The official progressive agenda thread

[2Quik4UHoes]

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. Which would basically be handing elections to the Republicans.


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.

No time soon is a strong possibility, but doesn't mean it can't happen which is better than it being impossible. In general, people just have to get pissed enough and yet focused enough to know exactly what they want and leave no stone unturned. But for right now the majority have all but consented to all the bullshyt....

Edit: If it were to happen tho, I think that we'd just revert back to 2 party politics since dems look just like rethugs when it comes to the money.

 

[Type Username Here]

I honestly think the answer to this is the African-American vote. The AA vote is the most cohesive, organized voting bloc on the left. A majority of the civil rights leaders and contributors were strict progressives. When the Devil Reagan Administration came on the scene, and white Democrats (including nearly half of union members!!!!!!!) sold their soul, the African American population held strong.

The problem is fear voting. But I understand how hard it must be if you're a black American. On one side (GOP) you have a party and voting populace that is empowered by racism, racist policies and racial division. Just blatant about it. So of course the alternative ALWAYS looks better by virtue of a default position. But this default position, no matter how logical, is actually detrimental in my opinion. Voting and supporting a Corporate Centrist, especially one that also advocates military bloat, wall street robbery, and expands the Drug War, is extremely harmful to the progress of AA, and by extension, the progressive agenda. I think it depends on the AA vote telling the Democrats not to take the vote for granted. Instead of voting for the "non-racist", the AA vote should demand Democratic Candidates express commitment to repeal this Drug War and Mass Incarceration laws. Send the votes to a third party if the demands are not met. This would require some short term suffering, and that's a tough pill to sell to a part of citizenry that has had to deal with suffering for centuries now.

And I honestly believe that a lot of of the Civil Rights leaders, especially Dr. King, knew that hurdles like Brown v BOE, VRA, and so on, were just the first phase of striving for true equality in this country. They knew it depended on much more than that. In a lot of ways, the death of the progressive agenda began at the Republican Convention in 1964.

We need to get back to this:

Frankly, Martin Luther King had to be forgotten before he could be remembered. Martin Luther King called himself a socialist. Jesse Helms wasn't pulling that out of nowhere. His associate, Daniel Levinson, probably had been a communist. And the main demand of the march for jobs and freedom was a phrase that was resounding at the time but we don't remember it now, "a Marshal Plan for the cities", which meant a massive federal investment in developing the depressed areas of america. Which I don't think we heard in Washington [this past week-end]
-Rick Perlstein

 

[Serious]

Depends on what you call liberal. Most people want the rich paying more taxes, no Medicare and SS cuts, defense cuts, Wall Street regulated strongly, and a public option in healthcare.

My primary point is the country is to the left of what we're getting from Washington.

sounds a lot like the single transferable vote

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

please elaborate...

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

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

http://www.wolf-pac.com/

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.

cory booker is a libertarian?

 

[No1]

@Serious I don't know what you're reacting too, but I simply posted another take on the Warren debate (it was in the other thread, but I felt that it fit more here). The women had a good point, the president is pointless without putting more progressives in congress. It was a very simple point. BTW, Booker is obviously not a libertarian...don't spark up that type of argument again, re-read what's he's getting at...it's obvious (which is why I'm ignoring it). Anyway, any talk of a progressive agenda that doesn't begin with taking over state legislative chambers is missing the point. States are more likely to experiment with new concepts than the federal government and they establish the fertile ground for progressivism in national elections. It's also there where policies are being enacted to try to stymie the vote and to sway elections against what the demographics say they should be.

With that said, your CNN article is good @Type Username Here, and that's what I've been saying all year. But I don't agree with your characterization of AAs as the catalyst of change. The primary issue, as already identified, is money. Money and connections determine who is on the ballot and the options voters have. Now once those names are on the ballot, then I can see a criticism of AA but I still disagree.

I'll leave the historical imperfections in your statement aside and say that it is the middle class and poorer white Americans. That half-baked liberalism article you posted proves the point. Those are direct appeals to a group aside from African-Americans. A group that has considerably less faith in the ability of government to bring forth change than people of color. It is definitely true that AAs participate in what is essentially a one-party system, but they have not shown remotely the kind of fear of voting for more progressive candidates that other groups do. They just have to believe that candidate can win and actually benefit them. They do not have the fundamental ideological disbelief in government, especially because it was the federal government that always had to protect their rights when states wouldn't.

