pouring myself a cup
Are we for or against: just a tactical question.
From over here in technoland where I spend my days, it seems as if progressives ought to able to state what problem they and the rest of the society are trying to solve.
What would that be? How about this: the majority of Americans cannot persuade government to do what they want; significant populations probably less than a majority do not have basic rights (such as freedom from want) guaranteed; almost everyone in the United States feels the absence of a strong culture that would give life meaning; and last and not least, the standard of living for everyone in America ought to be higher than it is and ought to be growing faster than it is. That's a fourfold problem. If progressives can do anything to solve the problem, the solutions come after the problem is squarely stated. If this isn't the best statement, let's have a different one. But to debate the details of remedying lesser problems, much less non-problems, is what the party out of power cannot afford to waste time doing, at least unless like the conservatives in England it chooses to become irrelevant.
Comments (25)
I think people instinctively know that society is too complex to take a "solutions provider" approach (to quote an oft-used phrase from the tech industry) to moving forward. I do think your point raises the issue of clearly articulating what we think are the deepest ills in this country - after all, our basic premise is that good governmetn can and should work to remedy societies deepest ills.
But I think that comes later. Progressives first need to state loudly and clearly what our principles are, and why our "solutions" follow naturally from what we are <b>for</b>. I would say we're just at the outset of clearly stating and uniting around our principles, and nowhere near explains why the peril is so perilous. And the risks of stating the problems we're trying to solve are substantial: anything from being seen as patronizing do-gooders to being balkanized.
May 31, 2005 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
"it seems as if progressives ought to able to state what problem they and the rest of the society are trying to solve."
Well, I like bumper sticker slogans, so I'll reduce it to:
Making Government Work for Working People
How does that unpack? We're on the side of people who work for a living. And unlike the Republicans, we're interested in finding ways to actually make government work for them.
Even if recalcitrant voters get sold into thinking we're baby killing, gay marrying, terrorist lovers, they'd still have to seriously consider voting for a Party that is committed to fighting to make their lives better.
May 31, 2005 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
What the heck is freedom from want? What are the limits of that freedom?
I believe that we have a long way to go to improve the opportunity of all in our country to succeed. I do not, however, have any illusions that if we go all of that way, that there won't be some people who, because of weakness of character or laziness (traits which, after all, I find all to evident in myself, though I have successfully overcome them for the most part) will still lose their job, or flunk out of school, or abuse drugs/alcohol, or for some other reason will be poor. And hungry. And homeless.
For these people, we have to offer a way back out. (or a way out for the first time) But if they screw themselves up, we - as a society - have not violated some right they have to not "want."
May 31, 2005 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are a few basic needs we all have that should not be dependent upon how much money we have. Among those are good medical care, good education, basic shelter and food. We, as American citizens should all be free from want of these basics. That sounds like Socialism I suppose, but that should not deter us from seeking to provide this. For sure, the Republicans don't believe in any of this, so I don't see any danger of them pre-empting us in this regards. As a practical matter we should support things like universal single payer medical coverage, the Social Security program, and improvements to our education system. I don't think we should limit ourselves to specifics like Labor union support or free choice on abortion.
May 31, 2005 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
that fits our basic principles:
Common Sense and Common Decency for the Common Good.
May 31, 2005 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
A lot of problems out there, and you can't solve 'em all. The issues to focus on are:
1: Preserving (first) and then strengthening the basic safety nets, SS, Medicare, Medicaid etc. Strengthen doesn't necessarily mean expansion of scope or funding, but should include restructuring to make them viable. Also, making health insurance/costs more affordable wins politically and is consistent with liberal values.
2: Vigorous promotion of new technologies in all fields to keep our business edge globally, also has the effect of increasing quality of life for average Americans. Can't stress this one enough, science and innovation go hand-in-hand with progressivism.This is more principle and less political. The stem cell issue is working in our favor at the moment, Curing Disease > Fundamentalism.
3: Military strength and winning the "War on Terror" the right way. There are bound to be divergent views on this one but it's clear that somehow large parts of the country have been taken in by Repub advances in the "support the troops" P.R. battle.
4: Education. Nothing new here liberals have been out in front on this for awhile but it dosen't hurt to be the "party of learning", a top priority for many families (including suburban swings-voters).
5: This isn't an issue in and of itself, but we shouldn't be afraid of talking to voters about rolling back the Bush tax cuts to pay for things that a majority of Americans benefit from.
