I have to differ with a few things:

1. My reading of history has the military playing a much more active and early role. From clearing out Indians and battling France and Mexico so that American settlers would feel safe acquiring the US West to battling Nicaragua and creating Panama so that the Panama canal could be built to aiding the US coffee and banana industries in Central America and The Philippines to invading Iraq to secure a military base in the Middle East and ensure oil continues to flow, the US military seems to be in the forefront, not just a reluctant participant once a mess has been made.

2. I believe that real "American interests" are to promote democracy and freedom around the world and ensure that everyone in the world lives a decent life. But in sharp contrast to this lofty rhetoric, what "American interests" usually means to the power elite is ensuring that Americans can continue to use 25% of the world's resources (and that those resources are cheap) and that our corporations have access to cheap goods and labor. For the US power elite, stability in other countries (ensuring a stable business climate) has usually been more important than democracy or freedom.

If our military were really used to promote democracy, we would have overthrown the apartheid government in South Africa, the Pinochet dictatorship in Chile, the Somoza dictatorship in Nicaragua, and Saddam Hussein in the 1980s and we'd be invading Darfur, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan right now. But the military is not usually used to defend democracy and freedom. Instead, this is just the rhetoric used to convince goodhearted young people to go kill people for these other less savory goals.

3. I agree with you that defense policy is different than foreign policy. But I want you to realize that defense is not the same as military policy. There are many ways to defend ourselves that do not use military force.

And there is a big difference between defending the geographical United States and defending American economic interests around the world. There are essentially no threats to the geographic US right now except the intercontinental ballistic missiles of Russia and China, and there is essentially no military defense agasint those. So, at this point, our military is essentially useless in actually defending the geographic United States. As much as we can be defended by military means, the Coast Guard and a few fighter jets provide protection from most of the conceivable attacks.

The rest of the US military is devoted to containing the Soviet Union from expansionism (clearly an outmoded threat if it ever really was a threat) and "projecting power" around the world. This latter is, again, largely to defend US economic interests as defined by the power elite, not to defend democracy and freedom.

Let me say a bit more about waging nonviolent struggle. The successful nonviolent revolutions, as you say, have been driven from within by people who were oppressed and wanted to end the oppression. Fortunately, anywhere where there is oppression, there will be people who want to end it. We don't have to worry about that. And the people who live there are going to want to end it more than we do. [By the way, it is arrogant (and probably racist) to say that we have to liberate them, which implies that they are too ignorant, lazy, or stupid to want to do it themselves.]

I always look to Quakers in a particular region to tell me who wants to end oppression and would do so for the public good (not out of desire to be the next dictator or as a surrogate for some other world power). Quakers on the ground are usually in touch with people who are worth supporting.

What the US has typically worried about is that those who wanted to end the oppression might oppose US corporate economic interests -- like Mossadegh in Iran trying to nationalize the oil industry there so that Iran reaped more of the benefit (see NY Times reporter Stephen Kinzer's All the Shah's Men for more on this). So the US has often opposed those people who were trying to overthrow oppression instead of helping them. US support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980s is a good example.

If the US was either neutral or helped those honestly trying to stop oppression, then many of these regimes would quickly fall. Look at how OTPOR overthrew Milosevic in Yugoslavia.

One thing we should learn from World War II: there were many German, US, and British elite who supported Hitler because they saw him as a good counter to the Socialists and Communists. That support enabled Hitler to amass power and practice blitzkrieg tactics in Spain with little opposition. It is particularly ironic that populist entrepreneur Henry Ford was a supporter of Hitler.

If the US had stood up for human rights and ardently opposed the Krystallnacht terror and Japanese colonization of China and The Philippines, it is likely that history would have been far different. Instead, the US did little until Pearl Harbor was attacked.

I haven't yet addressed your second question directly:

(2) Negotiation and international laws are good as long as all parties adhere to them, and most democracies seem to do that.  What happens when there is an actor on the international stage that opts not to comply?

