A Progressive Governing Philosophy: Securing The Common Good
A Progressive Governing Philosophy: Securing The Common Good
Today, the Center for American Progress is hosting a conference called “Securing the Common Good.” Featuring President Bill Clinton as the keynote speaker, the conference is an effort to forcefully articulate an alternative to “compassionate conservatism,” a progressive philosophy of governing. (Read more about the conference in this AP article.)
John Podesta, CAP’s president, delivered the opening remarks. First, he outlined the failures of the right’s governing philosophy:
They have put forward a philosophy, focused on individualism, in which people theoretically have more choices and assume more risk in nearly every part of their lives. In theory, the result of this approach is that people will save more, own more, rely less on the government and become greater stakeholders in the future of our country…
This is the theory.
But let’s look at the results:
– Over 46 million of our fellow citizens do not have health insurance;
– Poverty rates are climbing and personal savings rates are plummeting;
– The richest 1 percent of households already owns more wealth than the bottom 90 percent combined;
– Oil companies are taking in record profits while global warming advances at a record pace; and
– College tuition rates continue to skyrocket while wages stagnate.
Cutting through the rhetoric, the facts show that in this “ownership society,” most Americans have been left to fend for themselves: they are owners of more burdens and fewer opportunities.
Then, he articulated the progressive alternative:
Under a progressive vision of the common good, government must pursue policies that benefit everyone equally. It must ensure that opportunities are abundant and that even those who have been left out and left behind can get the help they need to succeed. Common good progressivism does not meant that everybody will be the same, think the same, or get the same material benefits. Rather, it simply means that people should start from a level playing field and have a reasonable chance to improve their stations in life.
Internationally, common good progressivism focuses on new and revitalized global leadership through the just use of force; multi-lateral engagement; and the creation of new institutions and networks to deal with difficult problems. As in past battles against fascism and totalitarianism, common-good progressives today seek to fight global extremism by using a comprehensive national-security strategy that employs all our strengths for strategic and moral advantage.
To pursue the common good, though, we as Americans owe something to our country in return. People must assume responsibility for their actions, treat others with respect and decency, and serve their families and communities.
What do you think it means to be a progressive? Let us know in the comments section.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
That’s very wordy for a Republican. Dems should just simply and cleary state that they will hand out highway pork just as efficiently as the Republicans…
October 18th, 2006 at 10:18 amModern Progressivism, to me, seems to be looking at helping the people directly, and creating methods for allowing everyone an equal chance at success. It means healthier societies and lesser greed. Progressivism is providing a society with the tools to suceed. When we turn a nation into one that concentrates entirely on individualism, we create a society leading to nonexistance and chaos. Progressivism creates a balance.
October 18th, 2006 at 10:19 ama littl roosevelt here, must be revisitied and it goes perfectly witht that theme;
public assistance costs the middle class money, not the upper class
man who works 40 hours a week;
Should be able to raise a family without going using public assistance
He should be ably to put healthy food on the table without using pubic assistance
He should be able to afford health care for his wife and children, without using public assistance
He should be able to get his kids teeth fixed, without using public assistance
He should be able to put all of his children through college if they are eleigable scholastically, without using public assistance
He should be able to afford a vacation once a year, without using public assistance
If ANY company pays so little that these needs have to be assumed with public assistance, that company is STEALING from the economy and the people that pay those taxes which are burdoned to accomodate those neccesities in life.
October 18th, 2006 at 10:19 amAre any of your speakers going to talk about the death of Habeas Corpus? If so, please do a thread on that speaker. Thanks.
October 18th, 2006 at 10:19 amFor all you wonks out there, here’s an article on what progressivism has meant historically:
http://www.tnr.com/blog/openuniversity?pid=40999
October 18th, 2006 at 10:23 amThe clarion call for Democrats might be “Commonsense for the common good.”
October 18th, 2006 at 10:24 amModern Progressivism: Working towards undoing the backward slide this country has been in for the past six years and restoring habeus corpus.
October 18th, 2006 at 10:25 amThat’s exactly what being progressive means: Equal opportunities, not equal benefits. The key for progressive policies to succeed is to make that difference clear against conservative market capitalism only policies.
October 18th, 2006 at 10:28 amTo provide for the poor and disadvantaged. Capitalism is a wonderful economic engine but a most insidious byproduct this machine is poverty! The production of coal is an example. For Centuries coal mining has produced power to fuel world econonic growth as well as great wealth for a few but it also has produced povery for the workers who produced the coal. A progrressive Govt should work to eliminate this kind of Capitalistic polution.
October 18th, 2006 at 10:29 amWhatever you do, don’t talk about the emerging police state. Don’t talk about how Bush signed away our rights on tuesday.
Don’t talk about 911. Don’t talk about impeaching Bush and Co.
Don’t talk about anything really important. Just spew more platitudes and empty promises.
One day America will wake up and discover the two party system is a racket. It’s not working anymore. When the elections are stolen again and the democratic canidate rolls over and plays dead, perhaps you’ll wake up.
October 18th, 2006 at 10:32 amRight on, #10!
October 18th, 2006 at 10:36 amI think progressivism goes beyond starting everybody from a level playing field. Healthcare for everybody, which I believe is a progressive value, would follow them throughout their lives. Secure retirement, another progressive value, comes late in life. Re-word?
October 18th, 2006 at 10:40 amTo hold nothing as sacred, except for the truth and the rights of others.
October 18th, 2006 at 10:41 amOn face value, there’s actually much to like about the notion of “compassionate conservatism”. The problem is that W’s admin is definitely not conservative in many respects, and certainly not compassionate in others. He’s turned out to be just the opposite of what many people believed he meant by compassionate conservative.
I suspect that more than a few of us are fiscally conservative (favoring balanced budgets, limits on spending) and probably would prefer the government stay out of our lives. Environmental stewardship, frankly, should also be consistent with being a “conservative.”
I agree that Washington, and the system that puts people there, is badly broken. What we probably need is a strong libertarian movement/party.
October 18th, 2006 at 10:43 amInternationally, common good progressivism focuses on new and revitalized global leadership through the just use of force; multi-lateral engagement; and the creation of new institutions and networks to deal with difficult problems. As in past battles against fascism and totalitarianism, common-good progressives today seek to fight global extremism by using a comprehensive national-security strategy that employs all our strengths for strategic and moral advantage.
Apparently progressive means overuse of buzzwords.
October 18th, 2006 at 10:49 amThis is not a progressive approach at all. This is more of Kennedy’s “Ask not what your country can do for you” baloney. In other words, “Don’t expect jack of your government.” A lot of people have accepted the Republican lie that government is bad and they’re not even aware of it.
First of all, the fight agains global extremism should not be a priority. It’s just the militarization of society dressed up as “defending freedom”. This country is not going to be defeated by small time criminals. It is at risk from the usurpation of the government by big-time criminals, who reside at the CIA and the NSA. What international terrorists do to this republic is on the order of throwing stones at a train. They don’t threaten our way of life. Our government was founded on, among other things, “no foreign entanglements.” The Spanish-American War, the First World War, the Korean Conflict, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, the Iraq War—–all completely unnecessary. How many times are we going to be fooled?
I think it’s clear that the Democratic Party is not interested in being an opposition party. The evidence is mounting daily. (Witness the recent torture bill “debate”.) Hazy pronouncements like this will do nothing to inspire people, and I think that’s by design. A level playing field? How is that to be accomplished? By telling everybody to play nice? No, the government has to seize the power that it inherently has back from the private sector and provide universal health care, an adequate minimum wage, protection from predatory lending, and a well-maintained infrastucture. Above all, it has to end the collusion between government and business that allows monopoly and prevents a more equitable distribution of wealth.
