A Progressive’s Wish List

Here’s a brief list, er, wish list, of items I’d like to see coming from the Democratic party and their national candidates:

Policies

• National commitment to the Energy Apollo Project, to curtail, if not end, our dependence on fossil fuels — I’d also like to see more exploration on alternative energy sources
• No US forces in Iraq, no permanent basis the country
• Rebuild and regain the trust of our nation’s military after the catastrophic abuse of the past six years
• As an aside, and as someone that served in the military, I’d like to see a mandatory — yes, mandatory — military service period for every American after completing high school for a two year period. (Conscientious objectors could serve in non-combat units that are not required to undergo any direct weapons training — our nation must commit to an ideal wherein war must be a shared sacrifice, across the board, period.)
• Heavy investment in our educational system, particularly k-12
• Rekindle our national governments commitment to Social Security, so that the country knows that the systems is solvent and secure
• National healthcare
• A renewed commitment that Americans’ reproductive security and sovereignty will remain a personal matter, even as we acknowledge that abortion should be "rare, safe and legal"
• An increase in the minimum wage
• Strong support for Americans’ right to negotiate job security with their employers through our unions
• Strong incentives (patent protection and other methods) to maintain tech jobs and industry in our shores
• Reforming our nation’s revenue code to curtail payment evasion, and to shore up solvency
• Provide an avenue for undocumented immigrants to join the American mainstream, while simultaneously working with our partners in the Western Hemisphere to curtail the inflow of undocumented immigrants
• Work with Israel, Palestine and the world community to assure that the parties move rapidly towards a two state solution — negotiate a sustainable cease fire
• Recommit to the nuclear non-proliferation treaties
• A renewed commitment of America’s most sacred creed: Equal Protection for All. Yes, all, including gays — there would be no more talk of any anti-American amendments

I could list a couple more, but I want to move on to the issue of style/perception; after all, leadership and politics (as anything else, I suppose), are about substance and style, concrete policy and its veneer (by god, republicans have thought us this lesson… we best learn it). Accordingly, I’d like to see the following in my ideal candidate:

Style

• A transformational leader — someone whose party legacy, for instance, would be said to be: After their administration there were more people calling themselves Liberal than there were before. Take Ronald Reagan, he’s clearly used by conservatives to this day as their standard bearer and the conservative movement uses him to shore up their brand
• My ideal political leader will unabashedly reach to the legacy, language and vision of FDR — the greatest American president of the 20th century –, all the while seeking to build new and lasting coalitions that give shape to an America for the 21st century
• I want someone that does not shy away nor cower before the attacks from the conservative movement; rather, I would like my political leader to respond to any challenges from the right as FDR once did:

We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob. Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me — and I welcome their hatred. I should like to have it said of my first administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second administration that in it these forces met their master.

• I want a leader that understands and respects that we ALL belong to the American family, no matter our ethnic group nor religion; moreover, while we belong to one single American family, the way forward is to be good neighbors within the international community — I want a leader that will seek to build collaborative relations with our partners (no more unileteralism; of course, we retain a monopoly over our national defense)
• I want a leader that will make rebuilding the Democratic and the Liberal/Progressive brand a priority

Roosevelt the Liberal

Roosevelt was an astute Liberal AND pragmatic politician. Many have tried to down play and even obscure his Liberalism, which, of course, given the period, was different than the post-Civil Rights era Liberalism that many of us see in our mind’s eye when we think of a Liberal. However, Roosevelt was a Liberal, even if his agenda was incremental, and, yes, he was also a pragmatist — the two, Liberal and a pragmatist, are not mutually exclusive.

In The Second Bill of Rights, Cass Sunstein writes:

During his last year, Roosevelt concluded that America’s system of political parties needed to be fundamentally altered. He told his principle speechwriter, Samuel Rosenman, that "the time has come for the Democratic party to get rid of its reactionary elements in the South, and to attract to it the Liberals in the Republican party… We ought to have two real parties — one liberal and one conservative." To this end, Roosevelt started negotiations with Wendell Wilkie, the 1940 Republican presidential candidate, stating that with "the liberals of both parties Wilkie and I together can form a new, really liberal party in America." Wilkie responded quite favorably, saying that he was "ready to devote almost full time to this." But both men were dead within the year, and the project was orphaned. [page 16]

Just imagine if their vision had been pursued.