To me it is clear: we do the same thing we did with the Soviet Union. Or rather, we do the best (most noble) of the things we did with the Soviet Union: we stand up for democracy and freedom, we provide economic aid to the hungry and sick around the world, and we work cooperatively with other countries to isolate and undercut oppressive power. However, we should not have supported anti-Communist dictators around the world, created a massive, self-perpetuating military-industrial complex, supported wackos like Osama bin Laden, and shipped massive amounts of weapons to "freedom fighters" who were really just right-wing thugs. And the whole Red scare anti-Communist witch hunt of the 1950s was really destructive of our country and invigorated the wacko right. This was a terrible response and one that is now, unfortunately, being repeated in the guise of anti-IslamicFascism.

Standing up for our principles and working nonviolently really does work most of the time, but we tend to decide early on that it doesn't and quickly move on to our "last resort" of war. If we shifted the $500 billion each year that we currently devote to the military to instead feeding the hungry around the world, developing clean, renewal energy sources, and honestly negotiating mutually-satisfying solutions to real problems with others, we would likely be much safer than we are now.


by RandomNonviolence on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 02:07:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Question: Is there a Progressive Approach (none / 0)

I think we are seeing things the same by and large but putting a little different emphasis in certain areas and describing them with a little different language.  The challenge for the progressive movement is to articulate this whole topic in a coherent manner and a logical framework.  A good place to start, I think, are the three traditional instruments of power that I have mentioned:  economic, political, and military.  And they need to comprise a comprehensive and coordinated national security strategy so they either work together for the benefit of the United States or, at least, don't fight each other.  The big hole in our national policy is economic.  The hole allows corporations and their GOPig allies to "drive the train" and they're driving it of the rails and pulling the nation over the side with them.  I tried to make that clear in my original comment.

As for the military taking an active role, whenever that happens it is usually because the military is allowed to by the civilian leadership, or encouraged to do so by those enamored with "glory", and, believe me, there is no glory in combat.  Anyone who thinks there is has their head screwed on backwards.  Another factor, too, may be that many people believe that World War II provided "the" model on handling things and thus revert to military action as their "default" response.  All the more reason for the people to keep pushing to regain control of the government and kick out the GOPigs.  

Now, as for defense not being the same as military policy, I suspect we are hung up on semantics here.  If, by "defense", you mean something along the lines of having an coordinated and comprehensive national security strategy that employs all three instruments of power covering the points you make, then I think we are pretty much in agreement.  If you mean something else, then I don't quite follow.  

You also mention something I have thought about from time to time.  After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the federal government did not shift to a "fortress America" defense but maintained a forward basing structure, although with fewer bases in Europe.  U. S. forces in Europe have been reduced but still hold largely the same form (e. g. one Army corps instead of two).  Also, the Unified Command Plan has not been fundamentally overhauled.  Only small changes have been made.  We still have five regional commands and four functional commands.  At the same time, there has been a significant reduction in the size of the military but not in the budget.  Hardware and people have been cut, significantly in some cases, but the annual cost to the taxpayers of the Defense Department has gone up by over 50%, and that does not include "supplementals" to pay for the mess in the mid-East.  Something is fundamentally wrong here.  

As you note, there are no threats to the geographic U. S. now except ICBMs.  Nuclear deterrence is a topic with no end to it, so I won't pursue it here.  Also, I'm not sure what defense fighters provide as I am not aware of a bomber threat.  (Technically, the Coast Guard has been transferred from the Department of Transportation to the Department of Homeland Security and can come under the Department of Defense in wartime, but I get your point.)

I completely disagree that "the rest of the US military is devoted to containing the Soviet Union from expansionism."  First, the Soviet Union no longer exists.  Second, the overwhelming focus of the Defense Department in recent years has been in other areas.  Third, our force structure has been cut back significantly.  But the U.S. military most certainly is configured to project power.  This is not necessarily bad ... IF we have leadership with brains.  If we did, the military could be defending democracy and freedom in those cases where other approaches failed and if the American people so desired.  However, as you note, it is being employed "largely to defend US economic interests as defined by the power elite" and as I noted earlier:  "we now have the revolting situation where members of the U. S. armed forces are dying for the economy of the United States, not for the nation itself."  Perhaps I should have said "dying for the economic interests of private enterprise."

