Policy and Aspirational Politics- Progressive States
Ruy Teixeira makes the odd argument that the white working class is "quite hostile to big business, believe corporations are taking unfair advantage of the system and think Bush and the Republicans push corporate interests over and above that of the public's" -- and therefore Sirota's approach isn't helpful.
Teixeira argues that we need a "programmatic and thematic approach that captures the aspirations of white working class voters for a better life", as if Sirota and others sharing his critique haven't done so. In this he ignores all the specific policies recommended by Sirota in his book, but more importantly, ignores that Sirota is more than your airchair pundit but has worked over the last year with Moveon, unions, state legislative leaders and others to launch an organization, the Progressive States Network/PLAN, to work with state leaders to pass exactly the kind of policy that would harness that anti-corporate anger to a positive program. It just seems bizarre to make a critique of Sirota's approach and ignore the organizational work he does and has promoted.
Look at the program of Progressive States on the flip and judge for yourself whether it is "aspirational" enough. :
Start with a few of the weekly newsletters sent to thousands of state legislators and other activists around the country, with titles like:
Cracking Down on Wage Law Violations
Economic Growth: New State Solutions for Job Creation
Cleaning Up Corruption in the Statehouses
Clean Power Alternatives for Energy Independence
Health Care: Demanding a Fair Share from Employers
Immigration: Real State Solutions
Smart Growth to Protect Rural America
Or to move from the specific to the overall vision, the Progressive States website is oriented around five key aspirations of working families:
Increasing Democracy
Growing Economy
Rewarding Work
Valuing Families
Strengthening Communities
This is a conscious effort to construct politics starting with those working family aspirations where people live, work and have their families. Each link outlines apsirations and the kinds of policies that will achieve those goals-- and over time activists and legislators will find all the resources and tools they need to fight for those policies in their states. And where they need help, staff at Progressive States will be there to help them with the drafting of legislation, delivering their message to the media and organizing the needed coalitions to pass the legislation.
So here's the question-- Teixeira says the white working class is angry, yet needs policies to harness that anger to real solutions to make their lives better. Other than not being rude to a few Beltway insiders (which seems to be Sirota's real sin in many peoples eyes), what concrete policies should Sirota, myself or others in the Progressive States network be promoting that we aren't already to be properly "aspirational."
But I'll be clear as chief policy wonk at Progressive States: good policy is important, but the key to political success ultimately is engaging the anger of working class families -- families of all races by the way -- to those aspirational politics and policies. You of course also need hope, idealism and logic, but if you neglect to engage those "baser" feelings of anger, we will lose those voters to a rightwing all too happy to tap that anger through racist and cultural resentments.
My 2 cents:
Many of us who keep close tabs on what is happening in politics and economic developments think that getting the facts to the people will make them "see the light". However, this seldom seems to work. Ross Perot was about the most successful at this with his charts, but he was widely derided for the effort.
The winners usually appeal to one of the two basic emotions used by all pursuaders, whether in politics or commerce: fear and hope. Reagan used hope, Bush uses fear. Studies show that most voters make their choices based upon emotion and prior allegiances. So getting a lifelong Republican to vote Democratic is very unlikely. As a result all the effort ends up being directed at the 5% "undecided". These people are undecided because they haven't been paying attention. And the aren't about to start now. Just give them an emotional slogan that resonates and that will be enough for them. Bush combined an "aw shucks" persona with his fear mongering to great effect.
I think some of the big economic and social lies now accepted as common wisdom (take your choice, cutting taxes raises federal revenue, for example) need to be countered with real facts, but framed not as statistics but as emotional morsels. The way the immigrants turned the discourse from people stealing jobs to those wanting to work hard and participate in the American dream is a good example.
So, short, emotional messages, based upon facts and presented by common people that the public can empathize with seems to me to be the best approach.
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
May 5, 2006 7:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you want to engage people's emotions, stop using words like "solutions" and push the "work hard and play by the rules" ideas. I appreciate what you're doing--but there's some room for improvement in terms of speaking simply and directly.
May 5, 2006 8:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good feedback, eightballo. Our prime audience on these pieces is not the general electorate -- we're not an electoral organization. Instead, we're looking to outfit legislators with the ideas they'll need to win and then deliver on when in office.
May 5, 2006 8:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nathan, you wrote: "Other than not being rude to a few Beltway insiders (which seems to be Sirota's real sin in many peoples eyes), what concrete policies should Sirota, myself or others in the Progressive States network be promoting that we aren't already to be properly "aspirational.""