As an observer of politics, to me is quite interesting how Republicans build and build on their brand and figures, while we, Democrats, run away from ours. Republicans have and will continue to spend a lot energy into building shrines for Reagan, because they know that he represents an extension of their brand, a way to reach out and to convert. We, in the other hand, have nearly forgotten the legacy of Roosevelt and how it was during that period that the Democratic party enjoyed its greatest electoral success. Sure, there’s the issue of "big government," "entitlements," "social security reform," and how removed we now are from Roosevelt’s era. The "ideas" that Roosevelt articulated in his Second Bill of Rights still resonate:

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

In the 80s and 90s the Democratic party choose to abandon its storied legacy and, in stead, embraced the corporatist DLC messaging/agenda as the "third way," which they presented as the way forward for the Democratic party. Now, after witnessing how this so-called third way has utterly failed to capture the imagination and hearts of the American people, I would hope that we start to look at the Democratic champions of the past that managed to govern successfully, AND that also managed to build broad-movement coalitions under the party’s banner.

Harry Taylor: Freedom of Speech

Harry Taylor today fulfilled his civic duty simply by sharing his displeasure with OUR public servant, president Bush. Unfortunately, there are still many Americans that continue to betray their civic responsibilities by merely serving as cheerleaders and enablers to an administration and a party that have repeatedly lied to us, even as they failed hundreds of thousands of our fellow Americans in NOLA, and elsewhere; not to mention their utter failure at governing and managing our country — lest we forget that in 2001, when Bush came into office, our country was enjoying record surpluses and, only five short years later, Bush and crew have amassed record deficits.

Harry Taylor stood before our public servant and told him:

I feel like, despite your rhetoric, that compassion and common sense have been left far behind during your administration.

However, as Harry Taylor was fulfilling his civic duty, other citizens, more docile and less concerned with their own responsibilities to our country, decided to boo a man that so nobly illustrated one of the four essential freedoms beautifully articulated by FDR; and so movingly depicted by Norman Rockwell.

This image was inspired by a simple post I found over at DailyKos.com, which I thought was very compelling. I’m sure that unwittingly, Harry Taylor inspired many, see here and here and here. You can also check out a clip of the exchange here, courtesy of ThinkProgress.com.

Update:

• There’s now a Thank You Harry site here.
• This person decided to track down Harry Taylor to thank him, and they got to chat.
• Harry Taylor appeared on CNN the morning after his "Freedom of Speech" moment.

We’re All Sistah Souljah Now

“We’re all Sistah Souljah now.” This is how back in the 90s then candidate Bill Clinton re-branded himself as a different kind of Democrat — a New Centrist Democrat, critical of the apparent corruption of popular culture and not afraid to speak against it, even at the expense of calculatingly "alienating" a core Democratic voting block, African-Americans (at least that was the calculus):

Many will recall Sistah Souljah, a relatively obscure political rapper who was propelled into national fame by then-candidate Bill Clinton’s condemnation of her in 1992. It was a quick way for Clinton to position himself as a "New Democrat" who was mainstream, moderate, and "just like you and me" in his values (that is, of course, if "you and I" are suburban and middle-class.)

The centrist approach worked for Bill Clinton in ’92, but things were different then (including a three-candidate race).

[...]

In addition, Clinton picked a marginal figure in attacking Sistah Souljah.

This is how RJ Eskow introduces us to his thesis, Running Against the Base – Hillary, Obama, and the Democrats’ High-Risk Strategy:

"We’re all Sistah Souljah now." At least, those committed people who form the base of the Democratic Party might be forgiven for thinking that. The Party’s leading Presidential and Vice-Presidential contenders seem committed to running against the interests and values of their core constituents. It’s a very risky strategy – for them, and for their party.

Unfortunately, it is patently obvious that RJ Eskow has it right. The conventional wisdom in DC, in spite of the utter failure of conservatism as a governing force, is that to win national elections Dems must tack to the Right. This is how one can explain Hillary Clinton’s attempt to criminalize flag burning, and Barack Obama’s thumbing his nose at the activist base of the party by endorsing Joe Liberman, while the grassroots rallies around Ned Lamont (Liberman’s challenger in the primaries). And, of course, there was Senator Obama’s post at DailyKos.com where he, more or less, scolded the vocal base and urged that cooler heads and civility must prevail — now, of course, it’s hard to argue against that… I mean, who would prefer the opposite, right?