May 31, 2005 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with your high-level point; that progressives need to embrace some kind of higher values (or at least "strategy") to inform their direction. "Stem cells, yes! War, no!" isn't going to cut it.
About these four you state:
(1) Voicelessness: Is this true? And if 40% of Americans are conservatives and 30% are liberals, do progressives really want people to have more persuasion over government?
(2) Guarantee of freedom from want... As a previous poster wrote, what does that really mean? And how do you separate this from a welfare state that will keep people from working?
(3) Absence of strong culture: Conservatives win on this. They believe that America used to be more unified in a Christian, English-speaking culture that's been ruined by liberal media, immigration, corporate America, multicultural pluralism, and the triumph of secularism in public life. Progressives don't necessarily have a counterpoint, except that this nostalgic culture wasn't really that great for the 70% who weren't white, straight, Christian, married men.
(4) Standard of living: Yes! The question is: what creates this higher standard of living? And do progressives understand what creates growth?
May 31, 2005 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe progressives ought to start using the 80/20 rule. Maybe we ought to be focusing on the 20% of the public policy issues that would make a difference to 80% of the people.
It seems to me that we ought to be able to agree on that 20%. Education, environment, poverty, etc. I would think that could help focus the progressive message.
May 31, 2005 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
What an amazing group of assumptions!
Freedom from want is a basic right? Wherein is that writ? Rather, I would suppose that wants are infinite and the abiliiy to fulfill them limited, so there never will be freedom from want - until we all become Buddhists and control our desires.
Almost everyone feels a lack of a strong culture that gives life meaning? Wherein is that writ? If Mr. Hundt has a lack of meaning in his life it would appear to be his problem - and perhaps that problem is that he is looking elsewhere for meaning in his life. His life is his own - its meaning can only be derived by him, and Dr. Phil cannot give him it in five minutes. Every life has meaning, and they are all different, which is perhaps why he is waiting for someone to deliver a 'meaning' to him.
May 31, 2005 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think we need to begin by refusing to allow the Repubs to define what the "vital issues" are. We aren't good at that and, thus, end up chasing their 'rabbit' around the track. First we must state clearly what really is of concern to the average American and then basically educate the public on why the Repub approach to those problems is a smoke and mirror screen that not only does not solve the problem but is really another assault on the average American. My experience has been that the public cannot see the connection between A and B. Example: they don't have a clue what the true impact on their lives will be when they are sucked into all the "cut taxes" and "no taxes" rhetoric. Or, they cannot figure out that packing the court with anti-abortion judges conceals the fact that those same right wingers will rule with corporations against all the gains employees (both blue and white collar) have made over the years. I feel we have failed miserably in connecting those dots for the public---or more to the point, the media makes sure that our "dot connecting" never reaches the air waves.
May 31, 2005 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
--Equality, Community, Prosperity
It covers everything we're for, and also everything that the right doesn't think should belong to all.
May 31, 2005 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Franklin Roosevelt's Four Freedom speech is the source of "freedom from want." And as to the general feeling that Americans seek a stronger culture, that's indicated in the media everyday, isn't it? It's not personal to me.
May 31, 2005 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting topic. I sure can't boil it down right away. Here are some contributions to the general debate.
I'm for
1) Honest and transparent Government
2) An understanding that we're PART of the environment
I understand that
1) The United States is still a white supremacist country.
2) The United States is still a male supremacist country.
3) The United States is still a Christian supremacist country.
I'm against
1) Corporations having unfettered rights in how they treat individuals.
2) Having my life controlled by somebody else's irrationality. I don't think bigots should be allowed to have sex, or reproduce, but I don't believe that should be a matter of law.
May 31, 2005 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: electroniceric above, I don't know whether this is a "solutions provider" approach, but a few days ago, because I am so very cool, I jotted down in rough form a list of things I'd like to see accomplished. Here it is, FWIW:
1. Comprehensive National Security – 1) maintain & develop a war-fighting capability second to none 2) effective diplomacy that promotes & protects our interests with due respect for the interests of others 3) winning the WOT 4) winning the fight against *all* violent death, not just terrorism: domestic violence, drug & gang related violence, automobile fatalities, suicide. A framing device which includes the above + health care & foreign aid: “Silent September 11ths”
2. Shared Prosperity: a private-sector economy that government ensures will deliver jobs, rising incomes, fairness & opportunities for advancement for all Americans who are willing to work for it.
3 . Equal Dignity & Opportunity: (health care & education). Includes mental health care.