The Democratic Party has no interest in any of these things.
October 18th, 2006 at 10:51 amI would rather remain an honest minority.
October 18th, 2006 at 10:54 amExplain that we’re for equal rights of all individuals (not corporations) before the law, that the commons are legally defensible by all the people and that anything that victimizes ‘the least of our brother’ vicitmizes all of us. And that the purpose of government is to aid and abett the enhancement of all residents rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
October 18th, 2006 at 10:55 amWill this be on C-SPAN?
October 18th, 2006 at 10:57 amDrSinker
Being liberal is not a vote for wasting money, or innefeciency, it is a vote for using the money you have got, in order to effect greater economic growth. Nobody likes paying taxes, especially if those taxes are then wasted. What being a fiscal liberal means is that you want to spend taxes on schools, public health care, public welfare, general infrastructure etc… because you see real benefits to spending in those areas, not because you just like spending money.
As a Liberal I just had to point that one out.
October 18th, 2006 at 11:03 amThere are a number of Democratic party leaders that don’t seem very progressive to me:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ archives/ individual/ 2006_10/ 009817.php
October 18th, 2006 at 11:06 amI’ve been advocating this meme for a while — framing the Democratic Party (and liberalism/progressivism in general) as the ideology of opportunity. Not of handouts, or penalization of success, but as providing opportunities for everyone to improve their station in life.
I think it’s a strong concept that you can get a huge portion of the population to rally behind.
October 18th, 2006 at 11:13 amBruce,
Look - I consider myself fairly liberal. I don’t think I ever implied that liberals are for wasting money, did I? Seems kind of a straw-man argument for me.
I pretty much agree with your spending priorities. But I would also insist that the budget needs to be balanced, first and foremost. Also, I’m not convinced that we don’t need to do a lot more than simply put more money into schools to improve the public education system. You want to talk about a system that’s broken…
October 18th, 2006 at 11:16 ambrantl,
October 18th, 2006 at 11:18 amNicely put. Government separation from church and business. What a novel idea. And remember that war is 98% business. The remaining 2% are the people used as cannon fodder.
“government must pursue policies that benefit everyone equally.”
“people should start from a level playing field”
While I think this is generally on the right track, I have a problem with these 2 phrases. Drop “equally” from the first - it smacks too much of socialism and it’s not doable. And people do not start from a level playing field - period. It’s not up to us to socially engineer something so artificial and unnatural. How about “our economic system should not keep people from having a fair chance to improve their quality of life”?
———————-
“revitalized global leadership through the just use of force; multi-lateral engagement; and the creation of new institutions and networks to deal with difficult problems.”
Let’s rearrange this so that “the just use of force” is the last option only after the others have failed.
I’m a progressive moderately liberal guy, but I don’t want to see our government get too involved in artificial social and economic engineering.
Here’s what I want to see my government do:
October 18th, 2006 at 11:21 amRaise the minimum wage, help folks get the health care they need, invest in developing alternative sustainable clean energy so we don’t need to plunder the globe, address global warming effectively, restore FEMA to what it was 10 years ago, engage in constructive dialogue with all of our neighbors on the planet - even the ones we don’t like, preserve our natural resources and fragile ecosystems, reform government so that it represents ALL of the people rather than just the highest bidders, reduce the national debt and institute “pay as you go”. That’s a start.
DrSinker
Sorry, I put myself across badly, I tend to see an unbalanced budget as being to a large extent wasting money (If you are not going to follow the budget why have one?)
What I am trying to say is that liberalism starts after the budget is balanced. Logically speaking being in favour of a balanced budget is neither liberal nor conservative, its just common sense.
What I was trying to get at is that being a liberal doesn’t just mean just saying “Lets spend a lot of money,” but using the money you have got as a tool to help solve the problem. Obviously the money should be managed to its best potential for solving the problem.
October 18th, 2006 at 11:28 amTheir definition stinks… it reeks of Republispeak. In my opninion, part of the problem does lie in the fact that the two “ruling” parties have become inextricably tied together, as an effort to garner votes and maintain control and power over the people, not as an effort to represent the people. They seem to think that if they each embrace the common “values” of each other’s party in some way -via “talking points” or “buzz word” issues- that they will likely receive votes from anyone sick of their own party affiliation’s representation. This is not good enough anymore - the towing the line mentality. The two party system of today is dead in the water - and needs to be revisited… only, the people in “charge” are not likely to go anywhere near that subject, as the existence of any true new well defined party would render these dinosaurs obsolete in the eyes of the voters.
The Democrats are looking more like tiny little Repubs in sheep’s clothing every day, and for good reason; they are alike, more resembling of each other as ruling parties/individuals, than any of them resemble the real people. They have ties to family money, old money, new money, Big Business, Big oil… None of them are even capable of understanding the common man, and God forbid, understanding a minority of any kind, at least from a socioeconomic standpoint. Because of that alone, they are unable to represent said people - from ANY point of view, but their own silver spoon experiences. It is a travesty.
Once you move beyond the socioeconmoic issues that are usually at the forefront of an election. they are truly lost. They have no ideas, no originality, NO creativity, and no understanding of history in this aspect (and that is killing both parties) and rely upon other talking heads to explain to them the issues of the people. They are too far beyond comprehension of the average man at this point to do a bit of good. In my opinion, this attempt at defining any progressivism in any way failed miserably. Here’s an idea - ask the damn people for a change - like TP is doing. After all, are they not “suppposed” to be representing us? Why not ask us to define this “strategy” - they are “working” for us… yet they conveniently ignore that fact fara too often.
This was an exercise in blowing wind… maybe it is the hot air from all these politicians bloviating that is adding to the global warming problems.
October 18th, 2006 at 11:29 am#21, are you surprised that politicians take money from lobbyists? It happens on both sides of the aisle with progressives and conservatives. Progressivism isn’t the issue here. Also, that article was only pointing at one party leader not scores of them.
October 18th, 2006 at 11:30 amIMO our political system, our economic system, and our schools are not broken. Our people are. If our citizens cared about and were committed to having the best government, the best economic system, and the best schools, we would. We would be willing to sacrifice individually for the greater good in all these systems. We would vote responsibly. We would pay and accept fair wages. We would work hard. We would pay taxes for schools and public projects willingly as our accepted obligation to make our present and future world better. We would support teachers and administrators of schools in policies and procedures. We would support protective stewardship of our land, our skies, our water, and our people of all stripes as resources and fellow travelers in life. To me, a progressive agenda is to inspire the American people to these ideals. Our systems would work well if these ideals were held by the majority of people operating in them.
October 18th, 2006 at 11:31 amTo me, it’s about recognizing that politics affects who lives and dies every single day. It’s about government looking at how much good it can do for how many of us in the most efficient way. It’s about bringing everyone out of poverty before it’s about safeguarding profit. It’s about Moses who said that healthy slaves make many bricks, sick ones make few, and dead ones none at all. Sure, it wasn’t quite “Let my people go,” but that came in time. It’s about recognizing that the people with power and money don’t need the government as much as the people without, so unless they are literally being impoverished, they should STFU and pay the damned taxes. Maybe that last part makes me a commie pinko liberal, but at least I’m not advocating buying more debt from China…
October 18th, 2006 at 11:35 amThe great segment of the American people are being CONNED…period!
…the Bush administration is successfully perpetrating the greatest ROBBERY in U.S. (and possibly human) history…
…we’re talking HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS on taxpayer dollars…
…Halliburton and Cheney aren’t some DUMB LUCK coincidence…
…the stock market is reaching record highs…
…but ordinary working class Americans are struggling mightily…
…the oil and gas, defense and other corporate pirates are posting RECORD profits…
…while many Americans are filing for bankruptcy, can’t take their children to hospitals when they’re sick or injured, or have to choose between medicine and food…
…Who’s to blame?