I agree that "standing up for our principles and working nonviolently really does work most of the time."  My view is that we need a national security strategy that works ALL of the time and this includes having a military capable of meeting future threats.  We are lucky that things are as peaceful as they are today (even though the GOPigs want us to believe we are in imminent danger and only they can save us).  This means we have an opportunity to restructure our entire national security posture and that includes concentrating on political and economic approaches to our problems while pursuing "Pancho Villa" (bin Laden) -- I doubt that he's not in Iraq.  As yes, clean, renewable energy sources are essential part of solving our problems.

A shift in spending from the Defense Department to other activities could have happened, but the GOPigs in Washington have screwed things up so badly that we have gone from a respectable budget surplus to a needless deficit and the government of China holds a gigantic quantity of Treasury debt.  I suspect we may be in for austere times, and the sad thing about all of this is that none of this would be happening if we had a different people in charge in Washington.  The glimmer of good news is the Democrats have the Congress and can apply the brakes to this runaway train.  Let's make sure that we keep the Congress in 2008 and put a Democrat into the White House.  Then we can begin to fix all of this.  Our current situation won't change without true leadership in Washington and it is up to us to make that happen.

This as been an interesting discussion.  Maybe someone else can take these ideas and run with them because the progressive movement needs a robust national security strategy.


by Airpower on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 06:50:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Question: Is there a Progressive Approach (none / 0)

I agree we desperately need to replace the current civilian leadership. It's time for some adult supervision! This should be our highest priority now. I'm completely with you on that Airpower.


by RandomNonviolence on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 12:48:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Eight Rules for Building a Progressive America (none / 0)

does the order signify priority?

for instance, when there is a conflict between the two, does no. 1, getting elected, precede no. 4?


by Stewieeeee on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 05:51:08 PM EST

Re: Eight Rules for Building a Progressive America (3.00 / 1)

The international perspective is missing from your list.  When America is the globe-spanning empire that it is, it's safe to say that other countries will be more progressive, and will be looking to limit America's hegemony.  We need to link up with this without appearing unpatriotic.  We must break the false identification many Americans have with an empire they don't benefit from.  I thrill to see the Citgo commercial that makes it clear that Venezuelans are helping low income Americans buy heating oil; I long to see Donald Rumsfeld at the dock of a German court.


by miriamsong on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 05:55:51 PM EST

Re: International Perspective (none / 0)

Some thoughts on the international perspective.

International relations are important.  JFK once said "Domestic policy can only defeat us; foreign policy can kill us."  Disreali once said, "Nations do not have friends, they have interests."  Both are right.

Yes, other nations will look to limit our hegemony, but they may not necessarily be progressive and those nations that are progressive today may not be progressive tomorrow.  Events change and people change.

One principle between the American progressive movement and United States foreign policy should be economic.  As an example, we should demand that U. S. corporations put the interest -- financial and otherwise -- of Americans first.  That means no offshore headquarters to either avoid or evade taxes, financial penalties to export American jobs such as huge customs duties on imported goods made by U.S. companies overseas, and so on.

Another principle is that we should never allow specific foreign policy events to affect our ability to carry out progressive policy domestically.  This implies support for the concept of sovereignty and might help us get support from some who might not otherwise support us.  There are people who will choose being an American over being a progessive, just as though there are those who will choose being an American over being a GOPig, multinational corporations notwithstanding.  There are fewer people who will choose to be a progressive first and an American second.  Additionally, the concept of sovereignty could help us enact progressive principles domestically in the face of possible overseas objections from non-progressive nations.  

Connecting progressive prinicples and foreign policy can be tricky since progressive principles mainly deal with the concerns of individual citizens on domestic matters while foreign policy deals with relations between nations and behavior of governments.  Motives for of citizens within a nation and the international actions of governments are quite different.  I think it may help to consider domestic progressive policy and U.S. foreign policy separately at first, then connect the two later as events can and will change.  But right now the link between the two is economic.