4. Fiscal Responsibility: (balanced budget, secure funding for SS, Medicare & Medicaid, infrastructure investments for the future, & programs for individual & household fiscal responsibility: i.e. asset-building programs)
5. Foreign Aid & Environmental Protection
6. Ending The Culture War: freedom, diversity, tolerance, respect & solidarity.
And finally, a slightly OT piece of rhetoric on reforming the War on Drugs: None of us can stand in judgment of another human being for their addictions or compulsions or indulgences, but all of us must step in to prevent the waste of a life.I'm going to take a small break from political kibbitzing for a while, so cheers, for now, everybody. Hopefully in the interim you all will have developed such great manifestoes & policy platforms that I can just sign up and say "what they said!".
May 31, 2005 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Before I start, just a minor pet peeve -- I'm a little sick and tired of the word "liberal" being demonized. Say it LOUD, say IT PROUD -- LIBERAL IS LOVELY. (Okay, that's a little too wussy). LIBERAL IS LEAUTIFUL. Okay, well I've got to come up with something else.
Back to the point - it seems to me the way to go is discuss the role of government - what's the theory? And attack the problems from the theory. Republicans do a great job of couching the overall theory -- even though it's a crock -- smaller government, family values, strong defense. And then implement the policies (again, keeping in mind that much of this is a crock (e.g., tax cuts in practice are only for the wealthy):
Where does that leave liberals? Well - what is the role of government? For me, it breaks down to a few basic categories (I'm sure there's more, but I'm trying to be brief):
And attack the problems from there. How to provide strong defense? Maintain military superiority; root out terrorists with the cooperation of allies; force intel reform, etc. Progressive Family Values -- a) The taxing of the middle class taxes means two parents must work. The high cost of healthcare means two parents must work. The high cost of education means two parents must work (or go into deep debt). b) Gutting social security ruins families that have worked all their lives. c) predatory credit card practices leave families unable to cope d) and so on. All of these things detract from what a family should do -- raise children and build a home. This is the most fundamental value we have as a society, right? To build our homes with the ones we love. Equality for all -- everyone, and I mean everyone has access to the full rights & privilieges available to our socieity -- voting, work, marriage, etc. Without this we are not progressives.
I'm sure there's a lot more I can put here, but it seems to me we've got to do a better job of framing our grand vision of the role and values of gov't, and it's relationship to our society
May 31, 2005 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
1. We should perhaps make an effort to ressurect Gen. George C Marshall as a patron saint of American liberals/the modern Democratic party.
2. Tough on war. Tough on the causes of war.
May 31, 2005 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I always hate this kind of topic, because inevitably the discussion begins to sound like a team of used car dealers trying to come up with new and interesting ways to sell their lemons.
I would argue that one important step the minority in Congress could take would be to understand that they are not trying to SELL anything, much less lemons. They/we should learn to accept that they/we are right.
A very difficult thing to do, even nearly four years after . . .
The political discourse since September 11, 2001, has become naturally and predictably oversimplified--less tolerant of analysis, depth, ambiguity, what have you.
Those skilled in the craft of oversimplification can survive in this environment; those who are not, struggle. Oversimplified messages resonate more with a public that believes it lives in uniquely chaotic times.
To my mind, the American public is still waiting, still, for someone to step up and lay bare the absurd and false simplicities that have gained such currency in the last five years.
May 31, 2005 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
simply this: for economic prosperity, we need both government & the private sector to do their jobs properly. Government on its own doesn't work. The private sector on it's own doesn't work. We need both.
We can define the 40's, 50's, 60's & 90's as decades where both government and the private sector where doing their jobs properly.
In the 70's, government went too far. In the 80's and the oughts, the private sector went too far.
So to make progress like in the 90's, we need to bring the government back into better balance with the private sector.
May 31, 2005 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
The economic and political program of the Republicans has embezzled the economic power of the individual citizen and suspended individual rights with exactly the police state those rights outlawed.
The abandonment of the individual by the so-called conservatives has created an economic and political crisis that liberals are well-disposed to solve.
The right to salute a growing economy is a cheap replacement for individual earnings. The gratification of high earning power and high productivity must be our political cause.
The cultural problem is not daunting. The problem with American culture is not a problem of hearts and minds. The broadcast infrastructure has been converted into a massive propaganda network, trapping citizens into a false impression that neither they nor the world are likely to progress.
To do: High income, lifelong learning, and a return of control of the communication infrastructure to the people and to individuals. This program, drawing fierce opposition from Republicans, will expose how they ransom the principles of economic competition and individual rights that once characterized their end of a short political spectrum.
