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.

... 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

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.

defeat Non-progressive Democrats in primaries

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.  

       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.

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.

...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.

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!

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.

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??

does the order signify priority?

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

"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.