Thoughts?


by Airpower on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 02:05:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Eight Rules for Building a Progressive America (none / 0)

Matt,
Thanks for your thoughtful reflections on these issues. Here are some of my responses.


1. Put Democrats in office

I think the better frame for this is to Put Progressives in office! Suppose, for example, that in the general election in Connecticut, it was Lieberman running as the Democrat, and Lamont running as an Independent, after having been narrowly defeated by Lieberman in the primary? This will be a tough one, because the third party candidate is usually unelectable-- except this year for Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman. The whole Naderite thing comes into view as well. Or do we want to be satisfied with being the progressive wing of the Democratic party, which is what your first point implies?


3. Increase the number of progressive voters through organizing and ideological education:  We need more voters who are progressive.  . . . There are three large pools of new potential progressive voters: single women, hispanics, and youth.  Registering and educating these voters is critical to a long-term progressive movement.

What about Naderites and Greens? Most of them are our natural allies on most issues anyway. The Nader vote in 2000 is one of the problems Al Gore had, reaching critical or near-critical proportions in a few states. We need to woo them back.


4. Change the intellectual landscape of public discourse and policy-making to make it more favorable for progressive ideas  

I'm really with you here! But I think you overlooked (took for granted?) one basic and hugely important part of that intellectual landscape: Basic civics and the Bill of Rights! These are being hugely neglected in schools now, because of all the emphasis on reading and arithmetic skills. I have seriously wondered in recent years whether "No Child Left Behind" is really a stealth attack on civics education in the schools by diverting resources from civics to reading & math. Democracy does not just work all by itself: it takes constant maintanence, as we have discovered in the last 6 years, and our kids are getting little or no education about that.


6. Govern with an eye towards ensuring that progressive institutional structures grow and prosper.

Yes, yes! But the "progressive institutional structures" are the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and civics education in the schools. The importance of these structures, and how we cannot take them for granted, has been highlighted in recent years by the Bush-Cheney-Gonzales-Yoo assault on these institutional structures, designed to change them permanently into right-wing tools of manipulation and control.


8. Cripple the funding and media streams of reactionary forces that corrupt our democracy

The trick here is how to cripple the Swiftboat assassins without taking down MoveOn.org and the League of Conservation Voters at the same time. Isn't that what the FEC just did?

In any case, thanks for an excellent and thought-provoking review. I hope some of my suggestions have helped.

Bob in HI


by Bob Schacht on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 06:01:20 PM EST

All it takes is speaking honestly and clearly (none / 0)

The real trick is being able to articulate why progessive goals are right.

The progressive goals all make sense based on economics, science etc.

Science and compassion are on our side.

Just look at how Bush Jr/Republicans need to suppress the science on issues like pollution, global warming, stem cell research, evolution.

But Gore and Kerry, Democrats last two presidential candidates, simply could not speak clearly on the issues. They would intellectualize and equivocate so much they never could make the points in an understandable manner.

I remember during the 2004 Democratic debates when the candidates were asked if they were liberal and Kerry, Edwards went on these convoluted explanations of how they weren't liberal instead of saying...here's what a liberal is per the dictionary and yes I'm a liberal just like US founders.

They are always hedging.  Afraid of what people would think of them if they told people what they really thought and why.

Not to keep banging the drum...but the reason for McCain and Obama's popularity in their respective parties is they can speak clearly on the issues.

They tell you where they stand and why.

I think that's all it takes for progressive values to win out.


by BrionLutz on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 06:12:59 PM EST

Re: Eight Rules for Building a Progressive America (none / 0)

I think point 7 is very important, with the additional point that progressives need to counter the "intellectual" side of the right-wing movement, which may imply something a bit oxymoronic.  But the right-wing institutes, foundations, centers, "think-tanks", etc., have a very large influence through speaking, writing, testifying, op-ed submissions, and so on.  There is nothing institutionalized anywhere near as large and influential on the progressive side.  Strengthening this would be extremely helpful.


by tyva on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 06:56:04 PM EST

Re: Eight Rules for Building a Progressive America (none / 0)

There is nothing institutionalized anywhere near as large and influential on the progressive side.

