On Tuesday July 4th we took the first step in the Booman Tribune Electoral Politics Project with a call for comments building what I’m calling: Our Progressive Platform.
The entries were all well thought out and, thankfully for those of us trying to keep track…concise! This comment by Kahli garnered broad support and is a must read. Every entry, however, is a part of this open source collective effort and worth reading.
I want to open the floor to a “final call” for entries right now. Please feel free to add your comment listing your “Top Five” Progressive Platform Planks either in the original diary, or below. (For instructions and a good sample follow the links above.) For those interested in making an observation about the first wave of entries…read more below…
One thing that strikes me about our platform planks is how we have defined progressive as sitting at the juncture of several different schools of political thought, or movements:
First, you can read a distinct advocacy for economic policies that reflect social democracy, even if we didn’t often name it as such. Essentially, the views we BMT progressives espouse are very much in synch with the “socialist/post-socialist” political parties around the world. (Whether we can gets U.S. politicians to embrace the term, or even want to, is another question.) That is something to think about.
Second, there’s a forthright embrace of Green Politics and what we might call the movement for equitable globalism: sustainable agriculture, micro loans, anti-militarist national defense, and a pro-cooperative internationalism with its sights set on combatting global warming. That challenge…that inconvenient truth…according to our planks, is clearly the “global task at hand.”
Third, dovetailing with both of the above, there is a marked emphasis on science, education and national investments in technology.
Fourth, for lack of a better term, our platforms reflect what I’d call a “netroots populism:” (ie. populism informed and empowered by technology) our planks demostrate a strong advocacy of egalitarianism, meritocracy, election reform, a broad new definition of privacy rights and personal civil liberties for the information age, and sunshine provisions for government.
What’s interesting to me is how this junction of movements and ways of thinking is particular to the “online progressive movement” and not a reflection of traditional Democratic Party politics or liberalism or even what many progressives meant, exactly, by “progressive” not so long ago. It’s finding all four streams in one place which is remarkable.
What’s stiking here is that it seems that it is the freshness of our advocacy of Green policies, our pro-science, cooperative Globalism and, our own particular brand of Netroots Populism that seems to free us to make a renewed and unabashed case for Social Democracy. In old school terms Green meets Red but within the particular playing field of the internet. The streams are intermixing and, as they do so, evolving.
My question is whether this hybrid approach, this “meeting of the rivers” is what folks will ultimately decide to call: progressive politics in the 21st Century. (It had a very different meaning in its first guise.)
Or, are we at the cusp of something new? Will the rivers join and become one…perhaps with a new name?
I sent you the planks received thus far in an email (Excel spreadsheet file attached) for your use. Let me know if you have received them or if I need to re-transmit the email.
And a hearty thanks (and a “4” for the hard work.)
Vis a vis this piece…for those who saw it when it said “NOT READY”…that was because I put it in the story hopper and left to help a friend move for an hour!!! Sorry for that.
Feel free to add your platform planks or discuss below.
Well this is terrific to see! I’ll need to go back and read the first diaries and comments and get up to speed on the topics.
It sounds like a great idea and we can work on ‘names’ that work…marketing is key to getting even progressive politicians to work with us.
I read the piece on Bill Hillerman over at Big Orange this morning and thought, “Now that’s how a campaign should be run!” If you (or other readers) missed it, one of the key things I took away from it is that Democrats as a brand should be promoted all through the year, not just during the election cycle. (He also believes strongly in humor, and I agree — the only commercials I won’t go out of my way to avoid are the funny ones.) I was wondering a couple of years ago why they didn’t do that. Of course I’m sort of late to the party and probably missed the memo that said that you shouldn’t try to run effective marketing campaigns if you’re a Democrat.
I think Bill Hillerman is the guy who played Magnum’s sidekick. Aaaargh.
I accidentally posted this on the previous thread, but I wanted to air it here:
I really liked Kahli’s post and Captain Future’s above.
I’ve often referred to myself as a Social Democrat as well. That is, basic needs should be provided for all members of a society (e.g., health care, housing, clothing, food, etc.) I also fully support the basic rights and liberties (such as free speech, free press, and the right to congregate/protest) and Kahli’s first point regarding the right of each individual to choose one’s partner, control one’s body, etc.
I am adamant that we need publicly funded and open elections (an end to rule by the wealth class).
I am think that we need to reign in corporate power and hold corporations accountable for pollution and economic inequality.
For foreign policy, we need to stop invading countries and only give military aid to those countries which require intervention (so long as such is condoned and requested by an international organization, such as the UN). We need to stop psychological warfare and meddling in other sovereign governments. We need to basically treat others as we would like to be treated. Ultimately, I would like to see national borders more fluid and flexible, like the European Community, only world-wide.
And yes, we need to foster intellectual and scientific exploration. In particular, we need to use our inventive nature to find solutions to our environmental problems. We need to find better and better ways to enable billions of humans to continue to live on this planet without destroying it.
So, I agree with most everything that has been stated already. It all seems so bloody obvious that I can’t comprehend why the NeoCons want to do the exact opposite. I would be curious to see how the Freepers would respond to this.
I’m not sure that I could add anything to them, other than to say we should find simple ways to communicate them. Something along the lines of FDR’s “Four Freedoms” — which we could do a lot worse than revive and update.
freshness of our advocacy of Green policies, our pro-science, cooperative Globalism
I want to stress some caution in this Green advocacy and science advocacy. They may not be that compatible in the recent past. The Greens have their political agenda, and GOOD science may not be behind all their efforts. Even global warming has its sincere scientific doubters from a mad-made cause point of view. Therefore, in my sceince platform, I mean to follow GOOD science in policy making even if it turns out to go against the fancy of the moment!
don’t frame it as good science. Frame it as, train scientists and let them go through the peer-review process to see if their conclusions are valid, and then act on those conclusions. And for heavens sake if you hire a marine biologist or a climatologist to work for the government, let them do their freakin’ jobs. Don’t have them write papers and then edit out things that don’t toe the government line.
I don’t know if there’s a single good word to describe that. I just don’t want “good” science to be the Republican version where “we decide what is good by what is truthy.” (And yes, I know that’s not the way you meant it.) Maybe “valid” science is a better word. Any modifier to the word “science” would have seemed silly just a few years ago. Bleah.
Don’t have them write papers and then edit out things that don’t toe the government line.
Yes, this should be a crime. I have had first hand experience under this current wonderful adminstration and under a conservative governor’s administration in just how this distasteful tactic works. I agree wholeheartedly with exactly what you say here.
Someday the world will look back at this misadministration’s efforts to manipulate science in the same light that they do Lysenko and other politically-motivated scientific quacks. Personally, I can’t wait.
Under socially responsible plank for programs that operate out in the future.
Guarantee that social security be able to fund for perpetuity, not to be used as loan for a overextended national budget.
Protect all pension funds from corporate raiding and bankruptcy.
Provide access to catastrophic health care coverage for all. Provide affordable insurance for routine health care such as dental, glasses, medications.
Support working people, protect those who can’t work with basic needs, balance the budget, don’t mortgage the future.
without any exception is something i would like to see.
Wow!
I guess there are some more like me out there.
I think we should start to use some different metaphor in the development of our platform. How about focusing on health and well being?
It seems like we care more about health and well being than about money anyway, and there is so much rot, death, and decay out there that is just ripe for principled abuse.
Money is something we need to live on. It is not the reason to live, so using that language is going to give us the same problems Democrats have; cognitive dissonance between rhetoric and values in their communication. That’s why they lose.
So we need new creative language that we are very comfortable expressing, and emotes our ideals.