Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiBelieve it or not, progressives are not satisfied perpetually organizing protests, holding down the negative pole of the dialectic, happily defined in opposition to the status quo. We long for more and our country and planet deserve more. Truth is, we have the leaders and ideas to run this country. Better yet, some of those leaders are coming together to strategize at the first Progressive Cabinet Summit at the Carter Center in Atlanta this Tuesday in preparation to do so.The Progressive Cabinet Summit, a unique gathering of over forty-five progressive policy, movement, and media leaders will take place at the Carter Center in Atlanta next Tuesday, June 26. It is being co-convened by the Backbone Campaign and the Institute for Policy Studies. Scheduled to compliment and prepare for the first ever US Social Forum, its purpose is to be a strategy session for advancing the message that progressives belong to a propositional movement with the leaders and ideas to run the country.
Beginning with a video welcome from Professor Howard Zinn (view), and facilitated by Adrienne Maree Brown, (E.D. of the Ruckus Society and co-founder of the League of Pissed Off Voters), the Progressive Cabinet Summit will build on work of the Backbone Campaign its partner project Progressive Government over the past four years:
* In 2003 the then Progressive Government Institute created an extensive map of the federal executive branch.
* In 2004 Backbone Campaign, Progressive Government Institute and a small coalition created an interactive Cabinet Roster and nomination process.
* In 2005-present the organizations merged to produce a series of podcast/webcast conference calls (61 so far) called Conversations with the Cabinet. That interview series drew from the roster to feature some of Americas most effective progressive policy and movement leaders.
Summit attendees will explore the formal creation of a Progressive Cabinet and its potential as both a communications and movement-building tool. They will begin the design process for evolving the work Backbone Campaign and Progressive Government began. They will discuss the design of the Cabinet, exploring how it might be structured to balance local and national expertise, and how to maximize participation and capture the attentions of progressive leaning citizens throughout the country through creative use of the media.
Similar to "shadow cabinets" in Europe and elsewhere, this cabinet would "shadow" current policy makers, offering critique, but also articulating progressive alternatives. The Progressive Cabinet would be designed to demonstrate that progressives are not content perpetually organizing protests, but are prepared to run the country.
Unlike the infamous Cheney "shadow government," operating in an "undisclosed location," the purpose of a Progressive Cabinet would be to create greater visibility, accountability, and grassroots influence over policy priorities. As we have seen in the past six years, the cabinet is important. The fox is far too often put in charge of the hen house, and by the time there is any accountability all the chickens are dead. The Progressive Cabinet offers an alternative to the political appointments that have cost our nation so dearly.
Equally problematic to the current administration's criminal abuse of appointments is that many Democratic leaders, including the major candidates for President are failing to represent the progressive aspirations of the American people on a range of issues from dismantling empire to a national health program to publicly financing campaigns. DLC and DCCC type Democrats like Rahm Emanuel, Steny Hoyer, Hilary Clinton, and Maria Cantwell are all too eager to assume the mantle of "progressive," but run to K Street for marching orders and campaign dollars. "Progressive" will mean nothing if we allow these professional politicians whose hunger for campaign contributions impedes their independence, innovation, and ability to propose bold solutions to solve current crisis. We must not allow them to corrupt an increasingly popular term that reflects the uncorrupted hopes and hard work of dedicated advocates for human dignity, ecological sanity, and international cooperation.
The Backbone Campaign and our allies feel that a Progressive Cabinet can both set the bar for candidates and help citizens overcome their sense that the current madness is inevitable. We hope that the Summit will propel the Progressive Cabinet project as a vehicle for communicating our innovative capacity, aspirational vision and the brilliance of our leaders. Americans deserve to have confidence that progressives have the leaders and ideas to run the country. We must build a movement that fills them with that confidence.
In preparation for the Summit a number of progressive policy leaders have prepared "First 100 Days" statements as nominees for Secretaries of:
* Commerce - Hunter Lovins, co-author with Paul Hawkins of Natural Capitalism
* Energy - Prof. Dan Kammen of UC Berkeley's Renewable & Appropriate Energy Lab
* Education - Eric Cooper of the National Urban Alliance for Effective Education (listen)
* State- Emira Woods of the Institute for Policy Studies
* Interior - Tom Goldtooth of the Indigenous Environmental Network
* Dept. of Justice - Jakada Imani of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
* US Trade Rep. - Lori Wallach of Global Trade Watch
* Immigration - Baldemar Velasquez of the Farm Labor Organizing Committee
* Among others.
Bush and Cheney are leaving in eighteen months, hopefully sooner. Now is the time for progressive leaders and citizens to take control of how progressives are perceived and how we think of ourselves. We must demonstrate that people who are aligned with us belong to a unified, propositional movement, that transcends party affiliation with the leaders and ideas to run the country. Creating a Progressive Cabinet is a great next step in communicating and preparing for that reality.
