The official progressive agenda thread

[Domingo Halliburton]

promise a bunch of things we can't pay for isn't that the progressive agenda?

if you don't give a shyt about deficit reduction why do you want to raise taxes?

 

[acri1]

Like other people have said, the biggest issue is campaign finance reform.

In the current system, the rich just flat out have more power over politicians than everybody else and thus almost always get their way.

I also think people need to stop being afraid of FOX News.

 

[No1]

BTW, I'll just leave this excerpt from Slate here:

The professional left doesn’t know how to win. Scheiber quotes the co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, who says Clinton’s support from the financial industry could hurt her and “there’s very much a wait-and-see approach to Hillary among progressives.” And the PCCC should know, having co-branded itself with Warren with all the subtlety of a NASCAR driver showing off a new endorsement badge. The PCCC regularly asks supporters to stand with Warren on her new bank regulations; it sent members the senator’s response to the last State of the Union under the headline “Elizabeth Warren SOTU Awesomeness.”

The PCCC also endorses progressives against Democratic establishment candidates—and here, it doesn’t do so well. In the 2012 House race cycle, the PCCC endorsed against California’s Scott Peters, Connecticut’s Elizabeth Esty, and Illinois’ Brad Schneider. All of those Democrats won their primaries. This year the PCCC tried and failed to draft Montana’s former Gov. Brian Schweitzer into a Senate race, then endorsed a candidate for an open seat in Warren’s own Massachusetts. The PCCC’s candidate came in third place. * And Emily’s List is now holding events in primary states, letting reporters know that it will repeat its 2008 endorsement if Hillary Clinton runs.

The point isn’t just that Hillary Clinton is the Democratic front-runner. No one doubts that; everyone’s a little bored by that. The point is that it’s risky, weak strategy to make a presidential primary the test kitchen for policy change. Conservatives learned this brutally in 1972 when they urged Ohio Rep. John Ashbrook to run against Richard Nixon. “What I fear is a dissipation of our strength,” wrote William F. Buckley to a friend. He was perceptive: Ashbrook won a wan 9.7 percent of the New Hampshire vote, and Nixon was emboldened to ignore the right.

Over time, conservatives stopped expecting a president to get elected, lead, and solve all their problems. They built a grassroots machine and a litany of policy goals—the activists would speak, and the president would nod along. By 2012, Grover Norquistcould tell a national conference that the next Republican president need only come to the job “with enough working digits to handle a pen.” That’s where progressives need to get, that un-glamorous and under-covered triumph of movement over party. Maybe, like Ron Paul, they can use a campaign to build the ranks. But if the Obama experience hasn’t taught them that a dreamy presidential candidate won’t bring about paradise, what will?

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

BTW, I'll just leave this excerpt from Slate here:

You should've left that bullshyt article in your paste queue.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Like other people have said, the biggest issue is campaign finance reform.

In the current system, the rich just flat out have more power over politicians than everybody else and thus almost always get their way.

I also think people need to stop being afraid of FOX News.

So how do we get real, effective campaign finance reform?

 

[acri1]

So how do we get real, effective campaign finance reform?

It's hard to say exactly, but the idea is popular enough that it should easily be doable.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/163208/half-support-publicly-financed-federal-campaigns.aspx

Half in U.S. Support Publicly Financed Federal Campaigns
Vast majority supports limiting campaign spending and contributions
by Lydia Saad
PRINCETON, NJ -- Half of Americans say they would personally vote for a law that establishes government funding of federal campaigns, while 44% would vote against it.

The poll was conducted June 15-16, just days before the New York State Senate narrowly defeated a comprehensive campaign reform bill for that state that would have included public financing of campaigns. Most key subgroups of Americans express fairly tepid support for this type of reform proposal. But Democrats, Easterners, and Midwesterners offer somewhat higher support; roughly six in 10 among these groups say they would vote for it. Among their counterparts, support drops below half. The only groups expressing majority opposition are those living in the South and Republicans.

Americans Would Limit Campaign Fundraising

Americans are much more likely to support limiting the amount of money that U.S. House and Senate candidates can raise and spend for their campaigns. Nearly eight in 10 say they would vote for such a limit, whereas 19% would oppose it.