May 31, 2005 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems that this question reaches far beyond just "tactics" -- it's not just about trying to promote a lemon or deciding how best to oppose the Republican agenda. It's about defining real principles that can be exemplified by real programs. I think that's the power of conservative rhetoric and approach -- there are specific principles that frame policy decisions. (The cogency and internal accuracy of those decisions is another issue entirely.) In this sense, by articulating the guiding principles of progressive thought, progressives could actually hit "strategy."
Although the precise terms of FDR's Four Freedoms are pretty vague and leave ample room for discussion, they seem like a wonderful place to start. Or even, reaching back further historically, how about an individual right to self-determination? Not that one has the right to trample other people, but that the circumstances of one's birth/education/race/gender/sexual orientation/religion shouldn't limit the available opportunities.
May 31, 2005 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've probably been waiting to comment on a subject like this since the 2000 election.. (and it's only gotten worse since the election of '04). Speaking as someone who remembers what the progressive movement was intended to be about... I've been perturbed at how the term has become little more than a label, that the ethics and values that one should passionately adhere to if one considers oneself "progressive" are unfortunately only given lip service to. I have to say it, some who consider themselves progressive are as guilty of moral relativism as the right wing.
It's not unusual to enter into discussion online or off with those who wave the "progressive" banner.. and read/hear statements that are condescending and completely ignorant. Just the other week a handful of neo-progressives were talking about their "grassroots" activism, yet at the same time, they were insulting average people.. referring to them as sheeple, calling them "ignorant", inferring that they were guilty of cowardice.. negating the intelligence, the right to respect, rights, etc.. of blue collar workers, etc.. as a means to rationalize their needing to be "herded" perhaps? It wasn't hard to imagine many of these young activists as being weaned on the mean-spiritedness of the Reagan years... their values being shaped by the cult of me-sim.
Progressives are supposed to be about striving for progress toward better conditions, in society and/or government... progress for all, but most especially for the most powerless. It's not progressive when the end results are as bad as those offered by the opposing polemic.
Back during the last presidential election, when deciding who to vote for, and asking questions at a candidates blog regarding his record, perhaps I shouldn't have been surprised by the fact that the result was much the same had I been asking questions on a pro-Bush blog.. attacks, being labeled a troll, censored and banned. And I was asking politely, substantive questions.. regarding a former governor who laid claim to having a sound plan to reform health care, yet said health care reform plan was one that had left the poorest in his state as badly off as they were pre said reform.
Sorry for the rant, this wasn't directed at this blog, or at anyone in particular.. merely my frustration with what I perceive as an abandonment of important principles by too many out there who seem to be playing at something. There needs to be consensus building, successful movements of the past brought down the barriers that divided people, yet some in the "movement" these past 5 years or so are regressively constructing barriers to further cement divides If one wants to be taken as a progressive, one has to walk the walk consistently, rather than just talking the talk. I firmly believe that progressives need to spend some time defining what they are intent on so value judgements can be made on whether they are progressively relevant.
May 31, 2005 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
We can't have the current narrowly defined 400 billion dollar defense budget and accomplish any of our goals. That budget reflect a ridiculous definition of national defense and until we can articulate a compreshensive definition we will have massive deficits and an untenable position in the world.
May 31, 2005 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
June 1, 2005 6:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think focussing on the government's lack of accountability is ignoring the elephant in the room, which is corporations. Practically speaking, almost all of the problems Americans have with government are ideological, and not directly related to their lives. In contrast, they are constantly dealing with, and being screwed by, faceless corporations that truly are unaccountable.
Government may lack some responsibility, but to a large extent it is due to the enormous influence wielded by unchecked corporate America. Trying to improve government accountability without addressing the root cause is foolish.
June 1, 2005 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
1) On economics
- Increased wealth creation benefiting all people living in America
- A safety net to ensure that the elderly, the children, and the poor have basic needs (healthcare, food, shelter) met
2) On Law, society, and culture
- Equal opportunity for all
- Rule of Law and civil liberties
- Entrepeneurialism
3) On foreign policy
- Be an example and supporter of peace, democracy, and civil liberties worldwide
- Support sustainable economic development worldwide
- Intervene militarily only when vital interests are at risk and all other options have been exhausted or to stop egregious violations of human rights (genocide)
I think most would agree with these, including conservatives. The issue is not so much what, but how these things are achieved.
June 2, 2005 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink