Progressives... What do you want?
"What do you want?" -- Often a dangerous question, frequently the
answer leads to more questions, assuming you ever get a valid answer.
I see numerous posts from self-styled "Progressives" complaining that Sen. Obama has run to the middle. That he's betrayed the Progressive ideals. That Sen. Biden is a terrible pick. That Sen. Clinton is the only one the progressives could stand. That Sen. Clinton can't possibly be a progressive.
First, I asked myself, "What is a Progressive"? I consulted the well-known bastion of nearly correct knowledge, Wikipedia, which says:
Certainly, Sen. Obama meets the basic guidelines of Progressivism, acting to make Government more responsive, more efficient, less corrupt, and more helpful to the common man.
But for some reason, he seems to completely fail as a Progressive, because he believes (as a constitutional scholar, no less) that the Second Ammendment was intended to convey an individual right, that the government is allowed to collect intelligence information (Ok-- I'll admit, I don't like "new" FISA either), or that perhaps, faith-based organizations do have a place in our communities, if not in our government.
Ignoring for a moment, Sen. Obama, let's look at the other three contenders for the White House (and I'm being generous).
John McCain is no friend to the Progressive. He believes you either deregulate or bomb any problem you encounter. And to make that more palatable, he'll cut your taxes. Unless you receive employer health benefits, in which case they go up. He feels that the Supreme Court is a bunch of liberal whackjobs who need to be replaced, that women have no rights over their reproductive system, and that we must drill beneath a stage in Panama City, Florida, to end our energy crisis.
Bob Barr is running on the Libertarian platform, after being a strident anti-abortionist, and the author of that bastion of Civil Rights, the Patriot Act. As a card-carrying Libertarian friend of mine said after reading his background, "Bob Barr has no business being a Libertarian. Ever."
Ralph Nader, who's primary claim to fame was to point out that automobiles were deathtraps (which they were, yet drivers tended to be more responsible), and other such consumer issues, has zero foreign policy, domestic policy, or indeed, political experience. His chance of having a White House that can actually function is roughly equivalent to my chances of sprouting wings and flying around the room.
Which brings us back to Sen. Obama. His original platform (which has changed somewhat, sometimes disappointingly so), is still very close to the "Democratic Ideal". When complaints were raised about the language in the official platform for 2008, changes were made. He is running a 50 state campaign, focused on bringing new people into the process, and essentially, turning the entire country blue, starting at the local level, and going up to state, and federal. His plans include 2010, and 2012, because he knows time moves fast.
In 12 years, he has wrangled Chicago, the US Senate, the Hillary Machine, and has a chance of beating the Republican machine. Not bad for a naive, inexperienced guy.
His plans give the most hope for a government we can believe in. He wants "google for government", which will shine the awful light of public scrutiny into the machinations of Congress, and with a bit of luck (and Sen. Obama's continued good health) may force the members of Congress to act, if not altruistically, at least, in their own self-interest, for the good of their constituents.
We have four choices in front of us. Two of them are unlikely to matter, except the arena of vote stealing. Bob Barr seems to take votes from John McCain, and Ralph Nader, if he gets votes, may get them from Barack Obama. There are no other options, short of armed revolution, or declaration of martial law. Change cannot come from the outside, it must come from within the executive branch of the next Administration.
Consider the issues of foreign policy, women's rights, civil liberties, the economy, (de)regulation (and taxation) of big business, education, infrastructure, and energy.
Consider the next 4 to 8 years, and picture where the United States will be, and could be, under each candidate after that amount of time.
I close with the question I began this novella with... "Progressives... what do you want?"
I see numerous posts from self-styled "Progressives" complaining that Sen. Obama has run to the middle. That he's betrayed the Progressive ideals. That Sen. Biden is a terrible pick. That Sen. Clinton is the only one the progressives could stand. That Sen. Clinton can't possibly be a progressive.
First, I asked myself, "What is a Progressive"? I consulted the well-known bastion of nearly correct knowledge, Wikipedia, which says:
Progressivism historically advocates the advancement of workers' rights and social justice. The progressives were early proponents of anti-trust laws, regulation of large corporations and monopolies, as well as government-funded environmentalism and the creation of National Parks and Wildlife Refuges.Wikipedia then goes on to talk about progressives, progressivism, and a number of other -ives and -isms, and led me to believe they don't know either, because their information doesn't seem to jibe with the way the word is used around here.
Certainly, Sen. Obama meets the basic guidelines of Progressivism, acting to make Government more responsive, more efficient, less corrupt, and more helpful to the common man.
But for some reason, he seems to completely fail as a Progressive, because he believes (as a constitutional scholar, no less) that the Second Ammendment was intended to convey an individual right, that the government is allowed to collect intelligence information (Ok-- I'll admit, I don't like "new" FISA either), or that perhaps, faith-based organizations do have a place in our communities, if not in our government.
Ignoring for a moment, Sen. Obama, let's look at the other three contenders for the White House (and I'm being generous).
John McCain is no friend to the Progressive. He believes you either deregulate or bomb any problem you encounter. And to make that more palatable, he'll cut your taxes. Unless you receive employer health benefits, in which case they go up. He feels that the Supreme Court is a bunch of liberal whackjobs who need to be replaced, that women have no rights over their reproductive system, and that we must drill beneath a stage in Panama City, Florida, to end our energy crisis.
Bob Barr is running on the Libertarian platform, after being a strident anti-abortionist, and the author of that bastion of Civil Rights, the Patriot Act. As a card-carrying Libertarian friend of mine said after reading his background, "Bob Barr has no business being a Libertarian. Ever."
Ralph Nader, who's primary claim to fame was to point out that automobiles were deathtraps (which they were, yet drivers tended to be more responsible), and other such consumer issues, has zero foreign policy, domestic policy, or indeed, political experience. His chance of having a White House that can actually function is roughly equivalent to my chances of sprouting wings and flying around the room.
Which brings us back to Sen. Obama. His original platform (which has changed somewhat, sometimes disappointingly so), is still very close to the "Democratic Ideal". When complaints were raised about the language in the official platform for 2008, changes were made. He is running a 50 state campaign, focused on bringing new people into the process, and essentially, turning the entire country blue, starting at the local level, and going up to state, and federal. His plans include 2010, and 2012, because he knows time moves fast.
In 12 years, he has wrangled Chicago, the US Senate, the Hillary Machine, and has a chance of beating the Republican machine. Not bad for a naive, inexperienced guy.
His plans give the most hope for a government we can believe in. He wants "google for government", which will shine the awful light of public scrutiny into the machinations of Congress, and with a bit of luck (and Sen. Obama's continued good health) may force the members of Congress to act, if not altruistically, at least, in their own self-interest, for the good of their constituents.
We have four choices in front of us. Two of them are unlikely to matter, except the arena of vote stealing. Bob Barr seems to take votes from John McCain, and Ralph Nader, if he gets votes, may get them from Barack Obama. There are no other options, short of armed revolution, or declaration of martial law. Change cannot come from the outside, it must come from within the executive branch of the next Administration.
Consider the issues of foreign policy, women's rights, civil liberties, the economy, (de)regulation (and taxation) of big business, education, infrastructure, and energy.
Consider the next 4 to 8 years, and picture where the United States will be, and could be, under each candidate after that amount of time.
I close with the question I began this novella with... "Progressives... what do you want?"