…’CON’NEDservatives’ who vote their prejudices, to spite their own economic self interests…
…pro-lifers who support mass murder in Iraq, and the death penalty regardless of how many innocents it kills…
…these are your family members, friends, officemates, classmates, associates, significant others, and acquaintences…
…The time has come to make ‘CONNED’servative’ a bad name…
October 18th, 2006 at 11:37 amSwitch your party affiliation to the Green Party and be a part of positive change in this country. Be progressive.
http://www.gp.org/
October 18th, 2006 at 11:41 amI agree,
I think conservatism should be a dirty word.
October 18th, 2006 at 11:42 amA good start at defining progressivism, in my opinion, lies in politicans recognizing the fact that prgressives do not embrace fascism… but I suppose most of them are unwilling or unable to recognize that which they have created in our own government. Ridding ourselves of Faascist tendencies, policies and practices is a start… defining the government, or re-defining the government, as for the people, by the people comes next. As far as all of the socioeconomic issues that MUST be changed for our country to viably move forward… geez that will take a bit of time for me to define anymore…
October 18th, 2006 at 11:47 amThis post really does an excellent job summing up a complicated issue into “talking points” that the sound bite media can understand. I congratulate the Center for American Progress for their excellent work. Now we need to get politicians to sign onto and promote this broad statement!
October 18th, 2006 at 11:51 amThere should not be one dime sent overseas as long as 1 child in the US is in poverty. Not one dime, as long as working families have to have multiple jobs just to keep a roof over their head and family fed. Not one dime sent overseas as long as 1 American does not have proper healthcare.
It’s called taking care of your own first.
This is all a moot point, because we have just seen the death of habeus corpus in this country, a evil bill that was voted for not just by republicans, but democrats who crossed the line to do this.
October 18th, 2006 at 11:54 amThese evil bills must be repealed or all is naught, because this evil president can stifle dissent by taking your rights away with no right to petition the court.
The core values of progressives are clearly spelled out in its American Tradition by thinkers like Emerson, Thoreau, and Lincoln. These are the writers who first inspire most young people and draw them to the liberal/progressive tradition.
Its too bad most have forgotten what they said. To these, self-reliance was really relying on yourself, and not making a lot of excuses about how you had it bad from start. Sefl-reliance means taking responsibility for yourself regardless of the realities of the capitalistic society. Emerson and Thoreau would have been saddened by failures suffered by individuals, but they would have recognized that it was up to the individual to create their own success. And yes, they knew some had it tough, that’s life. They knew that, as Jefferson said, the purpose of government is to secure the rights of the people. However, they also understood that people failed, usually because they didn’t even try.
Thoreau and Emerson would say: Make your own damn level playing field, don’t expect government to make you its slave through handouts and don’t let any political group make you its slave through platitudes and gloating about this or that scandal. They would remind us that we need to enter every debate with the assumption that we are the closed-minded and ignorant ones, and that comparing the commander-in-chief a nazi isn’t actually progress–or valid. They would remind us that when someone kills thousands in one of your capital cities they are monsters to be destroyed, not citizens or misunderstood criminals.
When the great new progressive leaders come forward with new ideas, and not the usual template of dependence, fear, supplication, and opposition, then I’ll return to the movement.
Go back to your roots, young progressives!
October 18th, 2006 at 11:55 amCommon good? What’s that?
October 18th, 2006 at 11:57 amTo me, “Progressivism” is a wonderfully sweet thought which in no way accounts for the individuality of people. Outcome based, progressivism does not make allowances for the natural strengths, weaknesses, dislikes, personalities, etc of PEOPLE.
“It’s about bringing everyone out of poverty…” is a WONDERFUL notion. And what about those people who do NOT want the responsibility of being a contributing member of your New World Order?? The ENTIRE premise completely ignores the humaness of humanity.
This point was driven home by a professor I had in college. I had written a paper advocating the confiscation of all real and personal property and the re-distribution of wealth to all US citizens. (Naturally, I felt REALLY kind and charitable about myself while I composed my economic treatise.) He noted that the equity I sought would never be achievable due to human frailities. I did give some thought to his prediction that should my scenario ever become reality - in three years the US would have once again be populated by multimillionaires, a middle class, the working poor and a dearth of homeless people.
You seek utopia and embrace the safeguards of bureaucracy - I prefer voluntary hands-on private charity on a community scale.
Have a Progressive Day!!
October 18th, 2006 at 12:00 pmChristopher Thomas
Do you really think the poor families who sent their kids to work in dangerous factories early in the Industrial Revolution didn’t “try”? They needed a government with the legal power to stand up to the capitalistic power of the corporations to assist in securing safety and fairness. “That’s life” is not the American ideal embodied in the “right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” or the duty to seek “the general welfare” as our Founding Fathers put forth. That’s not about “handouts”, its about equitable opportunity.
Have you got any quotes from Emerson or Thoreau that support how you so freely speak for them?
October 18th, 2006 at 12:10 pmThis is interesting, and a nice little distraction… BUT
I echo the concerns of so many others , in every comments section here… where is the online “media” info on losing Habeas Corpus?
Who is fighting for our Constitution? Anyone? When ? Where? How? This is, to me, the most important issue facing America today… If we ignore this and become complacent, we are screwed. Where is the outrage, where is the fight? Where are the damn lawyers, the legal experts? Who is now a defender of the Constitution?
October 18th, 2006 at 12:14 pmThe conservative side
October 18th, 2006 at 12:26 pmPost #29 hit the nail on the head — it will take more than just a policy statement or nice campaign slogan.
It will take a fundamental shift in our society and the ways in which we view the world before we can ever truly consider ourselves “progressive.” I state that because, as of right now, more people seem to care more about the next American Idol and Madonna’s baby than they do the loss of Habeus Corpus.
This doesn’t mean that everyone needs to be a policy wonk — it just means that a vast majority of people should actually care about what our elected leaders do. Right now, they don’t, and that’s the biggest issue of all.
Until this changes, most American will just see Dems and Repubs as opposite sides of the same coin.
October 18th, 2006 at 12:27 pmhttp://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=17602
October 18th, 2006 at 12:27 pmMA
You are setting up such a narrow dichotomy in your definition of “progressivism”. Where’s your proof that “progressivism” does not take into account individuality? YOU advocated a communist, utopia-based system in your college paper and, in a projecting manner, accuse modern progressives of doing so. On the contrary, progressives recognize that individuals ARE born into diverse situations on the basis of native intelligence, native emotional and physical health, social and economic opportunity. We also recognize that greed and selfishness are part of the equation in a “free” market system. We also recognize that those with power have not earned it as much as inherited it. We also recognize that those with power often use that power to unfairly subjugate and enslave others without power. Our progressive goals are not to coddle, redistribute wealth, or build bureacracy. It is to reduce the impact of circumstances outside a person’s control, so they have the opportunity to reach their own potential. Yes, some may choose not to use that opportunity and that falls on them. But denying that opportunity would fall on us.
October 18th, 2006 at 12:33 pmProgressive, to me, is moving forward, always looking for ways to better oneself, our are society…the old adage comes to mind: idle hands are the devils playground…if we sit still the country goes to shit, if we work together to ensure everyone can achieve a better life, we are movng forward, being Progressive
October 18th, 2006 at 12:35 pmI see it kind of like this;
A Progressive is bound by the truth, because if we lie, how do we know that we are right? A Progressive is not afraid of being wrong, only of being wrong, and going un-corrected.
It is the duty of citizens to correct their government when it is in error, to castigate it when it attempts to deceive them, and to fire those who continue in their error after it has been demonstrated. If the president wants to act like he is above criticism, then you need a new president.
Government should be transparent, and government officials, when acting in their capacities as such, should be constantly aware that if they act dishonestly it will come out and they will be fired and charged with any crimes relating to their dishonesty.
Government should not side with big business, unions, or the Church. Government should be neutral to all three and act as an arbitrator when one is needed. The Church should particularly be avoided as a part of government as its ability to organise against the government is a major and important part of what prevents the country being turned into a dictatorship.
Foreign nationals should be treat fairly, and not as second rate humans. It makes no difference if the person being tortured is a American or a African, it is a person and torture is wrong.
All countries, whether allied or non-allied have both the right to criticise and be criticised, this includes Israel. We reject the “Anti-Semite” label attributed to those who criticise Israel, much as though we might disagree with them.
Aid should be given, but only for a restricted amount of time. If after 2 years within ten of giving aid a country is not at a point where further aid is no longer needed it should be cut off, because of the risk of aid addiction.
Aid should be aid loans don’t count.
The law should be enforced, whoever breaks it. This is especially true of public servants, as they have been placed in a position of trust.
Confidentiality should not be used to save the government embarrassment, because if there is something that embarrassing that you don’t want the people to know, the people should know, by the same token however, what the president does on his own time, provided it in no way influences his work, is his own business.
All double standards should be dropped. If it was wrong when he did it too, it is wrong when you do it.
We will call it like we see it. If we think of you as an asshat we will call you one, if we think you are an idiot we will call you one, and if we think you are a liar then believe me, we will call you one. By the same token, we will not exagerate a evil, nor will we seek to demonise anyone for political gain.
We will oppose evil, and we will fight for what we think of as being good. We make no oppologies for this, it is what we think of as being the duty of every human being.
It is more important that we act with integrity then that our enemies do, because our behaviour reflects on ourselves. We must never resort to lies, dishonest trading, or acting like cowards in the face of opposition. In the face of an unjust war, we will oppose it. In the face of an unjust law, we will oppose it, and we will fight to the death not just for our own rights, but the rights of all human beings. We will not turn a blind eye just because our side did it.
We are bound not by these principles alone, but by who we are, and by the fact that though fallible, we strive to be more then we are now. We are bound not by a common cause of fear, but by one of truth, fairness and honour.
October 18th, 2006 at 12:36 pmFrom each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs
Karl Marx
October 18th, 2006 at 12:36 pm“>”to the victor belong the spoils.” William L. Marcy, 1831
October 18th, 2006 at 12:52 pmTry that one again:
October 18th, 2006 at 12:58 pm“to the victor belong the spoils.†William L. Marcy, 1831
That’s easy: Businesses have gone out of their way to make unions illegal, or to keep people from unionizing (see: Wal Mart).
October 18th, 2006 at 1:06 pmMA
Come on, conservatives engage in “social engineering” also - just have to consider the “marriage protection” movement for an example. I think an important goal of government IS social engineering - isn’t that what “protect the general welfare” is about? Isn’t that what regulated immigration is about? Isn’t that what laws do? The issue is what kind of social engineering - progressive, conservative, or otherwise.
A progressive tax code does not have “wealth redistribution” as a goal, although it may have some of that as an effect. It is based on the fact that those who make more, have more disposable income and can afford to support their society more. I also believe that those with more money have more benefits from society as a whole and, therefore, should pay for some more for them - airports, highways, museums come to mind.
I think I did discuss my progressive views on the REALITIES of human nature: empathy, greed, selfishness, responsibility. You just don’t agree.
I did NOT say that those with money inherited it, although many do. I said those with POWER often inherit, rather than strictly (a word I should have included) earned it. I include myself in this as I recognize that I inherited my masculinity, my whiteness, my intelligence, and my health all of which have been important factors in my success in this society and, therefore, power in my little world. To me, paying taxes at a higher rate is an obligation to balance my good fortune.
BTW, I appreciate the more civil, fact-based tone of your posts here today.
October 18th, 2006 at 1:20 pmDear Moses - I worked for the Amalgamated Clothing and Textile workers in college - they could have taught organized crime a thing or two. With Labour law and OSHA, the unions have outlived their necessary usefulness - they do manage to keep the incompetent employed and the motivated employee frustrated - but THAT benefits union employees. These are the folks who generally couldn’t get or keep a real job - so they dive into members wallets… In short, I suppose the growing union membership of government employees has NOTHING to do with the “make work” bureaucracies we are instituTing????
Back later….
October 18th, 2006 at 1:24 pmPLC - How is maintaining Marriage between opposite sex people “social engineering”?? (Social CONSERVE-atism, perhaps - but “social engineering”?? WEAK argument…) I think a few concepts are eluding you….
Back in afternoon…
October 18th, 2006 at 1:27 pmChristopher Thomas #37 - Your view reveals a misconception common among Americans. The idea of relying on government isself-reliance on a large scale. Our form of government, the republic, is supposed to be the citizens acting on their own behalf. You seem to have bought the Republican story that onlyl lazy good-for-nothings rely on government. What they don’t tell you is that they rely on government-granted monopoly privilege for their wealth. (J.P. Morgan was handed the underwriting credit power for the railroads; Ross Perot made his money on exclusive government contracts; U.S. Steel was given monopoly power….it goes on & on.) The idea that individuals can work out the problems of day to day living entirely on their own is preposterous and everybody knows it. It’s jsut a fable repeated by the rich to keep us cowed. To them, public action is bad because it threatens their power & place. It’s not bad for us. And that’s one of our biggest problems today, that the working and middle classes confuse their concerns with those of the rich.
Kat has it exactly right in #27:
Nader is right. The difference between the two parties is vanishingly small, although I truly believe that the Democrats would not have gotten us into this infernal mess in Iraq. But they’ve done it before (LBJ, 1965).
October 18th, 2006 at 1:37 pmMA–
I actually agree that, for the most part, unions have outlived their usefulness in most cases. And, yes, monkeys just flew out of my butt for actually agreeing with you on something. :-)
As far as the bureacracies we are creating, it’s actually the GOP that’s created them — they’ve expanded government in ways not seen since LBJ’s Great Society.
Oh, and keeping two consenting adults from marrying IS social engineering because you’re basically telling them that they are lesser people who don’t have the same rights as other adults.
Of course, I have yet to hear a single coherent argument about why same sex couple shouldn’t be allowed — if the “sanctity of marriage” is so important, then adultery should be a jailable offense and divorce outlawed. Seriously … those are much, much bigger issues, are they not?
October 18th, 2006 at 1:39 pm#57–
October 18th, 2006 at 1:41 pmActually, Kennedy got America started in VietNam — LBJ just made it worse.
MA
Social = relationship between two people
Engineering = defining, describing, creating, and maintaining
Limiting marriage to heterosexuals is defining a social relationship solely on the basis of a religious view point and engineering that definition through laws which are conserved by the majority.
Concepts elude whom? Give me ONE reason that government should control who marries whom.
October 18th, 2006 at 1:55 pmSorry about the double posts of 60 and 61 - Post 60 didn’t show up on my screen and I thought I did something wrong so, 13 minutes later I wrote a new version.
October 18th, 2006 at 2:04 pmTHE COMMON GOOD is why I am a Democrat-simple as that!
October 18th, 2006 at 2:36 pmRemember aWol mentioning a “Third Awakening”?
This post makes me think of him presiding over a “Second Gilded Age”
October 18th, 2006 at 2:50 pmChristopher thomas #37
…spoken like a true inheritor…
…of nepotist largesse…
…let me guess…
…you’re just an average al Cracker…
…whose grandfather, father, uncle or brother…
…got you on at the company they worked for…
…and you’ve been pulling yourself up by your bootstraps since…
…don’t bother coming back…
…you weren’t “progressive” to begin with…
…just another blind HYPOCRITE!
October 18th, 2006 at 2:58 pmI have read the Constitution.
That being said, someone please show me where I missed the part where it’s the reponsibility of the government to provide health insurance for everyone?
In fact, Insurance is probably what got us where we are now. Hospital costs are out of control, doctors all riding in cars that requires 5 years of my salary. WHY???? Because insurance companies pay such exhorbant amounts of money.
If that didn’t happen, costs would be reasonable, because the average every day working person like myself would HAVE to be able to pay it myself.
I have been out of work before, I have been laid off, and in between jobs, and at no time did I ever ask ANYONE to give me THEIR hard earned money, to pay my medical bills.
By the way, the same goes to colleges, AND oil companies. Want to make a statement, have everyone across the nation curtail their driving by 10%.
Oil prices would drop so fast, it would be jaw dropping.
Want to see college admissions pricing drop, same thing. We keep complaining about it, but don’t offer any solutions. I just offered 2. Cut driving by 10%, and have the government quit trying to cover medical bills for everyone. Oild will go down, and hospitals will have to start pricing things reasonably, or they go out of business.
October 18th, 2006 at 3:12 pm#60 - “Can you give me ONE reason for such control that is not based on religious views and that deserves to be “conservedâ€?”
Comment by PLC
*******(Just a suggestion - you may want to re-think the moniker - Patriotic Secular christian seems a bit more “on the mark”)
Dear PSC, Marriage is a social contract developed for the protection of women and children - period. (If no children reulted from the union, the wife was still afforded social and legal protections.) “Love and Marriage” were not generally intertwined until Shakespeare and Hallmark - this is not to disregard the Song of Solomon - but as you seem anxious to skip over those pesky Judeo-Christian ethics, I will abide by your “rule”. BTW, your admonition seems to confuse the terms matrimony and marriage - but we can discuss that later…
My argument: If two men or two women wish to set up housekeeping - that’s none of my business. If they are madly and passionately in love - that’s none of my business. If they wish to set up a Last Will and Testament to benefit their partner, that’s none of my business. If they wish to have a joint checking account - go ahead. If they want to visit each other in the hospital and fear a homophobic family member, take out a Living Will and get a restraining order.
When I study the anatomical case against gay “marriage” no amount of liberal wishing will make the puzzle pieces work. If LOVE and EQUALITY is the basis for the pro-gay marriage argument, polygamy and consensual incest should be legal and the age of consent revoked. The discrimination against polygamists and incest participants is widely recognized. (Maybe this is a new front for the Human Rights Campaign and Mike Rogers.)
Gay people should enjoy their lives like everyone else - but calling for an institutional revision to aid the quest for “normalcy” is above and beyond the call of reason. Why the need for acceptance and approval from strangers - if that is so lacking in someone’s life - get a pet or call your mom. Both appreciate you and love you all the time.
MOST interesting is your challenge to develop an argument NOT based on religion. I have recently noted the Left criticizes those who are for moral standards which many people have a difficult time adhering to. The answer of many opponents is get rid of societal morals and adopt “collective morals”. Because of human nature, I don’t believe in perfection. The reply of many Leftists appears to a number of conservatives to say “THROW OUT the standards - especially Judeo-Christian standards.” By lowering the bar of sexual and familial morality, nobody get’s their feelings hurt - and everyone can FEEL good about themselves….
October 18th, 2006 at 3:29 pmMighty,
Did God create gay people?
October 18th, 2006 at 3:37 pm#67 - “Mighty, Did God create gay people?” - Comment by big+papa
*******BP - Secular humanists know that a gay person’s parents created him/her. What is your point?
October 18th, 2006 at 3:44 pmcompassionate conservatism is about people who think they are the “choosen ones” and are better than all the “rif raf” giving hand outs to everyone else when they fill like it.
That is aristocracy not Americanism.
Our society should be an engine that makes it as easy as possible for everyone to make their own way on top of a solid infrastructure that is available to all. Its applying efficiency to capitalism… the ultimate triumph and proof of concept over communism.
October 18th, 2006 at 3:54 pmmighty+aphrodite
Leaving aside the Religion=morality BS which was disproved over millenia of slave-trading, murder and rape when being an atheist was a death penalty offense…
I am an atheist. I don’t believe in your god, I think of it as being akin to believing in Santa Clause, only with less reason, if your laws, are based on your religion, why the hell should I, morally speaking, obey them?
Further, marriage has tax implications as well as implications when partners split up, now why should a gay person not be able to conclude the same sort of contract as a atheist straight person?
Gay sex isn’t illegal, like say, underage sex. To argue that marriage is purely for procreation would mean stripping infertile couples of their right to marry, and religion has long since been thrown out by the fact that atheists can get married.
Marriage has tax implications, includes provisions to protect the spouse should one decide to be the “housewife” and it generally contains various provisions assuring both partners will support each other and won’t sleep around, which really is the reason why I don’t understand your opposition. I distinctly remember someone talking about gays and “Whorish Behaviour” at a point, marriage might just help that problem.
October 18th, 2006 at 3:56 pm#70 - “….Religion=morality BS which was disproved over millenia of slave-trading, murder and rape when being an atheist was a death penalty offense…” Bruce Gorton
**********Dear Bruce - You are making the CLASSIC atheist mistake - don’t confuse God with religion. Religion is a set of rules people choose to live by. I’m surprised you haven’t made the leap in your study of religious institutions past the mid-19th century….but I have confidence you’ll get there. In time you may come to see the evolution of modern religious institutions and their condemnation of slavery, rape, murder and religious inquisition.
“I am an atheist.”****Congratulations! “I don’t believe in your god,…” ***AS is YOUR right! “I think of it as being akin to believing in Santa Clause, only with less reason, if your laws, are based on your religion, why the hell should I, morally speaking, obey them?”****I feel badly breaking this part to you, Bruce but many points of contemporary law are based on Judeo Christian ethics - even in South Africa…
So let me see - You’re looking for more of a tax break for gay people? Let’s reduce the tax rates for everyone and everyone will benefit!! Splitting gay couples can draw up a dissolution contract and it would be enforceable in the same way a pre-nup is legal if both parties are well-informed.
Do you think the monogamy rates for homosexual men and heterosexual men is the same. If so, you would be mistaken. (Studies show lesbians to be much more faithful than gay men.) You might benefit from picking up Randy Shilts book, “And the Band Played On” , which explains the San Francisco gay communitites opposition to closing down public “bath” houses at the beginning of the AIDS crisis.
So Bruce, I ‘m delighted we live in an age where you are free to be an atheist. To paraphrase my favourite former-atheist mathematician, Descartes ” For your sake, I hope you are right…”
October 18th, 2006 at 4:24 pmActually, doctors charge exhorbitant amounts and insurance companies do whatever they can to pay as little as possible. I know because I spent two years working for an insurance company and having a family member in the medical community for more than 40 years.
Insurance companies have huge issues, but let’s not absolve the Docs of all blame.
As far as the rest of your argument — providing basic health care for citizens is a moral issue, as well as a national security issue.
I don’t have time to delve into specifics (gotta meeting in 10 minutes) but, by using basic reasoning skills, I think we can all figure out why.
October 18th, 2006 at 4:32 pmYou prove with that comment (as well as the rest of your post) that you don’t get it.
It isn’t about acceptance — it’s about the thousand or so rights no Will, living trust, or power of attorney can provide that a marriage does.
The rest of your post is damn near the exact same arguments made against interracial marriage. I’m NOT calling you a racist — just stating the fact that the same issues were raised then, and all were proven false.
October 18th, 2006 at 4:37 pm#73 - “…It isn’t about acceptance — it’s about the thousand or so rights no Will, living trust, or power of attorney can provide that a marriage does.” Comment by Unholy Moses
********Dear Moses - I’m fascinated - please enumerate some of the thousand or so rights denied to homosexuals if they were not able to participate in government sanctioned marriages.
Why the comparison with anti-interracial marriage laws if not to infer racism or “homophobia”? My argument is “puzzle-pieces” not the colour of epidermis. (To underscore this: a blind person would be hard pressed to distinguish the skin-colour of different people, but tactile exploration would determine gender differences.)
Nice try….
October 18th, 2006 at 5:01 pmmighty+aphrodite
First off, just speaking from South African tax law, the major benefit to getting married is if you die you can leave everything to your spouse and not pay estate duties. I am not sure of America’s tax law but I am guessing there are some things it shares in common.
Second: It was only after your religions got told to shut the hell up, that slavery ended.
As to South African Law being based on your religion? Total bullshit. Point blank bullshit.
Read the Ten Commandments sometime. Only three of them are legally enforceable, the rest are either illegal (The first fails on constitutional grounds for example) or just plain not legislated.
There is nothing in religious law against pedophilia. Religious law in fact supports slavery, it supports killing intellectuals and members of other religions (Think about what a sorceror or a witch was back then) and it does not recognise women as being equal to men. If you are Jewish and male you wake up every day and pray to god to thank him for not making you female, and for the most part of all of the religious groups the Jews are the most moral.
A contract of sale under religious law only lasts for a maximum of 49 years. After 7 years you are supposed to forgive all debts, as a South African I can assure you that is not happening any time soon.
Indeed, in South African Law, we have something which I am sure you are familiar with, we have traditional marriage, what does this mean Aphro? It means *gasp* polygamy is legal here. So much for South Africa having its laws based on your religion.
Now as to religion post the 19th century: Same hysteria. You had generally a strong movement against every new form of music out, virtual slavery in the Irish nunneries, and pedophillia in the Catholic Church’s ranks. This is not even mentioning the various frauds committed by the luminaries of the the religious right, the Evangelical Preachers.
Judaism has avoided a lot of these scandals basically because the Jews had the sense to not have priests. A Jewish Rabbi is more in the lines of a teacher then a intercessor, and thus just does not have that same level of authority a priest has. Further, at least a orthodox Jew has to read the bloody book.
That said, I still remember Regal Bank, and how they made a big deal about being trustworthy because they were Jewish.
In South Africa guess what the Church supported? Apartheid. You see the Nationalist Party was strongly religious, and look at what it got us. The KKK? Another strongly religious group that was into blowing people up.
Middle East? Strongly religous there. Look at how they act though, women get stoned to death in front of roaring crowds, children are used as the first line of attack. That’s not morality I don’t care what you claim.
If you want a strong moral core, look at atheists. Sure communism was bad business, but at least we don’t go around claiming to be doing it in the name of god, and when we do something nice for somebody? We don’t expect a eternal reward for it.
Now do you know why I obey the law? It is because I can see the sense to it, society wouldn’t work without these laws. The law should be a minimum standard by which society works, it should follow from the idea that one person’s rights only extend so far as another person’s rights. A totally non-religious concept (Where the law is the law because god said so.)
So far as I can see gay people getting married does not infringe on anybody else’s rights, so, why ban it? Logically speaking what effect would gay people having the same right to get married as you do, make a difference to anybody?
October 18th, 2006 at 5:12 pmMA–
Check out this link to see all the rights marrige confers on couples.
And I stressed that I didn’t think you were a racist. I said nothing about you not being a bigot. Your “puzzle pieces” argument is silly on a number of levels. Are you against oral and/or anal sex for heterosexuals? I ask because, quite frankly, there’s nothing that gay couple can do that straight ones can’t.
October 18th, 2006 at 5:32 pmBasic health care. . .
Who decides what’s basic? Should the single dad, raising 2 daughter’s and who pays all their medical expenses himself, be made to pay for someone elses medical expenses? Even if he can barely make the rest of his bills?
What about the single mom, whose husband has run away, and she is trying to raise the childrend, and do right by them, working 2 jobs, and paying for everything herself? How much of HER money do you want to take out of the mouths of her children, to provide for someone else.
Let’s face it. The only money the government has, is the money they get from us. So now what, do we start taxing people that has money more than the people who make less money? This is what Karl Marx suggested. It takes the burden and unfairly provides that some people have to pay more than others. Another thing I feel is unfair, because in some respects, it rewards failure, and taxes succes.
BTW, the idea that it is the responsibility of government to provide medical care for all it’s citizens in the one that Karl Marx provided as the base for Communism.
October 18th, 2006 at 5:41 pmDouglas.G
If you have public health care the single dad, raising 2 daughters will have help from the goverment to pay for all of their medical expenses. By the same token he will help other people pay for theirs, it is more a matter of everyone helping everyone, which works out cheaper because you don’t get hit with 1 crisis and you are broke, but rather everything averages out. Its, sort of like insurance but everybody pitches in.
What she loses on taxes, which judging by her situation may well be negligable if she even makes the bottom tax bracket, she gains on the fact that her or her children getting sick is not instant bankruptcy. Her kids won’t die because she can’t afford the medication.
With tax: The idea is not to impoverish anyone, it is to raise enough taxes to cover services without impoverishing anyone. A flat tax fails on the basis of the fact that if you take a flat tax from everyone you have to charge more from the guys right at the bottom of the economic rung to make it break even. With charging the rich more, you can charge the guys at the bottom who would feel it more, less, thereby avoiding having anyone hit the poverty line.
It sounds unfair right up until you recognise what poverty means for the very rich: It means having to pay for security guards, having to worry about getting mugged, and having to worry about getting hijacked. People take much bigger risks when starvation is at stake, and the rich make very attractive targets.
October 18th, 2006 at 6:10 pmBig Papa–
Cool poem, man.
Read my post, I’ll be the first to admit I may be blinded, that’s why I’m here reading.
I’m a teacher, and no, I don’t think I’m the best one that ever lived. My dad started his own business cleaning offices and never got rich. But he didn’t depend on others.
Why do you feel the need to insult me? Is that a great part of your progressive ideal? I thought progressives were the “good” people–open minded and willing to engage in debate.
As far as helping other people goes, this ideal is best left to the private sector. Most of the good done here in Milwaukee is done by community groups and individuals. They know the people and the problems, government institutions know how to secure their wages and cling to power. Government should empower people willing to help by giving them money and staying out of their way.
By the way, I loved “al Cracker”–that was a great one!
October 18th, 2006 at 6:19 pmChristopher+Thomas
You know, you have probably gotten government help without even realising it. A loan for university, or a higher salary because yonks ago there was a teachers union that lobbied for it, that sort of thing. Heck if you are a teacher unless you work for a private school, you are getting paid to help people’s kids and that is a kind of welfare.
A lot of the protections brought by liberals are so ingrained in America that you probably don’t even think about them. It is the sort of stuff you take for granted, but it is there.
With public welfare, the system is there to catch people when they fall. Most of the time it is not intended to be a permanent state people find themselves in, but rather a means of giving people the ability to get up and get on with living. Private welfare is good, but it does not have the same power as public welfare, and in the event of another Great Depression, public welfare means at least there will be the infrastructure available to deal with it.
It is not something which comprises as big a percentage of America’s budget, it is something which you actually need (A lot of money was wasted in the New Deal because the system was new then, it has been slowly tightened since) and it is something which most people don’t pay any attention to. Realise before public welfare, even before the Great Depression, there was starvation in America. Now there is obesity.
October 18th, 2006 at 6:40 pmBruce+Gorton,
you said “If you are Jewish and male you wake up every day and pray to god to thank him for not making you female”
That is SO untrue that it makes me sick that someone could even say that.
It is in fact, the man’s primary duty, to protect the woman, is so written into every law judaism has that it’s almost ingrained now.
In fact jewish law is so supportive of women, that even in marriage, the FIRST thing that is done, is provide for the women in the event the man leaves the marriage or something happens to him. It’s imperitive that women and children are taken care of in the jewish religion.
October 18th, 2006 at 6:44 pmChristopher Thomas #79
…you’re parroting ‘CON’servative talking points…
…if you’re a teacher and don’t believe your father at one time or another…
…had someone (either in his family or government) help him…
…then your parents wasted their money on your (supposed) education…
…understand this Chris…
…white privilege created not only upper and middle classes…
…it created an underclass…
…Jim Crow was not so long ago…
…and all one needs do is pay attention to the senate races in Virginia and Tennessee…
…to see that it ain’t gone at all…
…I don’t feel a need to insult you (personally)…
…just your selfish ideology…
…you know the one…
…”I’ve got mine…
…to hell with everybody else”…
October 18th, 2006 at 7:34 pmBottom line - none of your inane platitudes about Progressivism mean shit when BushCo just demolished the bill of rights.
Let me know when “Progressives” wake the hell up.
October 18th, 2006 at 8:24 pmThe dirty little secret of Bush’s “ownership society” is that the very rich own (or soon will own) all the rest of us. (And thanks to his Torture Bill, we’re not even supposed to talk about it for fear of being labeled “enemy combatants”!)
The Old South had an “ownership society” too. They were a lot more honest about it and called it what it was: SLAVERY.
October 18th, 2006 at 9:15 pmDouglas.G
Before you accuse me of lying, read the Talmud.
Specifically Kodashim Menahoth 43b-44a.
In it is specifically states a Jewish guy has to thank god every day for not being born a heathen, a woman, or a slave.
October 19th, 2006 at 7:54 amOh, and Douglas.G, if you have any honour at all, I expect you to appologise.
October 19th, 2006 at 9:15 amBruce Gorton–
A good point about the loan. I did get one and paid it off. But a loan is not a hand-out. Because I had to pay the money back, I knew I had to make the most of school. Paying it off helped me establish a credit rating and the interest made sure there was a little more in the kitty for the next person who wanted a loan. The point is, yes I got help, but there were strings and I was expected to help myself.
The point about education is also good. As a sociecty we do have that responsibility, but students also have a responsibility there too. At my school we reach out to students in every possible way, but some flat out refuse to try. Where does our responsibility end? Some students choose to ignore the opportunity even when people tell them over and over how important school is because they believe someone is always going to pick up the bill. Its a tough problem.
I guess I’m just a little cynical about the power of a distant central government to really affect changes for individuals on a local level. True also, the economy is great right now, and there may be another depression down the road, but national crisis aside, it is local people NGO’s who do the best work. People can rebulid pride once they’ve fallen if they accomplish something–like repay a loan.
I just think that a progressive government would really bring about the thousand points of light by empowering local helpers. I know Big Papa will rag on this, saying I’m some stupid republican elitist robot, but wasn’t this thousand points of light business a liberal/progressive idea to begin with?
Consider the recent award of the Nobel prize to the Indian Billionaire who gave micro-loans to poor people to start businesses. There is a true win-win situation and the best recent example of “progressive” values in action.
Thanks.
October 19th, 2006 at 10:44 amYo Chris #87
…how many Indian billionaires do you know giving out “micro-loans”…
…in South Central L.A., Chicago, New Orleans, Brownsville (NYC), Philadelphia, Houston, Detroit, etc.? …
…and imagine a world where that student loan hadn’t been there for YOU…
October 19th, 2006 at 11:15 amYo, Big Papa:
The example of the Indian Nobel Laureate is truely a rare example, but not unique.
Why don’t you explain why all the billions dumped into the areas you cite hasn’t made any substantial difference. Oh, wait–it must be elitist, whitey, crackers like me, right.
And if all that money has done so little good, doesn’t common sense indicate that something different needs to be done. Maybe the problem is that government isn’t the solution. Like I said before, give the money to local groups–church groups, civic groups, etc…. Give the money directly to them so it isn’t skimmed by every level of government or held hostage to foolish politicians.
The progressive philosophy should be to empower the local people who have already made the commitment to do the work. Those local people should ensure that the people they help have something at stake too. Its about dignity.
Or am I too much of a “cracker” to understand dignity?
And in a world where no loans were available to me I would have worked longer and harder to get my “so called” education. Don’t tell me that anyone couldn’t have done the same.
October 19th, 2006 at 2:31 pmChristopher+Thomas
The money dropped into those sites, while under what was at least a mediocre Goverment did one heck of a lot of good. Don’t make the mistake of thinking that just because the Republicans can’t run their way out of a paper bag that that is the normal state of affairs.
Goverment needs competence as well as money, and that is a big part of Progressive idealogy. If the money is competently managed, and you don’t have instances like those that have been revealed about the Republicans (For example, only Republican contractors getting contracts, pork-barrel projects which don’t do anyone any good, that sort of thing) federal funding can do a massive amount of good.
October 19th, 2006 at 2:50 pmBruce Gorton:
My point is not that republicans can do a better job; my point is that competence already exists in the public sector. And in as much as these programs are necessary, why not rely more on private institutions. Why not run by all these politicians and bureaucrats to the people who could put more money on the street. Efficiency is the issue just as much as competence.
There are plenty of hacks on both sides of the coin.
Look, I’m sure that the social programs created during the previous century served their purpose. They kept people struggling by, but not getting ahead. Politicains could make their campaigns by toying with these “benefits”, making people happy or afraid, but mostly dependent. Why not try something new? Can’t we find a new model? What is the progressive movement if it is not going to offer a new way? I’m willing to listen, but a new ratio for distribution and another round of blame the rich–or envy them–is nothing any of us hasn’t seen before.
And if progressives will not offer anything really new, why not just be a democrat or republican. Take your pick, because nothing will change.
So, Bruce, what new idea would you bring to the table?
October 19th, 2006 at 6:12 pmTranscript (Rough) of President Clinton’s Speech:
Securing the Common Good: A Vision for America and the World
President William J. Clinton
Center For American Progress
Georgetown University, Washington, DC
October 18, 2006
I have been asked to talk today about the common good in terms of how if affected my presidency. Therefore I will not, unless with questions, arrive at spending an enormous amount of time talking about the way forward — although I have views on all that.
You have heard that I came here nearly 15 years ago to deliver a series of speeches outlining my philosophy of government and the ideas that I propose to pursue if I got elected. When I gave the first speech I believe I was still running fifth in the polls in the Democratic primary in New Hampshire – so it was probably an act of hubris that I felt good here. I first came to this hall 42 years ago, and I have come many times since. I love it very much.
In the context of late 1991, I defined the common good as a new covenant for equal opportunity, shared responsibility, and inclusive community — and an aggressive approach to try to create those values throughout the world at the end of the Cold War. It is what I thought America should do to advance the common good. It is just a restatement of what our Founders pledged their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor to — to form a more perfect union.
Given the nature of the political debate today, I think that it is important to point out that 18th century construct in 21st century language meant the following: We are not perfect, we never will be perfect, no one has the whole truth — but we can always do better. That is what a more perfect union meant. It is a permanent mission for America designed to make America a permanent work-in-progress.
Now as Jack and John has said, I try to do that work as a private citizen through the foundation’s work here in American and around the world – on AIDS, on climate change, on economic development – and through the Clinton Global Initiative. But I know that politics still matters. And I believe that ideas matter. I love the four years that I spent here at Georgetown. When I wrote my memoirs, my editor made me take out several pages that I had written about Georgetown: no one will believe that you remembered every professor and all these lectures and that you saved all your papers! No one will believe this! You’ve got to take some of this out. I say that for all of you who are students here to say that this was a seminal experience in my life coming here. The professors that I had then affected me in ways that continue in my life today. And the most important point that I can make about that for the purposes of my remarks today is that I really believed — more strongly when I left here than when I came — that ideas matter, that evidence matters, that thinking and reasoning matter, that ideas have consequences, and that in politics that means that ideas lead to policies which have positive or negative effects in people’s lives. I believe that then, I believe that now. I believe that then based on my experiences that I had here, that not everyone who disagreed with me was my enemy. That I might be wrong. That as forcefully as I pursued anything that I believed in, and in any argument that I embraced, I had to always be able to listen to others. And that in the interplay — the dialectic — between my position and another the searching for more facts, the searching for better arguments, and frankly just facing the evidence of what did or didn’t work — and what the consequences of those various courses were –- that I would come to a better place as a public official. I believe that then. I believe that now.
You heard in [Georgetown] President DeGioia’s remarks (I wonder how many college presidents would even quote Latin anymore, I love it) the same conviction. When I give these Georgetown speeches, they allowed me to set up this construct of equal opportunity, shared responsibilities, inclusive community — an aggressive approach to engagement with the rest of the world. I thought that they were consistent with the traditional American values of work and family, freedom and responsibility, faith and tolerance. That as a Democrat I was being faithful to Andrew Jackson’s credo of “opportunity for all and special privileges for none,†to President Kennedy’s call for mutual responsibility and citizen service, and to Franklin Roosevelt’s commitment to continuous innovation — to bold, persistent, experimentation. I also ask that there and throughout the 1992 campaign for a political debate that engaged these themes. That moved away from what I thought was an unacceptable level of partisanship and rancor — and a tendency to let elections turn on issues that had nothing to do with the decision that leaders would make after the election was over, or the consequences on the ordinary people’s lives –- the politics of division and personal destruction.
I frequently cited in that year a book that was written that has special relevance today (even though 15 years is a lifetime ago), and I swear this was in my notes before I saw him in the audience, but EJ Dionne, the distinguished columnist for the Washington Post wrote a book called Why Americans Hate Politics. And the central thesis was that Americans hate politics because it seemed irrelevant to them and they feel like they are being manipulated because of always being asked to make false choices: you are either pro-labor or pro-business; pro-growth or pro-environment; either for a strong national defense or for trying to make an agreement with everybody no matter how crazy they are. That there is always an either-or choice, and the truth is most of us don’t think that way, and most of us don’t live out lives that way, and most of us long for a politics where we have genuine arguments, vigorous disagreements, but we don’t claim to have the whole truth, and we don’t demonize our opponents, and we really try to work on what works for the American people.
Everybody knows this, down deep in their gut. That is why I have gotten such a strong response for the work that I have done with former President Bush since I left office on the tsunami, on Katrina, and with former Senator Dole, my opponent in 1996, who raised $100 million to guarantee a college education to the spouses and children of the people killed or disabled on 9/11. It is not that we want a bland, mushy, meaningless politics — we like our debates; the country has been well-served by its progressive and by its conservative traditions. We understand that campaigns will be heated and only one side can win. But we want it to be connected somehow to the real lives of real people — to the aspirations of ordinary Americans, to the future of our children and grandchildren.
Now, this sort of politics — striving for the common good — for me, stands in stark contrast to both the political and governing philosophy of the leadership of Washington today, and for the last six years. The more ideological right-wing element of the Republican Party has been building strength partly in reaction to things that happened forty years ago — Barry Goldwater’s defeat, what they saw as the excesses of the 1960’s — it got a lot of legs when President Reagan was elected — but this is the first time when on a consistent basis, the most conservative, most ideological wing of the Republican Party has had both the executive and legislative branch with a very distinct governing philosophy and a very distinct political philosophy. Whereas us ‘common good’ folks favor equal opportunity and empowerment, they believe the country is best served by the maximum concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the right people – “right†in both senses.
We believe in mutual responsibility; they believe that in large measure, people make or break their own lives and you are on your own. We believe in striving at least to cooperate with others because we think that there are very few problems in the world that we can solve on our own. They favor unilateralism whenever possible and cooperation when it unavoidable. And you may think that is laughable, but even today in the press there is a story about the administration’s new policy on national security in space which points out that 160 nations are asked to vote to begin negotiations — not to prejudge the outcome but just begin negotiations — on making outer space weapons free — and the vote was 159 to 1 to do it. We were the only country that didn’t do it.
I will give you another example which has given us a lot of problems, which I almost never read about in the press. There is legitimate concern about the North Korean nuclear tests, about what Iran’s nuclear ambitions are; we knew that these problems have easy solutions now; but our position has been weakened because for at least half of the last six years the administration has asked for funds to research the development of two new nuclear weapons. One a nuclear bunker buster (even through we have a conventional bunker buster that is quite powerfu), and two, a so-called tactical battlefield nuclear weapon which the administration admits had it been deployed in the Iraq conflict would have taken out 25% of Baghdad. So there is this sense that the world is divided between the good guys and the bad guys: the good guys should have their nuclear weapons and the bad guys shouldn’t. We may not all feel that way but it is a very hard argument to make.
I had an eighth grade science teacher who was one of the most fearfully unattractive people I have ever met in my life. He had thick coke-bottle glasses, and he smoked cheap cigars in a cigar holder that caused his mouth to pinch, and he had been a football coach and became a science teacher — and he gained a little a weight after he turned to science and he still wore the same clothes. Let me tell you why I said this. One day in class he said to us (I was thirteen at the time, forty-seven years ago): you won’t remember anything about science in a few years. So if you don’t learn anything else in class that I teach you, remember this — every day I get up and I go to my bathroom and I wash my face, throw water in my eyes, shave, and as I wash the shaving cream off, look in the mirror and say Vernon, you’re beautiful. [laughter] And by the end of the year he was beautiful to me. I say that to remind you that it is very hard to succeed in politics when you are telling people that they are ugly all the time. You have to oppose people who are doing things that are wrong. But it is very hard to say that there will be one set of rules for me, and another set for everyone else. I think that the common good approach on national security works! It is a combination of carrots and sticks. We did have military encounters; we didn’t succeed at everything we tried to do but I think on balance the world is safer when we stopped than when we started.
Now, the same thing works in politics. I think that the central challenge to American politics today is that what I would call the “uncommon good†approach has been so successful. It may not be in three weeks but it has been. Us common good folks, we believe in a politics dominated by evidence and argument. There is a big difference between a philosophy and an ideology — on the right or the left. If you have a philosophy, it generally pushes you in certain direction or another; but like all philosophers, you want to engage in discussion and argument. You are open to evidence, to new learning; and you are certainly open to debate the practical applications of your philosophy. Therefore you might wind up making a principled agreement with someone with a different philosophy. If you look at the welfare reform legislation which passed, for example, when I was president, I vetoed the first two bills bec