You really must be a totally demented phucktard to be a "Progressive".
You ARE a bunch of mamby-Pamby brainless twits who can one BITCH and try to impose your demented ideas of CONTROL over FREE people!
Conservatives also believe in control.
Self Control! Obey the LAWS, and not the IDIOT laws made up by progressives and other stinking liberals!

To Tieler: "Who will fund" the needed social programs:
There is no need for additional taxes, but only for a re-prioritizing of the budget. The money that once went into humanitarian aid (welfare) for Americans was drained out to cover the costs of "tax relief" (welfare) for corporations/the richest 1%. Reverse this. Time has proved that our corporations almost always use those funds to cover the costs of moving our jobs to foreign countries. Welfare for the rich has deeply harmed this country. Welfare for the poor was, in fact, a highly successful program that moved millions out of poverty, into the job market, resulting in an era when the US was, indeed, the richest nation on Earth, based on shared wealth and productivity.

Need I even say anything about our out-of-control
military costs, from the massive production of obsolete weapons to the serial wars made necessary for the purpose of reducing stockpiles of weapons that continue to be funded and manufactured?

What's missing from the discussion: Not everyone can work, due to health or circumstances, and there aren't jobs for everyone. We are a viciously competitive, sink-or-swim, winner take all society, where we no longer value human lives. The US must join the more modern nations in establishing a system of social welfare that recognizes that real-life circumstances can push or keep people out of our shrinking (and often inflexible) job market. Sans the availability of education/skills training (as can be found in the modern nations), many people have no chance under our current system.

Although we have (at least implicitly) OK'd a quarter-century long policy of massive welfare for the rich ("tax relief", whereby taxpayers cover the tax debts of the rich), we ended the human right to aid for our poorest (in violation of the UN's international human rights agreement we claim to support). We have got to overcome the fear of being called names by the political right-wing for supporting human rights in the US -- even for our poor! US reactionaries hijacked the social agenda and the discussion of human rights in the US, and we need to take it back, restoring the concept of The Common Good.

The one question progressives can not answer is who will fund the services that they so desperately want for everyone.

Progressives managed to get people to conserve water in drought stricken areas only to have water rates increased as conservation (good) really worked better than expected. So, you pay more for less (bad).

Progressives are OK with the Middle East pumping all the oil it can, and they even want to sue OPEC to increase production, yet are not open to any local oil exploration, new refineries or alternative uses of coal, in which we are the Kuwait of coal.

Do it in someone else's backyard, not mine. Blame everyone else for the price of liquid fuel yet stifle local exploration and access.

Buying foreign oil sends money out of this country, driving down the value of the dollar, increasing our trade deficit all the while making countries that want to dominate us wealthy beyond belief.

Progressives are fast to blame Exxon/Mobile and Shell for prices at the pump, yet not one in congress is willing to blame OPEC and call them to testify before congress. Suing is a joke, and will accomplish what? Upset OPEC more with the USA so they'll pump less in retaliation? We should release our strategic oil reserves to drop the price of gas a few pennies for a few months? For every action there is a potential reaction, and the adage "We'll see" is pretty clear what "We'll see".

What accomplishments have been created because of progressive politics that didn't require a free market (the goose that lays golden eggs) economy to fund them. The Robin Hood life is romantic, but eventually who will government rob, err I mean tax, when those sources dry up? Tobacco companies were sued and massive amounts of money rolled into state and federal coffers to be spent on healthcare. Taxes were increased on tobacco to encourage users not to smoke. Smoke-free environments are popping up all over in the name of the progressive movement. When smokers are cut by 50% or more, where will the tax revenue to replace the losses from fewer smokers. (I don't smoke and despise it, yet I'll fight for peoples rights to use it if they so desire - personal choice.)

Dreams are good, and often lead to wonderful inventions and creativity. Being grounded in reality is what makes things truly possible. And this is where conservatism shines brighter than any other political system of government.

The last "progressive" president we had was Woodrow Wilson. Unfortunately, early in the 20th century, progressive politics got tied to communism. This in a world where the politics of the day veered towards socialism/communism or fascism. We fought the fascists by teaming up with the communists in the USSR during the war only to become rabid anti-communists after the war. Sad to say but "progressive" politics became linked to the left wing which became a casualty of conservative politicians and their way of labeling. Until that stops, no one wants to be seen as being a "progressive" and that's too bad.

So if socialism keeps capitalism alive, why doesn't socialism just do away with capitalism?

Put another way - how many capitalist countries have collapsed and been improved through socialism, v. socialist countries that have collapsed and been improved through capitalism? Are people in the former USSR better off now or before the USSR collapsed?

It'll put it this way: capitalism will survive because socialism will always be used to save it.

Certainly the USA's success after breaking away from England in 1776 wasn't due to socialism. It has been tried here, as I mentioned the Mayflower Compact and various communes around the country, and it failed rapidly. It failed in the USSR - that lasted what, less than 100 years?

In areas where it is alive, people are subjected to horrible treatment while government officials don't live by the same rules.

The lines between socialism, liberalism, Marxism and Progressives are certainly very blurry, and at times incestuous. To me, the bottom line is, they are all the same: more governemnt control, less freedoms, fewer opportunities, higher costs, bleak living conditions.

People who are content with vapid cliches like "socialism has been a complete failure everywhere it's been tried

Find where its been successful. In all of history, and its been tried many times, its been an abject failure.

Where has it succeeded?

Rockerbabe1: If doctors are not happy with Medicare/Medicaid and how the government reimburses them, Clinton's plan will go way beyond the controls already in place. Determining how specialists, general practitioners and equipment a facility can have would have to be part of government regulation. Supply/demand would be thrown out the window along with the baby. And the taxes required to pay for this... I really don't think this is anything I'd want.

I don't see people flocking to Canada for healthcare, yet I do see Canadians coming here for care, typically as a last ditch effort. Even in England, private insurance supplements government care. And people still have to wait in line for a procedure. KInd of like the lines for toilet paper in the former-USSR.

Clinton's plan is little different than other countries have tried and are failing. A market-driven system works better than any government plan will. One of the problems with the current system is it doesn't place enough on the individual for routine care that could be avoided while placing emphasis on catastrophic care, which is where a insurance program needs to be in place. Routine maintenance is left to the individual.

A good example is auto insurance. You are required to carry insurance yet it doesn't cover routine maintenance like oil changes, tires, 15K mile maintenance, minor dents and bruises. It only kicks in when a catastrophe occurs like an accident. While this model is not great, it provides more realistic coverage.

There is a good reason Clinton's plan in the early 1990's went down in a ball of fire, and it wasn't from misunderstandings or lack of communication. It would not improve care, it would dumb it down and make it much worse than it already is. And to change Clinton's plan once in place would take generations and untold trillions of dollars to tweak and it would never go back to a private system. When a government plan is enacted, rarely is it scraped, and never in a timely manner as a corporation would do. Profit drives change, and government has nothing to do with motivation. Just two years ago we stopped paying a federal tax placed on long-distance calls to help fund the Spanish-American War from the late 1800s. And,we still pay a rubber tax on tires that was invoked to help pay for WWII.

