A progressive campaign based on peace, social and economic justice, and human rights.
www.carolmillercongress.com

I used to think that the very essences of being progressive meant to not seek individual solutions to social problems. Does that still stand as a working hypothesis?

And as for the liberal/progressive divide, I'm reminded of what Phil Ochs had to say (I'm only including a portion as there maybe c o p y r i g h t issues.)

Love Me, I'm A Liberal
by Phil Ochs

I read New republic and Nation
I've learned to take every view
You know, I've memorized Lerner and Golden
I feel like I'm almost a Jew
But when it comes to times like Korea
There's no one more red, white and blue
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I vote for the democratic party
They want the U.N. to be strong
I go to all the Pete Seeger concerts
He sure gets me singing those songs
I'll send all the money you ask for
But don't ask me to come on along
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

Once I was young and impulsive
I wore every conceivable pin
Even went to the socialist meetings
Learned all the old union hymns.
But I've grown older and wiser
And that's why I'm turning you in
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal.

I've posted a rather lenghty reply at http://sictransitdiesoccident.blogspot.com/2008/06/socialism-by-any-other-name.html; any and all debate is welcome.

So true, jake, yet sadly in the world today, it's in vogue to give up nothing. All problems are caused by the "other" side, and giving up anything is up there with giving the other team a fourth out or a fifth down. "We will not negotiate with the liberals/conservatives/capitalists/socialists. We will be strong, we will smoke them out of their holes," etc.

"we will smoke them out"

LOL, I remember GWB kept saying this about the terrorists.

I think popularity of the so-called TV show "Survivor" was a key indicator that the idea that "we're all in this together" has become "quaint and outdated".

As Lightning McQueen said, "One winner... Forty-two losers..."

I won't compromise because I'm right and they are wrong.

Pretty good list. It is funny how may of this issues are completely acceptable in pretty much any western country WITH the exception of USA...

The words "progressive" and "USA" does not seem to go well together lately...

The USA is progressive at ????

Yup, I'm a progressive all right. How many are there?

"You Might be a Marxist if..."

I stongly agree with most of these points like non-profit healthcare, free public post-secondary education, the guarantee of a livable and dignified wage for everyone willing and capable of work, and others.

BUT,

Since when do assertions like "...highest incomes should be capped..." and "...corporations, if they are allowed to exist at all, must either serve the common good or be put into public receivership..." constitute a Progressive attitude? Does a corporation not inherently serve the common good by paying taxes and employing citizens? This is Marxist idealogy. I'm not saying Marxism is inherently wrong or evil; I'm stating that it should not be confused with Progressivism.

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

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...

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!

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?

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.

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?

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.

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!)

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!

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

You think...

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

"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.

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.

"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?

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.

"Corporations should not have these rights. "

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

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.

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.

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 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.

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?

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

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.

"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.

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.

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.

"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.

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?

"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.

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.

Cliche alert.

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

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?

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

"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.

Cap wealth to cap power, direct democratically.

" 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.

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.

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.

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

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.