As Stephen Zunes, Professor of Political Science at the University of San Francisco and a Cabinet nominee says "The Progressive Cabinet is an essential project at a critical time." Trust yourself, listen to each other and March forth with the courage and confidence future generations depend on us to have.
Bill Moyer is the Executive Director and co-founded the Backbone Campaign in 2003. Bill has had a duel and intersecting path as both an activist and artist. Bill's involvement with social change work stretches back to the 80's, when as a student he was deeply involved in the anti-nuclear movement and the anti-interventionist movement, lived at Big Mountain to assist Dineh elders refusing to relocate off their traditional land, and then attended the Institute for Social Ecology.
Note*: Bill Moyer, the author of this article and progressive activist, should not be confused with Bill Moyers, the journalist many of us know and respect.
22 Comments so far
Show Allriver10, enablers are incapable of seeing that they are part of the problem.
trippen:
Thank you for stating the facts about the nader issue so clearly and civilly. Progressives must be extremely careful not to repeat the errors we as a group have committed, for the world hangs in the balance. The response by kathyodat is equally clear: unrepentent naderites are more like bush than they realize: they are incapable of admitting a mistake, their viewpoints are invulnerable to assaults by reason or the plain facts, and they are willing to allow the suffering of others to advance their preordained "vision" of the way things should be. Peace to all.
Thanks to Bill Moyer for putting this up here. The idea has been around, obviously, for awhile, and people have been working hard to implement it, but it looks close to becoming real at this point. Yes! Yes! Yes! The left needs desperately to be seen for what it is, just as Moyer says -- not only viable policies that reflect the majority values but publicly show some of the progressive people with real leadership abilities who can talk circles around those who bend and break the language to justify their own willingness to disregard the law of the land. Let the Shadow Cabinet become a real alternative: People will *feel* it inside, that at last there are those who are saying something different, not just naysaying, but offering something other than the slime we are constantly being smeared with.
Gee trippen, you go right along voting DLCs into office. Resist them in the primaries and then vote them in. And they will go on pretending to be progressive while trotting after the neocons, stuffing corporatists - or worse - into the Supreme Court, supporting global corporatism, pretending to end the war in Iraq.
Disaster-Lite simply means going over the cliff at a slower rate. And for the public it's like a frog sitting in a pot of water heating up. What does it matter if Bush's disaster comes at us fst or slow? It's still coming, except maybe if fast, the public notices what's going on and wakes up.
I can't say, I only know I can't vote for Disaster-Lite. And I've seen from past experience "putting pressure" on them is a waste of time. They are far more responsive to the pressure from corporate money. Why can't you see that? I think they're laughing at you behind your back. The only pressure you have over them is your vote, And they aren't worried about that. They've got it. But they don't have mine. And if enough voters join me, then and only then they will start listening to the voters. So I'm trying to change them and you're sabotaging me. But hey, it's a free country.
And no, DLC Gore wouldn't have put the planet in an entirely different direction. Same direction. Just Disaster-Lite. Kucinich would have put the planet in an entirely different direction. And the DLC top three are more of the same.
"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."
In today's world, doing what's reflective of one's principles is dependent on the context. There are no absolutes.
Case in point: I voted for Nader in 2000 as a protest vote in the state of NJ where it could do no harm. Had I lived in the swing state of Florida, that exact same vote would have been suicidal and counter to my interests. So in Florida, voting for Gore was the closest choice available for voting my principles.
History speaks for itself: the 90,000 votes that Nader siphoned off in Florida made the margin close enough for Bush to steal the election. I'm sorry, but that's what happened. So there are 90,000 odd people in Florida who can pat themselves on the back for what they saw as sticking to their principles, meanwhile, the rest of the entire planet is suffering as a result. I think that's completely unrelfective of the principles they hold so highly.
Al Gore didn't earn my vote, but can there be any doubt that having Gore as President would have put our country and the planet into an entirely different and more positive position than we're in now? Call him what you want -- there's no doubt in my mind we'd be way (way!) better off than we are now. Way better. Does anyone really think otherwise? Really??
The time to insist on a candidate that reflects our values is NOW -- during the primary. Once the die is cast, it's too late -- we simply cannot endure four or eight more years of this neocon agenda, even if the likely front-running candidate is a corporatist sellout also.
The only sane thing that can be done in the general election is a resounding third party protest vote in safe states, with the understanding that folks in the swing states will watch our backs by holding their noses and voting for the candidate that most assuredly would block the ascension of the next Bush crony to power.
Can there be any wonder that Dick Armey was a big donator to Nader?? It's obvious -- the Republicans are turning progressive idealism into a political weapon. We have to be smarter than that.
Yes, you say, but that gives the corporatist DLC bastard Democrats a leg up on us. They know they can rely on us to vote for them even though they poke a stick in our eye by pandering to the right, so they'll do that with impunity. That's 100% correct, but the alternative is pure unmitigated disaster. We've experienced it -- it's not just idle conjecture.
So given a choice, once we get to the general election, I have to go with Disaster-Lite and put continued pressure on them to do the right thing.
Better still, we need to make sure NOW that the DLC doesn't get the nomination.
Kathyodat: So you're "a little touched."? For supporting Nader? You meet the nicest, fairest people in these threads!
Bill Moyer: Your list of cabinet secretaries is enough to make one giddy. After living in the dark ages for so long, I can't imagine what it would be like if the PCS vision becomes a reality. The Carter Center in Atlanta would become a place of pilgrimage!
Great idea that's been in the air along time and finally coming to fruition.
Quit your squabbling, choose a shadow to shadow and get back to work.
On this and the movement to impeach of course!
river 10 I am grown up. I have spent 40 years watching things go from bad to worse by watching people vote for the lesser of 2 evils. One outcome is that half of the electorate won't even vote for anyone at all - why bother? The Democratic Party has a free ride to the corporate trough because people like you insist on enabling them. And now we are faced with Hillary-Barack-John who are all singing the same song and none of whom would dream of offending their corporate sponsors. The Democratic Party would change direction in a flash if they lost the support of people who are only voting for the lesser of two evils.
I am not striving for purity but I am striving for a change in direction, which the majority of Americans want, but which we won't get from this gang. And calling people spoiled brats and chumps is not contributing to useful discourse, should that be your intent.
"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."
~ John Quincy Adams
kathyodat,
A little touchy, huh? And a little touched. Your ilk not only gave us bush-cheney-iraq-roberts/alito-gutted federal agencies-illegal wiretapping-loss of world stature-etc.- you also want to lecture reality-based folks who understand you always go with the lesser evil when it comes to politics. Spoiled brats who insist on "purity" end up with chumps like nader who take their idealism and turn it into its exact opposite. Grow up.
I respect and admire your work Bill. I only wish you would consider getting in. I cannot in good conscience vote for any Democrat and looks like I will be voting for Nader for a third time or another third party candidate. What is left other than the mediocre trash running more for their own ego and future wealth rather than making a difference.
Excellent ideas here. I shudder, however, to see the name of nader mentioned in the comments. Let's not forget the pivotal role he and his misguided supporters played in giving us bush-cheney. He is an ego-driven fool. It's naive to think our movement wouldn't contain ones such as he. He lost his membership card in 2000---keep his name out of all discussions of the future.
A strategy long overdue. Will any candidate step up to the plate and out of the box and announce the "dream team" that will help him/her salvage what's left of America right now, before they're in office and we're screwed by even more lobbyists and barons being handed the keys to the castle?
We dare them.
Kucinich is the only one that doesn't make me flinch, as to tone and sincerity. Choose someone who talks common sense. That is what the progressive agenda is: common sense, doing the right thing by the planet and its people. It is also the old conservative agenda of someone like my father, who would have gone nuts listening to the present day neocons and very un-Jesus-like Christians. A measure of our collective psychosis is preoccupation with this man's (Kucinich's) size and looks. While we're at it, let's bypass the corporate mass media and its trivializing of what is important.
How about we change the authoritarian word "leaders" to the less hierarchical word "consultants"? If the conservatives can change the "War Dept." to the "Defense Dept.", "profits" to "earnings", "authoritarian" to "conservative" and so on, liberals should start countering with the correct terminology.
That went over my head. I never heard of Bill Moyer, just jumped to Moyers.
That's what I meant bobbyj. Thanks.
This is Moyer, not Moyers. They are two different people. Bill Moyers is probably more familiar because of his PBS fame. How about Moyers-Moyer 2008?
So how do we draft Moyers to run for president?
Why not Moyers-Nader?
Nader-Moyers 2008
This is a great thing. But I'm afraid that the only thing that will catch the Democrat's attention will be the author's name.
river10, fair's fair. So let's keep Democrats out of the discussion since 13% of them voted for Bush, and let's keep Gore out too since he blew the campaign and folded like a rag on the recount. And above all let's not talk about the media because they only tell us what the corporations want us to hear anyway. Just who do you want to allow in the discussion?
Don't blame Nader. Blame me. I voted for him in 2000 and 2004 and probably in 2008. I will never vote for a Gore or a Kerry or a Clinton or an Obama or any other corporate flack. So do you want to keep me out of the discussion? Actually I charge you and all the other Democratic voting cowards for this mess bacause you keep insisting on voting for bad over worse and all you're doing is authorizing more aggressive behavior. Ralph Nader warned us in 2000 that the Democrats needed a cold bath but everyone is too scared to give it to them. So we have a Democratic Party no one really wants to vote for. In this last election, all those votes were really anti-Republican. Now Congress is polling even below the President. How low can you get?