Clinton would do more than kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, it would make it extinct. If Clinton's plan is so wonderful, why hasn't she driven it through the senate. She's been there for 8 years now. What is she waiting for. She has a majority in the senate and house. Even if Bush veto'ed it, she could still go for an over-ride. The answer is: she knows it will never get out of committee, it would be dead on delivery.

Clinton's plan is a good talking point, just as overhauling Social Security. One would be a good change, the other a disaster of Biblical proportion. Clinton's plan is certainly not "Change you can Believe In".

Tieler: I suggest to logon to www.hillaryclinton.com and take a read; there are other sites, but this is the most concise.

kendpotter: I would like to have a universal healthcare system, just like France and Germany and Canada and England. I would gladly pay more in taxes for the priviledge of never having to loose benefits; being able to change a job without healthcare coverage considerations or having to deal with denial letters and appeals. The premiums I pay cover more than just myself; they have a built-in cost factor for covering the uninsured and increase 6-10% a year! Taxes, premiums, it is all the same in the end. I have never minded paying taxes, but I think as a single person, I really do get shafted. And, for your information, my college loans were paid off 2 years ahead of schedule. I don't believe in a free lunch, that's not to say others hold that view.

kendpotter: Medical care is a serious problem. Socialized healthcare is just an extension of the Medicare/Medicaid system, and that too is wrought with problems.

As we look to medical care, and what is really needed, healthcare falls into 3 categories: routine care (physicals, the flu, well-baby care, small items); prescription drugs; catastrophic care (transplants, cancer, major injuries, etc).

People will go to the doctor if they don't have to pay out-of-pocket or a small co-pay. The doctor then has to bill insurance/government an amount to cover the care, along with administration efforts involved. A typical visit to deal with a minor problem could result in a bill to insurance of $150, while the patient pays $10.

A pay-as-you-go plan tax-deferred (medical IRA if you will), with insurance for catastrophic care, and a plan for prescription might be a better solution than the current program.

Government paid healthcare is really no different than an insurance company, and we all know this is not working well either. Ways to stem unnecessary visits and reduce the overall cost and burden on the system needs to be explored. Something different needs to be done, and government is not the solution. It has been tried in other countries, and it is not working as expected. Costs have skyrocketed, quality has gone down the drain, and wait times for procedures is terribly. And, in many cases, care is not provided in-time to save lives.

AI agree with your doctor and senior friends.

I have known a lot of conservatives. Many are in the medical field and do quite well. Many of them don't like their tax burden. They say they get nothing out of it. And then I ask, who do you suppose paid for that big building (hospital) that you work in, the roads you commute on, the security you (police and fire departments) take for granted when you go to bed at night. Not to mention the state and federal educational subsidies and programs that helped them obtain their education.

Some of the most outspoken critics of universal health care are seniors. They are absolutely dead seat against "socialism". Of course when I point out the Medicare is socialised medicine, they almost have a heart attack. They splutter and bleat and deny. It wouldn't matter to them if you pulled out a dictionary and Medicare was used as the definition of "socialized medicine".

Rockerbabe1: What exactly has Senator Clinton done?

RichM: So who died and annointed you God? Just because I don't agree with your brand of "progressive", I'm not a progressive? I work in healthcare and have spent the majority of my adult life caring for the sick, injured, abandoned and debilitated and I'm selfish? Just because I worked hard for a lot of years and want to protect my home against theft, vandals and who knows what?
My support for Senator Clinton is based on admiration, knowing what it takes to survive in the world dominated by men, life-experience, survival of the media torture-tactics she has endured over the years, the respect given to her by NY citizens in two hard-fought and fairly won elections. And yes, her ability to graciously handle all the hateful, nasty, sexist comments [that were hurled and not punished]. Senator Clinton is all about change for everyone, not just the ones at the top and the high-end folks. Just because one goes along to get along, doesn't mean they don't remember where they came from. Just because she doesn't talk in rhyme, doesn't mean her message isn't good or inspiring. Just because she know what it is to be disrespected, dismissed, disappointment, delayed and undermined and yet still determined. She is the kind of President we need; a real doer of deeds, not a talker of eloquent words signifying nothing.

This list doesn't define a progressive so much as a democratic socialist (and a radical). If you read my party's platform (either the Peace and Freedom Party of California or the Socialist Party USA) you would see a lot of parallel's with this list. The Green Party doesn't even go as far as many of these ideas presented here. If anyone out there agrees with this list-- please check out the Peace and Freedom Party and Socialist Party USA. We need more people to stand up for and vote for something they really believe in.

Tina Phillips

The author states that some important items might have been left off.

It is not with the intention of being nit-picky or scolding to say that I think one of the absolutely essential elements of being progressive has been left off Schwalbe's list.

"A progressive is somebody who believes that different issues are related; that a movement for a decent world is not defined by a single issue or by single-issue politics but must recognize the importance of building coalitions; that defining and working on issues is important but that it is even more essential to work together in a movement encompassing all progressive issues."

As difficult as the individual goals are to obtain, working together and building coalitions to obtain them is the most difficult goal of all. And the most important.

Dan Nissenbaum

Mark W.,

While your analysis is interesting, it leads no where. What is the answer to the problem you describe?

Your comment about the free market path led us to the creation of The United States in the mid-1700s. And somehow this path was wrong? If it is wrong, why do so many people want into the USA - legally and illegally?

Again, what is your solution for where we are today?

Without solutions, all of this is just blathering of the educated proletariat class.

My solution is to allow people to have freedom from unreasonable government regulations, unlimited earning power and to create any business they so desire, which implies the right to succeed and collect those fruits, or fail and try again, with some possible limited assistance to get back on one's feet.

When we set limits and prohibitions on people, creativity dies and so does the ability to create social services to help those that truly need them, not those services that people just want - the Robin Hood principle.

Dear Professor Schwalbe,
Many thanks for your list since it articulates many of my own thoughts on the matter in a way better perhaps than I may be able to state them. I sometimes call myself a progressive, but usually I refer to myself as a Social Democrat.

I would like add that free market capitalism is antithetical to both democracy and Christianity. Also, in the early part of this century, new computer driven model economies proved that egregious wealth inequality is built into capitalism even among statistically equal entities.

I created such a model economy in 2003 and it provides correct wealth distributions using stochastic methods. Based on the model economies that I've made, I can unequivocally say that on average the top 1% will own 35% of the wealth, the top 20% will own 84% of the wealth, the bottom 60% will own 5% of the wealth, and the bottom 40% will own 0% (rounded off) of the wealth. Substantial progressive taxation could be used to flatten the distribution to make it more fair, but I increasingly ask myself why we shouldn't scrap the system altogether.

Another negative aspect of capitalism is that it creates bad divisions of labor (especially in conjunction with the supposed "merit" system that was surreptitiously shoved down America's throat after WWII) because more often than not the best ideas of the population are never implemented. Our exclusionary secondary education system has created an aristocracy that seeks and demands privilege: real work (and workers) are disparaged and frowned upon. Government sponsored education has merged with corporate sponsored capitalism. When government and business merge-that's literally fascism. My hometown newspaper ("The State") euphemistically (and lovingly) calls this arrangement the "public/private partnership".

I often think about the carpenters, mill workers, mechanics, butchers, electricians and a host of other common men who fought in WWII that I knew growing up in SC. These men understood that fascism threatened liberal democracy and they put their lives on the line to stop it. Today these same types of men are treated like second-class citizens. My dad barely finished the eleventh grade-he was too busy working for the CCCs to support his family to get a formal education. He understood that fascism was economic-in his mind he was fighting the same mentality of the mill owners that owned and controlled all aspects of the peoples' lives when he was fighting the Japanese.

After the war, the Vets demanded change and got it in the form of progressive taxation and the GI Bill. But as always, undemocratic economic forces went behind the scenes and installed a formalized class system (through the educational system) by the sixties, and free market capitalism was acceptable again by the late seventies as people's memories of the depression faded. Instead of becoming more of a Social Democracy as we should have, we were led down the free market path yet again, and well, we all see the result.

One final comment and you can get back to your love fest:

Why are Democrats concerned about being called Liberal while conservative Republicans embrace the conservative title? Progressive, liberal, socialist - I don't see a difference as the end goal is the same: disaster and control of a population. Where is the freedom granted by God to all people? Surely in a capitalist republic, like the USA, we have more freedoms than other countries.

How much is too much profit? How should corporations be regulated? If they make more than what ever the government says is too much, should the government step in and take it away> And do what with the money they've taken in taxes? Who is more efficient at spending money - government or corporations? Should Bill Gates and Warren Buffett be punished for their income? If they had, all that money they are donating to causes would not be going there today.

Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer are not exactly at the same income level as they people who voted them in to power. And, they aren't willing to step aside and let someone else run for their seat, as was the original intent of our founding fathers. They propose and pass laws that will never affect them. First thing Pelosi does is speaker of the house is to demand a 757 jet, a Gulf Stream isn't good enough. "I'd rather have the Bentley over the Benz." Is this who progressives think watches over their wishes that they voted into office?

While utopia is a goal, will it ever be achieved? RoR mentions the failure of communal/pure socialist living, and it failed after only 4 years.

The Mayflower Compact failed in the early 1600s. Post-WWII Germany under the Marshall Plan was stagnant, and the country was dying a slow death. Once a capitalist market economy was established for the Pilgrims and Germany, each flourished.

When people of the world really need medical care, and they can afford it, they come to the USA because they can't get the care and treatment offered in their country.

Our welfare system is over-burdened by people who could work yet refuse not to as getting a government check each month is all they want. There is a portion of the population that can't work, and for them, welfare is an act of a country's kindness. If those who could work were off the government's feeding pail, there would be resources available for those who truly need it. And this includes illegal aliens - yes, that is the right term. They have alien status and are in this country illegally.

What is so wrong about progressiveness is that it doesn't account for how equality is achieved, and who will pay for the services. As RoR mentioned, "Marxism/socialism is contrary to human nature."

You can call big corporations evil if you want, but without them, who would create jobs? In the USA, anyone has the freedom to start their own business and make a living for themselves.

I was recently in Germany, and comments made about how their welfare state is crushing the system is something you rarely hear. It isn't working and it will eventually break. The French are reforming their labor laws to let people work more than 37 hours per week to improve productivity, and they are being more lenient on how layoffs are handled. Economies ebb and tide, and with it so must the workforce. If you don't like it, start your own business and enjoy the rewards and the potential for failure - this is your right.

Several European countries are re-thinking their liberalism and moving more towards conservatism, mainly from the influx of immigrants (legal and illegal) that are not contributing to the country, but rather taking from it. The Netherlands has gone over the cliff on tolerance.

I originally thought Michael Schwalbe was making fun of progressives just as Jeff Foxworthy does to rednecks, which he is proud to be one. Then, as I read the comments, people think the USA has it all wrong, and wouldn't it be nice if we all just hugged each other so all our problems would just go away. Tell that to the homicide bomber in the Middle East that is killing innocents through terror.

How many aspire to be taken care of by the government?

Ask yourself, how many homeless, unemployed or low income people have hired someone lately? Wealth is earned, not taken and redistributed via some government program through taxes. Before you kill more geese, also ask yourself where the golden eggs will come from?

Corporations are collectives.

Goverments exist because people are willing to use force against other people if they break the rules.

Capitalism is failing just as Communism did.

We are in a double-bind.

"In America, as it was in Nazi Germany, the unemployable have been relegated to subhuman status."

Example please?

It's been tried before. New Harmony Indiana. It lasted 4 years!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Harmony,_Indiana

"The experiment was established in 1825 and dissolved in 1829 due to constant quarrels. The town banned money and other commodities. Individualist anarchist Josiah Warren, who was one of the original participants in the New Harmony Society, asserted that the community was doomed to failure due to a lack of individual sovereignty and private property. He wrote of the community: "It seemed that the difference of opinion, tastes and purposes increased just in proportion to the demand for conformity. Two years were worn out in this way; at the end of which, I believe that not more than three persons had the least hope of success. Most of the experimenters left in despair of all reforms, and conservatism felt itself confirmed. We had tried every conceivable form of organization and government. We had a world in miniature. --we had enacted the French revolution over again with despairing hearts instead of corpses as a result. ...It appeared that it was nature's own inherent law of diversity that had conquered us ...our 'united interests' were directly at war with the individualities of persons and circumstances and the instinct of self-preservation... and it was evident that just in proportion to the contact of persons or interests, so are concessions and compromises indispensable." (Periodical Letter II 1856)."

Marxism / Socialism is contrary to human nature!

One thing had been central to progressives throughout modern history, until recent years in the US: the moral responsibility we share toward all others, and our social responsibility to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves. In America, as it was in Nazi Germany, the unemployable have been relegated to subhuman status. We no longer recognize their existence, much less talk about them. I thought it was interesting that so many progressives "honored" the anniversary of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights at the same time that President Clinton "reformed" aid to the very poor, in a manner that directly, blatantly violates this international human rights agreement. In the decade since then, our progressive community takes care to specify "the WORKING poor", while remaining silent about those pushed out of the job market, unconcerned about social and economic justice, failing to address the loss of fundamental human rights via welfare "reform", "reforming" the ADA, etc.