Actually, we have a pretty good base of intellectuals in our universities, so I don't think we need any new institutions per se, what we need is to tap into this resource better.  


by Mark Matson on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 07:38:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

compete everywhere on every level (none / 0)

I don't see a mention of downticket races, or a mention of anything 50-state-strategy-like. Both need to be a part of this. The 50-state strategy isn't just expedient for the moment, it is IMHO, always the right thing to do.

You could just expand rule number 1 to include that we should run candidates everywhere, and that no race is too small to compete.


Progress is Personal | PCCC
by msnook on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 09:26:57 PM EST

Missing? (none / 0)

I recommend an item 9:  Build a progressive communications infrastructure.

You mentioned the media in item 8 and others have mentioned a coordinated media strategy.  But we need to by-pass the traditional media on a large scale similar to what MyDD and others do for those of us plugged in to the net.

What I have in mind is something like a weekly two-or-three page handout (mini-newspaper) distributed over the internet that can be printed out and hand-delivered by progressives door-to-door in every neighborhood and precinct.  It could have news of national, state, and local interest and feature items on specific representatives.  A CA-50 version could have an emphasis on the comings and goings of Rep Bilbray for example.  

I think we need this kind of continual information flow to reach and inform the passive and low-information voters on progressive issues such as net neutrality, minimum wage, etc., how they affect them directly, and which candidates for office will act in their best interest.


by Airpower on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 03:23:39 AM EST

Re: Eight Rules for Building a Progressive America (none / 0)

The essential requirement for progressive government is active local civic life.  We Americans move around so much, that we need ways to plug in to new communities quickly.  We spend all of our time watching TV and we don't know our neighbors.  If we could have initiatives to help people meet and work together locally, our job would be much easier.  
Paul Rosenberg said in one of his analyses that Southerners don't have civic institutions outside of churches, which may explain the power of churches in the South and, Paul Rosenberg pointed out, the reason that church goers vote disproportionately more.
How many of you would like having a place to go listing all of the community activites and ways to get involved when you've been replanted in a new place, or just want to reignite your connection to the community you live in?  Isolation is a huge theme in our culture and fighting it is key to getting people involved in making our country better.
by prince myshkin on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 06:12:13 AM EST

Re: Show up and speak out (none / 0)

That means going to meetings in your community after work and volunteering your time and effort in a public way.  Look for others to do the same.  Go to local governing councils (school boards) and participate in the public forums.

Exclusive focus on national and global issues is not helpful when you stay home!

Don't let the R's dominate these local institutions any longer!

See www.oxfordleadershippac.blogspot.com for more information.


rggedat
by rggedat on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 07:02:58 AM EST

Re: Eight Rules for Building a Progressive America (none / 0)

The item I don't see there is building up grassroots based community organizing outfits. Some do still exist, some in biggish networks like ACORN, many quite local. For example, Community Voices Heard in Brooklyn, AGENDA in LA -- but also such outfits as Northern Plains Resource Center in Montana. They are our answer to the right wing churches (and their members are sometimes a fifth column in those churches.)


Can It Happen Here?
by janinsanfran on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 01:25:57 PM EST

Re: Eight Rules for Building a Progressive America (none / 0)

"I recommend an item 9:  Build a progressive communications infrastructure." At  01:23:39 AM PDT

10. Celebrate the public commons. Make it clear that private and public are separate and should stay that way.

Corporations aren't people. They don't deserve subsidies from the public purse. They are part of the private, capitalist and feudal system, not the democracy system.

Public: parks, hospitals, airwaves, election campaigns and voting machines, the military, the courts, elected officials, government, the Internet, The Constitution.


by mrobinsong on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 10:31:31 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.