As RJ Eskow explains, aside from appearing cynical, opportunistic and unprincipled, treating the Dem base as Sistah Souljahs is risky:

There are number of risks for the party here. One is the fact that Presidential elections are decided far more on the basis of character and trust than are other elections. Like most voters, I’m more comfortable with a politician who sincerely disagrees with me about an issue (even a critical one like Iraq) than I am with one who appears calculating and cynical in the pursuit of my vote.

Another concern is having an energized base. The Democratic base may not perceive a "clear and present danger" in ’08 the way they did in ’04.

Now, in a fair and rational world one could easily respond to being treated like this by one’s representatives by simply saying, Fine, I’ll just take my vote elsewhere — to another party. Unfortunately, we live in a two-party winner-take-all system; thus, given practical realities, all we’ve got are the Dems — for better or for worse. It is because of this that Matt Stoller’s suggestion, which basically calls for progressives/liberals to assert ourselves in the Dem party, must be taken seriously. As Matt suggests, not now, but progressives/liberals must start to challenge the entrenched establishment/centrist interests during the primaries and, too, we must build a competing infrastructure within the party if progressives are to control the Democratic policy apparatus.

Sure, going after Sistah Souljah may have had some short-term pay off for Bill Clinton. However, over time, his system of triangulation, proved to be nothing more than a political Band-Aid; because, as we know, while Bill Clinton governed successfully, his tenure in office did not help nurture the progressive movement/grassroots, which is what would’ve been necessary to build a long-term governing coalition to challenge the then ascending Republican coalition. Rather, Bill Clinton chose to side with the corporatist of the DLC and, too, put all his eggs in the new-economy-workforce basket to be the new base of the Democratic Party.

In 2008 we’ll see just how far to the right some opportunist politicians are willing to go. In the meantime, I hope that we, progressives, take Matt’s suggestion to heart and begin to elbow our way to the table — it’s the only that party insiders will begin to pay any attention to us.

People Shouldn’t Be Afraid of Their Government, Governments Should Be Afraid of Their People

Go see "V for Vendetta." There are some that am sure will charge that the movie is too this, too that… that it is heavy handed… that it is not faithful in some way to the original vision, etc., etc., etc… However, "V for Vendetta" is worth seeing because it unabashedly addresses the concerns of our time and it asks us to take some part of the blame for letting it all happen — simply because we were afraid. (Of course, many in this community (DailyKos.com), especially in this beautifully Liberal community, stopped being afraid a long time ago… but not all of our fellow citizens have managed to shed their fear.)

I simply loved this line from Vendetta: People shouldn’t be afraid of their government, governments should be afraid of their people. Now, no one, of course, is advocating violence in any form, but symbolically, the dark hero of this movie is right on… for far too long we’ve been afraid of what we’ll be charged with: un-American, un-Patriotic, an opportunist merely seeking to position oneself for a presidential run in 2008 — think Feingold, and the shit with which his courageous and CORRECT stand has been met with by some that are still afraid (including elected Dems). At any rate, here we have a movie that comes dangerously close, given our times and the paranoia that still lingers in some circles, to advocating a storming of the castle, en masse… err, should I say, a Crashing of the Gates, as it were (and, frankly, it suggests that we, The People, do a lot more than just batting down some gates).

Now, aside from open advocacy of an up rise against an oppressive and un-representative government, bent on moralizing and hoarding power while those that hold key government posts profit from the failures of their own government; V for Vendetta also offers some provocative moments and more than a couple of touching performances by Natalie Portman (whom looks great with short hair or even wearing a baby doll outfit (see the movie!)).

Of course, as with any work dealing with a dystopia, at moments the movie falls short; but, I believe, specially if one puts the movie in today’s political context (and how could one not!?), there’s a lot in V for Vendetta that’s provocative and well worth the $10+ bucks that many of us will pay now days to go see a movie.

PS. I just saw this post, which covers some of the more substantive issues that V for Vendetta raises.