The failure to embrace fundamental human rights for all Americans, and the willingness to allow the dehumanization of any portion of the population (because of race, economic status, etc.) weakens today's progressive movement. Empathy is not an American tradition, but it had consistently been a driving force within every movement for social and political change.

"was"

I meant "way".

OK, I'll put it different was. What in Progressive philosophy supports "caring" other than through government programs? And just so you know, I believe only people have the capacity to care, not faceless organizations.

^ Yet more false assumptions and innuendos, jake?

"But believe it or not, "progressives" care about things besides their own little stash, & their property rights."

As long as it's someone else paying for that "caring".

Let me help you with that one, Rockerbabe1 (6:14). The problem you have with the article is that YOU are not really a "progressive." You might fancy the word, but you certainly don't like the ideas.

Here, for example, you demonstrate that your immediate & only concern is your own private property -- how nice it is, how much you personally have, & how you have to guard against anyone trying to "take it away from you." But believe it or not, "progressives" care about things besides their own little stash, & their property rights. In fact, it turns out that there's actually something of a conflict between caring too much about your own property, and being "progressive." (I know you won't understand that.)

Your attitude here is of a piece with your support for Hillary Clinton, who is not a "progressive," but a lying corporatist-militarist neoliberal. It makes perfect sense that someone who likes Hillary would find the ideas in this article objectionable.

Don't Progressives beleive in "free" healthcare and guarenteed housing? Wouldn't these require *huge* government programs that take power in the form of taxes from individuals, and enpower itself by being able to decide how to spend that money?

I don't think this is progressive - I think this is dangerous. I work for a living; my home took a lot of blood, sweat and tears to buy and no one is going to take it away from me without a strengous fight. I believe in fiscal responsibility and as many "rights" as one can afford to buy with the vote you have to give.

Progressivism limits the power of government to enforcing ethical and efficiency standards. The private sector may choose a less imposing big brother government by voluntary cooperation with the public will.

Excellent article and it opens up the REAL question.

Can you be a progressive and support the Democratic Party at the same time?

This fire breathing progressive (by this articles standard) say an unequivocal

NO!!!!!!!!!!

How is it that progressivism limits the power of government?

Liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity, extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, and a market or mixed economy (paraphrasing wikipedia). The problem with liberalism is the grotesque private wealth accumulation and corruption that it fails to reign in.

Socialism attempts to prevent private wealth accumulation by expanding the role of government and imposing strong cooperative/democratic ownership/control in the economic sector and extensive public entitlements. The problem with socialism is the corruption shifts from the private sector to the public sector.

Progressivism restricts wealth accumulation, corruption, plunder and destruction through enforcement of strict ethical and efficiency regulations. Progressivism may be described as freedom with responsibility, which requires universal enlightenment, respect, equity and justice.

Neither liberalism nor socialism enforce both freedom and responsibility. So it appears that progressivism fixes the problems with liberalism and socialism, those being corruption and neglect by private and public institutions respectively.

"Amerikan"

Just curious if you get a special thrill with the petty "k" spelling?

Well, I'd sort of gotten burned out with the "You May Be a Redneck if..." genre, but this one has redeeming qualities from top to bottom.

Tragically, no single politician is able or willing to drill down to the fatuous, puerile, and primitive rot of discredited philosophies and obsolete myths of nationalism, exceptionalism, and patriotism that animate Amerikan politics.

Such fundamental qualities rest like an seething lake of red, white, and blue oil far down in the layers of the collective Amerikan unconscious; but, like petroleum, they generate powerful gaseous by-products: jingoism and pseudo-pragmatism that rise steadily and continuously to the surface by circuitous routes.

Once they reach the surface, they are incorporated by diverse species on the political spectrum. And, to continue the "oil" analogy, they are both rich sources of energy and toxic pollutants. And they can fuel life-forms from God & Guns hinterlanders (the non-bitter variety), to military personnel, to simpleminded yahoo wingnuts, to the political and financial elite plutocrats who own us.

Conversely, since these mythic elements manifest in all branches of the political food chain, they are also conspicuously present in the proud moderates and reactionaries who post here, and especially in the duopoly's stable of candidates.

So that even a candidate who superficially eschews rank imperialism and autocratic rule by force must hew to the theme that "America is Number One!" (which evokes a "Seinfeld" episode in which Jerry's dad and another old codger played by the late Lloyd Bridges battle over the rights to the title of Number One Dad)

Even what passes for a "reform" platform-- professionally rebranded ambiguously as "change"-- is couched in the usual bow-wow oratory of The Greatest Nation on Earth correcting recent unfortunate errors and misadventures and emerging from the shadows of ill-repute to once more mount the pedestal reserved for the Number One Nation.

This barely-subliminal substratum doesn't preclude preaching humility, decency, and international conviviality. Especially domestically-- a reform candidate can readily become the Stern but Fair Critical Parent when lecturing the populace about the obligations of citizenship, energy conservation, etc., at least in a hortatory or inspirational context.

[Warning! Oxymoron Ahead!] It may be that even an enlightened intellectual Amerikan's politician's vision is too compromised to consider how these memetic fossil fuels, channelled through the combustion chamber of personal ambition and desire for power, contaminate campaigns and platforms. That is, I presume that the politician actually buys into the core myths of national superiority and exceptionalism, though perhaps with some self-awareness or detachment.

There seems to be no rhetorical or tactical way for a politician seeking the greatest number of votes to refute or disclaim the root myths that Amerika is always and forever Number One, the best nation in the world, and that the US has an evangelical mission to confer The Blessings of Civilization upon our Benighted Friends Sitting in Darkness. And, most importantly, the right to righteously unilaterally intervene with military brute force anywhere in the world to either defend our interests or rescue innocents from harm.

So, as the technocrats and pragmatists here are always reminding us with varying degrees of exasperation and ridicule, even the duopoly-anointed "viable" candidates closest to progressive thinking are stuck in the loop of designing the most "fuel-efficient" platform and candidacly possible. But they're not caring or daring to provide political leadership for the scary truth that these myths have had their day, and that in any case they're killing us and the rest of the world.

Hell, any hybrid platform they'd drive would be run right off the political highway; nobody wants to hear that shit, especially if your opponents will gleefully cash in on the slightest expression of "negativity".

In order to move to the more perfect union described in this comprehensive essay, someone has to tell We the People that it's time to Get Over Ourselves and come to grips with the pervasive absurd conviction that Amerika is the boss of the world. The numberless exceptionalist delusions oozing from that perverse dictum, well-intentioned or not, create only lose-lose (or evil-evil) models for our political leaders: benevolent philosopher-king or Boss of Bosses (capo di tutti capi) of an international crime syndicate.

Or a succession of Mister In-Betweens.

"United we've stood"

Realistically, *both* sides must give up something.