This proposal is also far less controversial, with close to 80% of nearly every major demographic and political group favoring it.

Bottom Line

Campaign finance reform is an area of public policy seemingly plagued by the law of unintended consequences. Case in point: While the 2002 McCain-Feingold law was supposed to put an end to the influence of big money in politics, eager donors turned to independent expenditures financed through Super PACs as a way to conduct unlimited political advertising. And given the legal protection these received as "free speech" in the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision, there is more money than ever flowing into politics.

Over the years, Gallup has consistently found Americans dissatisfied with the way campaigns are financed, but not especially eager for Congress to make addressing it a high priority. Similarly, while Americans have supported a whole host of campaign reform proposals involving enhanced disclosure and caps on what candidates can raise and spend, they have shown more reluctance toward footing the bill through federal financing. That was clearly the case in 2007, when 57% called public financing "unacceptable." There may be less objection today, with fewer than half, 44%, now saying they would vote "no" if given the chance to vote on implementing a public financing system, and public confidence in Congress historically low. Nevertheless, it remains to be seen how hard Americans will press Congress to enact such a major reform.

And keep in mind, the idea of publicly financed campaigns is much more hardcore than anything actually passed around in Congress these days.

My best suggestion is to make it into a high priority issue, as in, "If you don't support campaign finance reform, you're getting primaried". And I guess that would have to start with convincing people of how important the idea is. But the support for it is there, it's just a matter of finding politicians who will actually try to do something about it. That said, if people have other ideas I'm all for it.

 

[No1]

You should've left that bullshyt article in your paste queue.

. Have you even read that article

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

. Have you even read that article

Every syllable.

 

[Type Username Here]

If you're a libertarian or a centrist just leave the fukking thread. Go make your Ron Paul or Cory Booker worship threads. Leave your propaganda articles somewhere else.

 

[No1]

Every syllable.

So then support your opinion... I personally don't agree with the Nixon example, but that hardly discredits the overall point of the article (which that excerpt doesn't even encompass).

 

[2Quik4UHoes]

I ain't read through the thread before replying mind you, but this remind me of a time I called in and talked about this on the community radio show in DC about 2 years ago and next morning had PG squad cars by my mailbox just chillin I put that shyt on my grandpa soul shyt had me like

Anyway, I think the only way to progressive politics is by creating a party which caters to it. I think a legitimate 3rd party helps causes majorly(call it the PPP or Progressive People's Party), but the thing is that something like that would have to have a major backing and following from the people. I was kinda hoping Occupy would figure it out and try to graduate into a serious political movement instead of a bunch of people camping. Representative Democracy for the most part is still functioning but the problem is that the system, and many other systems, are controlled to only serve an opulent minority. So that's why I think a progressive party would have to be born on some grassroots shyt that gets the people involved and is on an honest mission to rectify the situation in Washington. I don't know if that's too idealist, admittedly my political knowledge isn't at a level where I'd feel comfortable to expand on this thought. I don't think something like this is impossible, but if it happened I think shyt could be explosive cuz for some that'd look something like the beginning of a coup on behalf of the majority's interests.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

It's hard to say exactly, but the idea is popular enough that it should easily be doable.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/163208/half-support-publicly-financed-federal-campaigns.aspx



And keep in mind, the idea of publicly financed campaigns is much more hardcore than anything actually passed around in Congress these days.

My best suggestion is to make it into a high priority issue, as in, "If you don't support campaign finance reform, you're getting primaried". And I guess that would have to start with convincing people of how important the idea is. But the support for it is there, it's just a matter of finding politicians who will actually try to do something about it. That said, if people have other ideas I'm all for it.

Easily doable? Not only are you asking people to forego potential lucrative careers as lobbyists or positions in industries they gave kickbacks to while they were in office, but you're asking them to bite the hand that feeds them while they're running, and campaigns cost money. Campaign finance reform is the ultimate example of how the will of the people doesn't translate into desired legislative outcomes.

 

[acri1]

I ain't read through the thread before replying mind you, but this remind me of a time I called in and talked about this on the community radio show in DC about 2 years ago and next morning had PG squad cars by my mailbox just chillin I put that shyt on my grandpa soul shyt had me like

Anyway, I think the only way to progressive politics is by creating a party which caters to it. I think a legitimate 3rd party helps causes majorly(call it the PPP or Progressive People's Party), but the thing is that something like that would have to have a major backing and following from the people. I was kinda hoping Occupy would figure it out and try to graduate into a serious political movement instead of a bunch of people camping. Representative Democracy for the most part is still functioning but the problem is that the system, and many other systems, are controlled to only serve an opulent minority. So that's why I think a progressive party would have to be born on some grassroots shyt that gets the people involved and is on an honest mission to rectify the situation in Washington. I don't know if that's too idealist, admittedly my political knowledge isn't at a level where I'd feel comfortable to expand on this thought. I don't think something like this is impossible, but if it happened I think shyt could be explosive cuz for some that'd look something like the beginning of a coup on behalf of the majority's interests.

Fair point, but the problem you're overlooking is the Spoiler Effect.

Basically, the fact that 3rd parties tend to work against their constituents interest. We could have a progressive 3rd party, but that just means that votes would be split between the Progressive Party and the Democrats, thus giving away elections to the GOP.


The only ways out of this that I can think of are to -

1. Fundamentally change the voting system and use something else other than first-past-the post. Some kind of voting system that doesn't penalize you for voting 3rd parties, like Instant-Runoff-Voting/Alternative Vote or maybe Proportional Voting (I think any of these would be an improvement).

2. Or to actually make the Democratic Party progressive.


Neither of these really seems likely to happen anytime soon though.

 

[Type Username Here]

Obamacare and the failure of half-baked liberalism

The rollout of the Affordable Care Act has been filled with problems and controversy. Facing entrenched opposition from a Republican Party that has been determined to subvert the program from the moment it passed, President Barack Obama has frustrated supporters by continuing to offer the GOP plenty of ammunition for their attacks.

The website for purchasing health care has been an embarrassment.

The contradictions between Obama's promises about everyone being able to keep their existing coverage and the reality that millions of Americans would not be able to do so has raised memories of President George H.W. Bush's famous "Read My Lips" pledge.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has admitted that the enrollment numbers will fall well short of what was expected.

While it is true that the challenges facing the program have received much more attention than the successes, the problems are impossible to ignore. There are many reasons for Obamacare's troubles, ranging from the failure of White House officials to adequately prepare for the launch of the website to the successful Republican efforts to undermine its operations, including the refusal of many governors to establish exchanges in their own states.

But a large part of the problem was the underlying ideological outlook that shaped the original proposal. The ACA was a product of a kind of half-baked liberalism that has been popular among many Democrats for several decades.

Since the 1990s, many Democrats have settled for jerry-built proposals that shy away from direct and aggressive federal intervention. Many Democrats have concluded that in the current era, the only domestic programs that stand a chance of passing Congress are those that rely on the participation of market-based actors, limited federal funding and heavy federal-state collaboration in the administrative process.

Conservatives have been very effective at defining the national agenda throughout these years, defending the argument that government is the problem, as Ronald Reagan famously said, and nurturing a political coalition that has continually pushed liberals into the corner.

In response, many Democrats concluded that the best strategy was to veer toward the center. They have pushed programs that create incentives for Americans to do certain things within the private market, rather than just offering those services themselves directly through the government.

While many domestic programs in the United States included this kind of mix throughout the 20th century, in recent decades Democrats have embraced this approach even more aggressively for fear that anything more sweeping would die in Congress.

While there are good political reasons behind this approach, it has also come at a huge long-term cost to the strength of the programs, and Obama is now paying the price.

Foremost, these mixed public-private programs have trouble building strong public support. Their complexity makes it difficult for politicians to excite the public and explain the benefits to constituents. Often the benefits are hard to discern for most Americans who see a patchwork of regulatory policies.

The complexity allows opponents to characterize the programs in unfavorable terms, even spreading false information without strong pushback. President Bill Clinton learned this in 1993 when his market-based proposal for health care was turned by Republicans into a state-centered monstrosity and went down to defeat.

The contrast with Social Security is striking.

Under President Franklin Roosevelt's program, created in 1935, the federal government directly sends paychecks to the elderly. Americans have always understood the benefits they receive. The clarity of the funding, with a payroll tax paying for benefits, has also been important in creating a sense of ownership among workers that has pushed them to support the program for decades.

The other problem with half-baked liberalism is that it provides many points for opponents to weaken measures after they have passed. The implementation process becomes a nightmare.

We have seen this with the Dodd-Frank legislation that established a relatively weak regulatory infrastructure filled with loopholes that has allowed the financial services sector to continue to engage in highly risky behavior.

Another example is the fact that Obama's economic stimulus program in 2009 did not include the kinds of public works jobs that defined the success of the New Deal for many Americans.

Mixed public-private programs often fail to address the underlying forces causing a problem, while giving private industry a chance to reap profits off the policy. This is what critics said of the Empowerment Zones of the 1990s, a style of urban policy that had limited effect on revitalizing impoverished urban areas.

The ACA has been no different. The legislation required states to set up federal exchanges and mandated that the federal government would create an exchange of its own for individuals living in states that lacked their own system.

This design allowed Republican governors to block the creation of state exchanges and intensify the pressure on the federal government to handle the program. Congress didn't devote to ACA the funding that was needed to handle this task.

ACA also relies on the expansion of Medicaid to provide coverage to the uninsured. But the legislation left itself open to legal challenge and the Supreme Court allowed states to opt out of this expansion. The result is that in many states, the future of the uninsured remains up for grabs.

Rather than providing insurance directly through a public option, the legislation instead relied on a mandate to force qualified individuals to purchase private coverage through exchanges. The risk is that premiums continue to stay high and that access to the programs continues to remain problematic, all of which will make ACA look like less of an improvement than many hoped for.

The design of the program will also likely strengthen the government-health care complex that has grown since the creation of Medicare. The president has been notably quiet in criticizing the insurance companies in recent weeks.

As Politico reported, one White House official said, "Their interests are aligned with our interests in terms of wanting to enroll targeted populations. It is not that we will agree with everything now either, but I would say for some time now there has been a collaboration because of that mutual interest." The government also tied its own hands in regulating costs by backing down from original proposals to regulate drug prices.

In a recent article in National Affairs, Johns Hopkins University political scientist Steven Teles writes about "Kludgeocracy in America," which he defines as the nation's tendency to offer complex and byzantine policy solutions to the most pressing policy problems. The solutions we offer are temporary and short-term fixes to long-term problems that leave no one satisfied and often intensify distrust of government.

According to Teles, if the government chose cleaner solutions to big challenges such as health care and education, "government would be bigger and more energetic where it clearly chose to act . . . but smaller and less intrusive outside of that sphere."

The stakes of fixing the health care mess are enormous for the President as well as for liberals who want to prove that government is capable of handling big problems.

But the policy problems should also be a wake up call for liberals that it might be worth fighting for something bigger next time around. It was not inevitable that Obama chose the path that he did.

Despite the conventional wisdom, there is plenty of evidence that liberalism remains quite strong in the body politic -- based on ongoing support for specific programs like Social Security, strong electoral performance of Democrats in 2008 and 2012 on campaigns that emphasized progressive themes and the miserable approval ratings of the GOP.

While it is true that the perfect should not be the enemy of the good in American politics, it is also true that sometimes a fight for the perfect is one worth having and could produce results that only strengthen the case for more.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/11/opinion/zelizer-obamacare-liberalism/index.html

 

[acri1]

Easily doable? Not only are you asking people to forego potential lucrative careers as lobbyists or positions in industries they gave kickbacks to while they were in office, but you're asking them to bite the hand that feeds them while they're running, and campaigns cost money. Campaign finance reform is the ultimate example of how the will of the people doesn't translate into desired legislative outcomes.

You have a point.

I meant "easily doable" in terms of opinion polls. But yeah, getting politicians to actually support real finance reform is rough. Like I said, only way I can think of would be to make it a non-negotiable issue and vote out people that are against it.


What would you suggest?