I have a few comments and questions on the agenda items you and the network are pursuing:
What do you mean by "smart growth"? The term is used in different ways by different people. I am familiar with the version of it written up by Myron Orfield in his excellent books Metropolitics and American Metropolitics.
What do you mean by "real" state solutions on immigration? What guiding principles or values inform your work in this area?
Is there nothing on your list pertaining to education because only 1/4 or so of households have kids in public schools? Is there some other reason? What about an education item that features, say, small class sizes in the elementary grades at least, "accountability" laws which don't dumb down teaching and learning and over-emphasize rote memorization prep for mandated state tests, and adequate funding to ensure a strong public education system?
On health insurance, has it occurred to you that if you "demand a fair share from employers" then, other things being equal, this could easily lead to less left over for better wages/benefits and creating jobs? Why take state-based single payer options off the table?
May 5, 2006 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well Nathan, I have to admit, I clicked through and I was pleasantly surprised to find thse useful morsels:
As well as this:
These are both good points, and I do support them both, along with just about all of the rest of the agenda. M&A's are more often than not a net loss for the company, and the winners are the lawyers, consultants, and managers who leave. This is "articificial" growth by acquisition and should indeed be punished. But there's a fine line between punishing bad transactions and regulating growth outright.
Given that I work in a university spinoff in a revenue-poor municipality (Pittsburgh) I'd also add that the spinoff thing requires a lot of patience to cultivate and sustain. First of all, you have to fund (at about $1M or more to really have a serious shot at making it) 10 companies or so for every one that succeeds. And the ones that don't succeed end up being acquired at fire sale prices by -yep - big corporations, which usually shut down or move the operation and archive the IP. This can give people the impression that the local gov't was just seeding those gifts to begin with, particularly if the business leaders who "sponsor" the spinoff get a big payout, which they often do. Second of all, it's very easy for all parties to get caught up in the potential of a technology rather than its present utility, and that means failures and some level of outright chicanery. So it takes a while to build the infrastructure you need for that (relationships with private capital, incubators/greenhouses, a pool of managers willing to be part of these ventures, etc.) I clearly believe in this or I wouldn't have moved to Pittsburgh for it, but it can be to manage politically.
Now, as to David Sirota being rude to "inside the Beltway" pundits - my distate for David Sirota stems from the fact that he was rude and extraordinarily self-righteous to all of us here on TPM Cafe during his various stints here. And he certainly seems to have come back from his stint in Montana acting like The Chosen One, so you'll pardon my suspicion that his rudeness extends beyond "inside the Beltway types".
Finally, I agree that it's important to include anger at elites as a motivator to get to the polls. But we have a lot of ground to make up there in terms of association with the American Dream. I think it's fair to say that anti-corporate sentiment is still a double-edged sword for progressives. One that we need to take hold of, but surely to use with care.
May 5, 2006 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Is there nothing on your list pertaining to education because only 1/4 or so of households have kids in public schools? Is there some other reason? "
Snide, uniformed remarks seldom further a person's arguments.
From the Center for Education Reform:
TOTAL PUBLIC SCHOOL ENROLLMENT: 47,917,774
TOTAL PRIVATE SCHOOL ENROLLMENT: 5,262,849
That's about 89% of children in public school not 25%.
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
May 5, 2006 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Smart Growth is used in different ways, but progressives in the field emphasize liveable approaches to development that cut energy use through smarter transit options, preserve open lands, and encourage both less energy use and more affordable housing through denser development near transit hubs.
As to solutions on immigration, click the link for details, but the basic message -- as I've posted on this site -- is better enforcement of labor laws so that both immigrant and native workers see their wage standards protected.
And on education, we emphasize that in the "Valuing Families" area through support for pre-K and quality education for all children and in our "Growing Economy" section in seeing investments in children as some of the most important economic investments we make as a society.
On health care-- we've emphasized employer fair share laws because, whatever peoples desires, employers still provide a large chunk of health care dollars for health care and most states do not have the funds to pay for health care without an employer contribution. We definitely don't take state-based single payer options off the table, but even most proposals for single payer include a tax on employers as part of their funding.
One thing I should emphasize is that Progressive States doesn't emphasize any one solution for every state-- we're promoting the best list of ideas in each area, then working with local legislators and activists to development and support the legislation that is most appropriate to each local political situation.
May 5, 2006 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
rdf, you wrote: "Snide, uniformed remarks seldom further a person's arguments."
I would ask you to please reread what I wrote before hurling accusations at me.
It is factually correct that only about 1/4 of households have children who are now enrolled in the public schools. The other 3/4 of households have children who are either younger or older than the K-12 age range, or are households which have no children living in them.
The statement has nothing whatsoever to do with the proportion of students in public vs. private K-12 schools, as you seem to have assumed.
May 5, 2006 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said, Robert.
May 5, 2006 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll grant you that your remark was factually correct. But I still think your intent was to make a snide remark. My kids are now in their 30's, but I continue to pay local school taxes, so the issue of public education is still relevant to me. If 90% of the kids go to public school then I think a similar proportion of the population will be interested in issues of public education. They either were products of public education, had children in public education, or expect to in the future.
Many of the changes to education (vouchers, government payment to private and religious schools) benefits the 10%, but is promoted as a general good. This is the same argument that has been used (successfully) with the estate tax.
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
May 5, 2006 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
One of the pleasures of the TPMCafe is realizating that there are many people debating issues facing the American public from a core set of values that I share. These values are not well reflected by and are often ridiculed by the so-called left-wing MSM. This site, Media Matters and Tavis Smiley's website help keep me sane in an era where a tsunami of stupidity exists where mass news media and political leaders seem inept at addressing factual information (See: Rummy's "I never said that I knew where WMD were" debate with a former CIA analyst). The media had the videotape but a private citizen was needed to make the point that Rumsfield has not been truthful.
Now onto the topic at hand. I think one of the important things to keep in mind in attacking problems about work, health or education is the word "hope".
I'm not a big Jesse Jackson fan these days, but the man can turn a phrase. "Keep hope alive" was one such example. There should be the idea that there is light at the end of the tunnel. Stating That we are willing to try something different. Something to the effect that we're not afraid to fail and that if something we propose doesn't work we'll respond and change. I believe that a party that openly states that it will admit when something it has proposed doesn't work has an edge. I think the public now fears a party to rigid to adapt. This stance would be in contrast to the current administration.
We are in a time when the public feels concerned about their personal finances, national security and immigration. These fears can be used to pit various groups against each other and tap into class envy and xenophobia, which I believe will be the GOP default position. Democrats need to counter by giving reasons to feel that the future will be better because people are actively working on their problems.
Johnathan Alter's new book The Defining Moment should likely be must reading for TPMCafe browsers. FDR took hopeless times and turned them to a more hopeful period-and fought a war!
I'm not enough of a policy wonk to know which programs are the really best option, but I do feel that emphasizing "hope" and the ability to admit when a program isn't living up to expectations is a message voters need to hear
May 5, 2006 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
rdf, you wrote: "But I still think your intent was to make a snide remark."
Excuse me? So you are a mind reader?
The question on education was not intended as a snide remark. I wanted to know if that was a deliberate decision the group made to de-emphasize public education in their outreach.
It is well known to people who are out there trying to get school bonds passed that one of the major barriers is that only about 1/4 of households actually have a child in the public schools at any given time. A surprisingly large number of people seem to think that if they don't have a child in the schools they don't have a stake in supporting public education.
A benefit of the doubt, please?
May 5, 2006 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Part of the thesis is right and useful, I think. Wage growth under Bush has been terrible. Most people who live off of their salaries have found themselves either running stagnant with pretty benign inflation (that seems to be getting worse) or falling behind. Meanwhile, executive compensation has been in the news so people realize that their bosses are getting what they aren't. The frustration is there.
But, solutions? I guess we have to remember that though people tend to be frustrated with this situation, they tend not to be livid about it. They also, as evidenced by tyhe bipartisan rejection of any sort of rebate for gas prices, don't seem to want the government to make them whole.
Still, I think we could pursue a new tax policy that would play broadly and would even recapture the middle... it'd not be a debate about tax rates but about tax type. Bush and his ilk have been all about shifting taxes from investors towards workers.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
May 5, 2006 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some statistics from the 2000 presidential election reveal that the American public, even then, was actually more supportive of Democratic policies. Nation-wide, left-of-center majority over right-of-center majority was 2,593,039, or, Gore-Nader - 53,886,223 (51.2%); Bush, Buchanan, Browne - 51,293,l84 (48.66%). Gore plurality over Bush was 543,614. Given the last 5 years, it shouldn't be difficult to match those numbers and THEN SOME. It would also help if we amended the Constitution so government reflected proportional representation and the Electoral College was put out to pasture.
May 6, 2006 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
"work hard and play by the rules" always sounds to me like the message from the CEO when he's really asking YOU to work hard while HE gets Congress to rewrite the rules to lower YOUR compensation. That message leaves me cold. Work hard and play by whose rules?
What we need (though granted it would take an effort larger than choosing the best advertising slogan) is the passion to inspire an apathetic public into once again believing that YOU get to make the rules.
May 7, 2006 9:01 AM | Reply | Permalink