As some point out, this list is more "Marxist" than progressive. What would be progressive would be if we could let go of our "tribalist" black-and-white views. I want practical, functional Capitalism AND Socialism. I can't agree that someone is "progressive" if they think the solution can be found by eliminating Capitalism OR Socialism. Progress is moving forward. This list is just another throwback to the 20th century and the YayTeam model of dissing any idea embraced by the "other side".

United we've stood, Divided we're falling.

"Governments exist by the power they draw from the governed. If the governed wishes, they can throw off or change their government, even if it takes awhile."

All of that is true but ignores the part about force of arms. Try not paying your taxes and see what happens. You get thrown in jail. Try resisting as they drag you to your cell, and they will smack you about with batons or maybe even shoot you.

The government has no power that can't ultimately be backed bt pure force.

jakenewton May 30th, 2008 8:03 pm:

"Governments exist by the threat of force. When you realize this fact. you can see why so many of them fail thier people."

What tripe from our resident moonbat, jake. Governments exist by the power they draw from the governed. If the governed wishes, they can throw off or change their government, even if it takes awhile. That's it in a nutshell, jake. When you realize these facts, you might stop getting high on your own farts.

:rolleyes:

If the US Military stopped defending corporations in all of those foreign lands those corporations might be compelled to act in a manner that was defensible, sharing more of those lands' resources with their peoples, paying decent wages, curtailing the toxification of their environs, etc…

Nope. The people who run corporations are too stupid, arrogant, greedy and short-sighted to change their ways. They would simply look for some other expedient way to swindle other people out of what is rightfully their own. And they already have their back-up plan in place in the event the public spending on their defense is ended=Blackwater USA. Death to Corporations!

This would make a good pamphlet to hand out to folks. I think it would cause a lot of people to wake up and realize that they aren't alone and that we're a silent majority that has yet to become fully self-aware, let alone organized and energized.

Socialist? Marxist? Liberal? Progressive? Do we really need to name it? Call it what you will. I'll wear the cap. All I know is that I want a better world, not for things to stay as is or get worse. The elites aren't my friends, and they would not give me nor would I want a seat at their table. They would debase most of what lives and plague the entire world for their benefit. When Earth becomes a polluted hellhole and the human family becomes fractured beyond repair, I swear these rogue caretakers will leave to conquer and pillage other worlds in gigantic, jet-powered domes.

I look through my remote viewer, one that gives me a glimpse of what things will be like on our planet 100 years from now if the powers-that-be continue to have their way. I see nothing but panic and dread for everyone aside from those at the very top.

I ask everyone regardless of their politics to look too. It's not hard. You don't need to time travel or achieve some sort of meditative state or step through some magic portal to see it. Just become informed. Pay attention. Keep your eyes and mind open regarding your best interests and those around you. Wear the shoes of your neighbors, be they across your street, across town, across your state, across a river, across an ocean, or even across a prior century or two, and walk around in them for a spell.

Go on. Take a look. What do you see?

I love professors of sociology. Nice article Michael Schwalbe.

As far as the Marxist/Progressive debate ... I say just count the first ten as a pre-requisite for progressive. Note that Obama qualifies for exactly zero of them.

Marxism is a very rational explanation to the current organization of society, and the social stratification it produces. I hope somebody can debunk it for me, so I no longer have to agree with these "looney" ideas.

I'll go ahead and second Rich's nomination of Schwalbe for president, because I happen to know that corporations are not people as well.

Count me in! - - Now let's get more of this kind of thinking INSIDE the Beltway!

Nietzsche May 30th, 2008 4:00 pm

Corporations? Fine as long as they are regulated. Want to get rich? Fine as long as government sets some limits on how rich you get and how you get rich.

Good post, Nietzsche.

And I agree - people are people and have unlimited desires. When desires outstrip resources, we get into trouble. Nature has limits, so should corporations and humans.

Reminds me of an old saw: When we're all better off, we're all better off.

I get the impression that stalwart, party-voting Democrats prefer the word "liberal," and are genuinely confused by the term "progressive." So this list is a pretty good start toward achieving understanding.

The right-wing media strategically attacks the word liberal, but it's been a term bogged down by other unhelpful baggage. For instance, "neoliberals" want to foist corporate control on other nations to exploit the resources and labor there for private profit. Essentially, this is like exporting fascism (Mussolini defined fascism as corporatism plus nationalism). The classic example is U.S. policy toward Latin America, where U.S. Democratic and Republican leaders alike sponsored coups on behalf of corporations. Neoliberal policies dominated the Kennedy Presidency, yet, at the same time, Kennedy supporters were considered liberal Democrats. I find that confusing.

I remember a coworker, fierce Democratic voter, who thought that "free trade" (as then proposed by Democratic President Bill Clinton) was a good thing. She ridiculed me for saying that the United States gained strength early on as a nation precisely by protecting its trade. It goes back to the Boston Tea Party (dumping British imports), as well as economist Adam Smith's ideas about protecting local industries, but she'd have none of what I said because she's a "liberal" and Bill Clinton supposedly was one too. It's amazing how confusing labels can be.

In other countries, such as France, a "liberal" is someone who favors unfettered corporate trade, I understand. In the United States, liberal seems to refer to personal social outlooks only (stands on abortion, etc.), and the political philosophy has been stripped away. For instance, Democratic liberals seem to tolerate very anti-social policies professed by their elected Democratic leaders. They don't blink an eye when Obama proposes bombing Pakistan, or Hillary wants to bomb Iran.

The good thing about "progressive" is that it acknowledges a goal - not some utopia as some are saying above. We strive toward improving human conditions. My view is that socialism is what we are progressing toward. The majority of the planet loses big time under capitalism. Progress means moving away from that. Marx was just a guy who wrote a book critiquing capitalism, but you don't have to be a genius to understand the huge disparities of wealth generated by capitalism, accompanied by general immiseration. A lot of Democrat stalwarts, however, just don't seem to get this. They dream of personal wealth under the system (like Republicans), without considering the over-arching problems.

Simply put, progressives care and they think. It's the most important thing you can do in your short time on this planet.

" You recognize that an economic system which requires continuous expansion, destroys the environment, relies on rapidly-depleting fossil fuels, exacerbates inequality, and leads to war after war is unsustainable and must be replaced. Score a bonus point if you understand that sticking to the existing system is what's unrealistic."

The economic system, one where we have a privately run owned cartel, otherwise knowns as a central bank (in our case the Fed) that controls each nations access to money, that they must borrow at interest, when the bank simply creates this money to loan them out of thin air is NUTS and is the mechanism in which the psychopaths can control everything else.

"You think that wealth, not just income, should be taxed."

I do not agree with that, since wealth is whats left over after being taxed. I do believe we should take a chunk out of the tax free foundations.
And I believe that when referring to the national debt, that we should agree that those with the most wealth own more of this debt than those without much wealth (and not calculated on a per capita basis, remember, corporations and tax free foundations are citizens too)

• "You think it's crazy to use the Old Testament as a policy guide for the 21st century"

Having just read this for the first time, I would say anyone taking this literally as the word of god, or a policy guide, must be a psychopath. Scared the crap out of me. Hopefully the New Testament is more civilized, when my courage returns I might give it a go.

Cap wealth to cap power, direct democratically.

"No government has any right to exist unless it provides the opportunity for the individual to have these four basic needs to be met."

Governments exist by the threat of force. When you realize this fact. you can see why so many of them fail thier people.

"Are you suggesting that a sharecropper "chooses" to spend his life making his landlord rich, or that the landlord is generously providing him with that opportunity?"

The space of choices is always more limited to those who are poor. Whether a sharecropper makes a landlord rich is a seperate and debatable point. And no, the landlord is not compelled to provide the opportunity, he can just let the land lie fallow. If he were to provide the opportunity I would not say it stemmed from generosity.

You might be progressive if ....
..... you refuse to vote Democrat!

If most people don't care about finding meaning in their lives it is because meaning is irrelavant to more and more people who must work two jobs and still cannot provide themselves and their families with the the necessities of life.

Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs holds that not only physiological needs but also the need for safety, belonging, and self esteem must be met before the need for meaning can make itself felt. Whether meaning is found through religion, art, music, philosophy, or literature, every human animal has a right to the opportunity to have these basic needs met so that meaning has a chance to become important to her.

No government has any right to exist unless it provides the opportunity for the individual to have these four basic needs to be met. Every individual who is loyal to his government has a right to expect this to be her government's first priority.

Are you suggesting that a sharecropper "chooses" to spend his life making his landlord rich, or that the landlord is generously providing him with that opportunity?

Cliche alert.

You wouldn't accept the opposite cliche of "class envy" would you?

Frank1569- No, someone who has enough money for ten lifetimes is called a Republican Pioneer. Or Democratic major contributor. In Russia they are the oligarchs. In Europe, they are the 'old money' families.

These are the people who own the corporations, rig elections, commit major felonies with no fear of retribution or justice, dabble in politics, and generally decide how they will grind the other 95% of the worlds population into the dust.

"The NFL has spending caps and shared revenues, does that mean the NFL is Marxist or Socialist? "

They are a Private Club but how the principles involved might apply to society as a whole is an interesting question.

"But someone who has enough money to live for ten lifetimes but still can't get enough is called… a success?"

I think it depends on how they get the money. It really comes down to how you spend your time. Time is the great equalizer, we are all running out of it.

The NFL has spending caps and shared revenues, does that mean the NFL is Marxist or Socialist? All Fed employees enjoy free (or virtually free) health care and child care, does that make them closet Socialists or Marxists?

Someone who drinks alcohol constantly but never can get enough is an alcoholic. Someone who takes drugs but can never get enough is a drug addict. Someone who has sex all the time but is never satisfied is called a sex addict. But someone who has enough money to live for ten lifetimes but still can't get enough is called... a success?

"Why should a corporation have the right of free speech?"

I'm not saying they should or shouldn't. I was asking what status they *should* have in the court system.

In the late 18th and early 19th century, entities like those we now call corporations were referred to as monopolies or perpetuities. They were considered a threat to democracy by such "Marxist" luminaries as Jefferson, Madison, Washington, . . . In those years, corporations would typically be set up for a limited time for the purposes of completing public projects which no single contractor could accomplish. Now they are virtually all perpetuities.

If you have ever filed articles of incorporation, you may have taken note of the now archaic bit of legalese which stipulates that the corporation must serve the public interest. It wasn't until the latter half of the 19th century that a series of Supreme Court cases extended person-like legal status to them. In so doing, they rendered that provision obsolete.

Google corporate personhood and you will discover that public interest requirements are as American as Apple Pie.

jakenewton May 30th, 2008 5:01 pm
"Corporations should not have these rights. " What rights should they have, and do you include Mom andPop shops that are organized as corporations?"

Jake,

Mom and Pop have rights. Their corporation is a thing, an artifice. Why should a corporation have the right of free speech? Their shareholders have the right to free speech. It is like when a union carries out political programs that the members may or may not agree with. Why should I as a part owner (through my 401K holdings in S&P 500 Index Funds) have to put up with Chevron bullshitting me, spending my money (my profits as a shareholder) to try to convince me that they aren't screwing me with my pants on? Why should they be allowed to buy politicians by the dozen to write the screwing into law? If, they were limited to $3000 like me, at least it would level the playing field, but our politicians are a parliment of whores. They are as addicted to the cash as any crack addict is to their pipe.

"As for those who would take the offer, I think we would reap a harvest of poets and philosophers who would more than earn their keep."

Don't we have enough of them already? I'm a bit serious, most people don't really care about that stuff. I would paint I think. I do suspect there would be a lot who would just hang under the bridge and drink malt liqour.

"being compelled to work for somebody who is rich?"

I reject the characterization. They work for their *pay*. They do it by *choice*. The rich provided the opportunity.

State progressive caucuses have been dealing with how to define that which is progressive and that which is not. That is the only way we can keep the "moderates" (militarist, pro-war, pro-occupation, corporate Democrats) from co-opting us and our caucuses. PDA has had to do that too. To see what we came up with in Kansas, for example, see this link:

http://www.kansasprogressives.org/Mission

There are about 20 state progressive caucuses in the State Democratic parties. We have a list that includes many of them. See:

http://www.kansasprogressives.org/?q=node/64

I suggest CD readers and bloggers consider going beyond the thinking part of the question about what is progressive (as raised in this superb article) and join your local state progressive caucus in your state Democratic Party. (Our membership can include members of the Green Party and we link to the Green Party in our mission statement page.) If there isn't one there in your state yet, establish one. We did that in Kansas just after the 2004 election disaster.

And determining what is and isn't progressive is a crucial step in being successful in establishing a true progressive caucus and growing it.

Thomas More ( 2:56 pm) writes the standard line of American apologists for capitalism: ie, that socialism has "...(n)othing wrong with it at all except as a system of governance its been a complete failure , no matter which version was used.No matter the Country. No matter the Century..."

To make a sweeping declaration like this (& to have it be more than merely shooting your mouth off), you'd have to have mastered quite a bit of history. The truth is actually much more complex. One element of the real history is that socialism has been tried only a few times, and in every case, it's not really been given a chance to demonstrate what it could achieve on its own, because leading capitalist powers have done everything in their power to louse it up. It's hilarious for the US to overthrow governments like Allende's in 1973, or to embargo Cuba -- and then to use such things as "proof" that "socialism doesn't work."

A second element of the real history is that capitalism is also not nearly the "success" Americans are led to believe it is. We got where we are today, in terms of wealth, not by our own "hard work and the sweat of our brow, and old-fashioned Yankee ingenuity," but rather by a program of military conquest, ruthless exploitation of 3rd world countries & of our own working population; and also by playing hardball in trade & diplomatic relationships. So, while you might be impressed by looking at the stuff in shop windows on Fifth Avenue, what you don't see there is what lies behind it -- ie, the militarism, 3rd world sweatshops, & domestic exploitation on which all that wealth is based.

Every time a strikingly new idea comes along, it is ferociously resisted by people who say, "It has never worked." People said the same thing about blacks being (formally) given equal rights; about women getting the right to vote; & about the possibility of democracies replacing monarchies. People said the same thing about the steam engine, & about the idea that the earth is not flat. //

People who are content with vapid cliches like "socialism has been a complete failure everywhere it's been tried" should reflect for a moment on what Europeans might have said of America during the Civil War. They could easily have said, "America has had its independence for 75 years already, and what have they done with it? Now they're just slaughtering each other. I told you this 'democracy' business was never going to work!" // And even today, is American capitalism such a great success? Just look around you -- look at Kunstler's article on this same CD page -- and consider whether you really believe this is a "successful" system.

You are a Progressive if you supported Dennis Kucinich until the bitter end... and beyond.

Jakenewton, I can absolutely guarantee that very few people would choose to live on 20,000 per year. I know people who earn 100,000 and still want more. As for those who would take the offer, I think we would reap a harvest of poets and philosophers who would more than earn their keep.

Are you sure you just can't stand the idea of anybody from a poor family not being compelled to work for somebody who is rich?

GKL (5:09) - Sweden doesn't have "socialism." It has a "social democracy," which is a different type of thing -- basically capitalism, but with generous social welfare programs. Most of the economy is in private hands. For example, the CIA Factbook says, "Privately owned firms account for about 90% of industrial output.

It's true that the Scandivanian countries don't have military bases all over the world, & that that's very nice. However, it's not quite as nice (in the sense of "innocent") as it sounds, because they have an understanding with the US, whereby the US military (since WWII) has more or less provided for their real military needs. In return, they have all remained politically aligned with the US. So they're not as lily-white as it may appear.

I think I could be satisfied with the progressive socialism of Sweden. The Swedes don't have military bases all over the world, they have great public education, great public health care and pensions, and many other public benefits. They do have high taxes, but people manage to live well.

RICH M: You are a gifted teacher whatever your walk of life. Love your (5:57) argument in support of untried alternatives.

NIETSCHZE: Great post on the power of meaning, the food intended to nourish the soul... as in man does not live by bread alone.

I am a Canadian Liberal, or in American political lingo " a leftist, tofu farting tree hugging commie pinko." I am proud to be a Canadian who supports universal health care (nationalized health care). As I write this the same brand of Right wingers as Bush and friends is/are trying to get "private for profit health care" started here by twisting the facts and outright lying.

Fortunately Most Canadians of all political stripes, left or right will not tolerate the American example of profit over people's health, though sadly in Alberta (which may as well be satellite of Texas because of the oil wealth and extreme right political stance), is allowing private clinics to open in direct violation of Canadian laws, that through a series of transfers to the provinces of monies for health care directly forbids these clinics for profit, but Alberta's new wealth renders threats of non funding mute.

I just goes to show GREED is alive and well and tends to congregate where governments tend to treat Corporations as citizens with a higher value than real people. Just look what the NEOCONS have done in 8 yrs in the US of A.

Now we get the governments of USA, Canada and Mexico, meeting in secret behind closed doors with big business, plotting the "Fortress North America " plan , without any consultations with the people.

This will lead to the weakening of all standards be it safety health pollution etc, to the lowest common denominator as in the Mexican "free trade zones".

The promised increase in quality of life, for those who sought work in these zones is a myth, and has proven a disaster to the locals in these areas.

It is a heinous mind that believes "some must do without basic food water and health care, by having it corporately priced out of reach, so others can have excessive wealth.

If Mr Obama is guilty of anything, it has to be that he has the audacity to instill hope for change in the masses, for a better, saner, more humane way, when the current bunch in Washington offer naught but fear and aggression dressed up as the latest "BOOGYMAN" who threatens our freedoms.

How does killing millions of Iranians (who had nothing to do with 9/11), or Saddam Hussein (who never threatened anyone but the opposition in his own country) protect any freedoms we have? (never mind the "he gassed his own people" crap from the aggressors who gave him the gas in the first place, and which was used against Kurds FIGHTING IN A WAR ON IRAQ'S SIDE).

No war since WWII has been fought for freedom, contrary to what the MSN and Washington would have us believe.

Korea ; left / lost there still free are we not?
Vietnam; lost/left there still free no?

but i am tired and starting to ramble , so will end this rant.

Should social structures exist in order to ensure equality, health, freedom etc. or should social structures be dismantled in order to ensure equality, health and freedom?

Systems of coercion and forced compliance, in any form, capitalist, socialist, whatever, is non-progressive.

"Corporations should not have these rights. "

What rights should they have, and do you include Mom andPop shops that are organized as corporations?

The biggest problem with coporations is that somehow, the courts have endowed them with the rights that belong to individuals. Corporations should not have these rights. Free speech is right some"one" has, not some"thing" has. Since the courts have equated free speech with money, the corporations are allowed to buy our elections. They have far more money than we as individuals.

This is the utterly worst aspect of our political system.

"Everybody gets 20,000 a year from the government."

So where does the government get the money? What if *everyone* wants to do nothing and get 20K?

There is a big difference between being being a Progressive and being a Socialist, which is directly where many parts of this article clearly steers.

"Question:

Why should healthcare providers with rising workloads and static salaries not be able to benefit economically from their increasing services like everyone else does? Isn't that an economic disincentive to work in the healthcare field?"

Who ever said healthcare providers shouldn't be able to benefit economically from their services? The ones who benefit the most from this system economically are stockholders and CEOs in private insurance companies who don't provide ANY healthcare at all. Eliminating the profiting middleman is what is meant by single payer national healthcare. Definitely pay the health care workers well! What is proposed is to cut the money-for-nothing stockholders, multi-million dollar salaries for corporate CEOs, marketing/advertising, and the other ridiculous costs that consume about one-third of this nation's health care spending. Just ask any European how it works. Go to your favorite doctor, get the services you need (based on what the DOCTOR decides you need) and it's all covered. Never worry again that your unemployed 25 year old can't be covered under your insurance and can't afford it himself. Or that your uninsured sister gets cancer and they tell her to take Advil and hope it goes away. No one ever goes bankrupt because of an illness. Everyone pays into the system according to their ability and everyone gets all the health care they need. Utopian? Hardly -- it is exactly what the whole rest of the developed world has. Except us.

Well, smack my ass and call me a PROGRESSIVE! YIPPEE!

AMEN (or BLESSED BE) to Galen: "(Bite me all you conservative CIA obedient corporate watchdogs who are monitoring this site!)"

I'd only add "sycophant toadys"
:)
CS

"You Might Be a Progressive If...."

You think...

You nailed me. I'm a progressive. Or at least a Canadian. I don't mind making the rich slightly less comfortable so that the poor may live with dignity. I was poor before I was rich so I know whereof I speak.

ezyflyer: what if we paid health care workers and teachers a salary commensurate with their contribution to society? You know, like pro-basketball players. Granted there are 'rewards' of an unmeasurable type in teaching the ignorant and helping the sick, but there should still be a fat enough cheque in it to make it worthwhile, so that rising demand doesn't come at the expense of teachers and practitioners.

If the US Military stopped defending corporations in all of those foreign lands those corporations might be compelled to act in a manner that was defensible, sharing more of those lands' resources with their peoples, paying decent wages, curtailing the toxification of their environs, etc...

I agree direct democracy and frequent referenda might lead to fewer politicians (and frequent dancing in the streets). If no one has done it already I'd like to coin a new word: "WIKIOCRACY"

I'm sitting here already, I may as well be governing something!

My head just bounced off the desk in laughter and delight!

I AM THIS PERSON!!

I proudly raise my 42 year neo-pagan, sandal wearing, tree-hugging, protest-marching hand to be counted AS A PROGRESSIVE!!

(Bite me all you conservative CIA obedient corporate watchdogs who are monitoring this site!)

Rich, and everyone else above,

There is nothing wrong with Marxism except that it gets rid of one ruling class only to replace it with another. Either Marxism or Capitalism would work fine if people were not mean, vicious, and greedy. BUT THEY ARE.

No revolutions please. Our system is not worthless, it is only broken. God knows it needs fixing. I want to help fix it. But I will not kill a single one of my neighbors for an idea, even if they are dummies.

Corporations? Fine as long as they are regulated. Want to get rich? Fine as long as government sets some limits on how rich you get and how you get rich.

All you power hounds can have all the fun you want at each other's expense, but I'm beginning to hear you at MY door and I have nothing you want.

How about this? Everybody gets 20,000 a year from the government. If they want more they have to work for it.
We common people get 80% of the wealth that the working class generates.

You people who think life is all about grabbing and cheating get 20% to fight over all you like; just so nobody forgets that it is you who are are the parasites. Only the working class generates wealth. It's time for you to stop telling us how lucky we are that you create wealth for us.

Some comments on the following:

• You think health care is a basic human right, and that single-payer national health insurance is a worthwhile reform on our way toward creating a non-profit national health care service.

Question:

Why should healthcare providers with rising workloads and static salaries not be able to benefit economically from their increasing services like everyone else does? Isn't that an economic disincentive to work in the healthcare field?

• You think U.S. troops should be brought home not only from Afghanistan and Iraq, but from all 130 countries in which the U.S. has military bases.

They are there to protect our corporations.

Questions:

What if other superpowers establish bases in these countries?

Are our corporations the key to our past economic success?

• You think public education should be free, not just from kindergarten through high school, but as far as a person is willing and able to go.

Question:

Why should teachers with rising workloads and static salaries not be able to benefit economically from their increasing services like everyone else does? Isn't that an economic disincentive to work as a teacher?

• You think that wealth, not just income, should be taxed.

Question:

Would we need much if at all in taxes if we didn't have politicians and governed ourselves direct democratically?

• You think that instead of more leaders, we need fewer followers.

Question:

Why would we need leaders if we could govern ourselves via the referendum? Wouldn't good examples suffice?

• You believe that voting every few years is a weak form of political participation, and that achieving social justice requires concerted effort before, during, and after elections.

Question:

Wouldn't people get more involved with government if like the Swiss, they were the deciders and the lawmakers? That instead of 500 politicians, 300 million people would control their destiny in a decentralized and direct democratic way?

You might be a progressive if you agree with even half of these things. And Adroc and RichM correctly diagnose that you WILL be called a Marxist (by conservatives) if you subscribe to all of them---since conservatives are eager to call any progressives Marxists and then defeat them in elections on "branded" name.

As for RichM suggesting author Michael Schwalbe for president instead of Obama, we can be grateful she is not the nominating committee. She would proudly volunteer a Marxist called a Marxist and have you saluting President McCain with no progress at all for Progressville. This is an enduring problem for us liberals. We always have to round up extra voters to compensate for the lost centrists driven away by loony sentences like "There's not the slightest thing wrong with Marxism" (found above). One wonders what the motivation can possibly be.

Nietzsche, requiring corporations to pay fair wages and a fair share of taxes is a vastly different concept than not allowing them to exist or forcing them into public receivership.

One approach is progressive, the other Marxist. Which is which Nietzsche?

RichM May 30th, 2008 2:15 pm
adroc (1:55) is right — it is Marxist

Correct. Not progressive, not liberal. Hard left Marxist.

Nothing wrong with it at all except as a system of governance its been a complete failure , no matter which version was used.No matter the Country. No matter the Century.

Its somewhat a list for a socialist Utopia. I certainly agree with some of the suggestions, many not.

• You think that, ideally, no one would have more wealth more than they need until everyone has at least as much as they need to live a safe, happy, decent life.
• You think that national borders, while sometimes establishing territories of safety, more often establish territories of exploitation, much like gang turf.
• You think that as a society we have a collective obligation to provide everyone who is willing and able to work with a job that pays a living wage and offers dignity.

For example these are patently absurd in a Democracy or Republic with a capitalist system. You would need a socialist system to force people to do this. The suggestion on borders is especially foolish in todays world in my opinion.

I'm a liberal if the list in this article means you are a progressive. And progressive is wrong too as pointed out before.

espouce Marxism if you like, Socialism too or any other system you might like. But don't suggest liberals embrace this unrealistic agenda. Please!

Great list Mr. Schwalbe. The more we understand ourselves, the better we will be able to act on bringing these changes about.

I think America is just entering a new progessive era, right on schedule. It's time we got fed up, turn this country upside down and shake.

But let's hear from those who have more to lose. Wait, let me put my ear plugs in, that is going to be some waaay loud bloody murder being screamed...

adroc (1:55) is right -- it is Marxist. And it's still excellent & enlightened. There's not the slightest thing wrong with Marxism. In fact, it's the rightness of Marxism that upsets capitalists so much. They fear its truth.

The last point in the article ("You recognize that an economic system which requires continuous expansion, destroys the environment, relies on rapidly-depleting fossil fuels, exacerbates inequality, and leads to war after war is unsustainable and must be replaced. Score a bonus point if you understand that sticking to the existing system is what's unrealistic") -- that's explicitly Marxist. It's basically a highly-enlightened call for revolution.

Adroc, which corporation exactly pays its fair share of taxes or pays its average workers a fair wage?

Excellent article. Vastly superior to anything coming out of the mouths of any Dem Party flacks. I'd much rather see this guy as president than Obama.