But they don't have the winning coalitions nationally (especially where so many of them are in the South) that they have in NYC and elsewhere. But now we're back to the first argument the two of us ever had on this board and that I've had with myself, and I still struggle to rationalize telling people of color (and poor black people turn out higher than middle class blacks according to many studies) to sacrifice what little welfare benefits they have for benefits that might not accrue for another 4 to 10 years. But I do see where you're coming from. I would just rather appeal to Southern whites, these people were solidly pro-labor once...there has to be a winning argument there somewhere.

 

[2Quik4UHoes]

I honestly think the answer to this is the African-American vote. The AA vote is the most cohesive, organized voting bloc on the left. A majority of the civil rights leaders and contributors were strict progressives. When the Devil Reagan Administration came on the scene, and white Democrats (including nearly half of union members!!!!!!!) sold their soul, the African American population held strong.

The problem is fear voting. But I understand how hard it must be if you're a black American. On one side (GOP) you have a party and voting populace that is empowered by racism, racist policies and racial division. Just blatant about it. So of course the alternative ALWAYS looks better by virtue of a default position. But this default position, no matter how logical, is actually detrimental in my opinion. Voting and supporting a Corporate Centrist, especially one that also advocates military bloat, wall street robbery, and expands the Drug War, is extremely harmful to the progress of AA, and by extension, the progressive agenda. I think it depends on the AA vote telling the Democrats not to take the vote for granted. Instead of voting for the "non-racist", the AA vote should demand Democratic Candidates express commitment to repeal this Drug War and Mass Incarceration laws. Send the votes to a third party if the demands are not met. This would require some short term suffering, and that's a tough pill to sell to a part of citizenry that has had to deal with suffering for centuries now.

And I honestly believe that a lot of of the Civil Rights leaders, especially Dr. King, knew that hurdles like Brown v BOE, VRA, and so on, were just the first phase of striving for true equality in this country. They knew it depended on much more than that. In a lot of ways, the death of the progressive agenda began at the Republican Convention in 1964.

We need to get back to this:

A progressive party imo would be pretty heavily supported by the black votes im. A progressive party would have to be totally against the Drug War, universal healthcare, the military budget, etc. Really, it's lots of things that a party like that could stand for, mainly ending the socialism that corporations enjoy. Black folk especially would have to be a major driving factor in something like this. They wouldn't be the only ones, but they'd be a major demographic to be had.

 

[acri1]

please elaborate...

A lot of people on the left are terrified that FOX News will call them a socialist or something, so they're afraid to advance or even talk about actual progressive ideas, such as universal healthcare.

I'll leave the historical imperfections in your statement aside and say that it is the middle class and poorer white Americans. That half-baked liberalism article you posted proves the point. Those are direct appeals to a group aside from African-Americans. A group that has considerably less faith in the ability of government to bring forth change than people of color. It is definitely true that AAs participate in what is essentially a one-party system, but they have not shown remotely the kind of fear of voting for more progressive candidates that other groups do. They just have to believe that candidate can win and actually benefit them. They do not have the fundamental ideological disbelief in government, especially because it was the federal government that always had to protect their rights when states wouldn't.

But they don't have the winning coalitions nationally (especially where so many of them are in the South) that they have in NYC and elsewhere. But now we're back to the first argument the two of us ever had on this board and that I've had with myself, and I still struggle to rationalize telling people of color (and poor black people turn out higher than middle class blacks according to many studies) to sacrifice what little welfare benefits they have for benefits that might not accrue for another 4 to 10 years. But I do see where you're coming from. I would just rather appeal to Southern whites, these people were solidly pro-labor once...there has to be a winning argument there somewhere.

Maybe I'm just being cynical, but I tend to think that blacks and southern whites will always be on opposing ends of the political spectrum. Truth be told, many southern whites think of politics as a zero-sum game where anything that benefits another group (say, minorities) is to their detriment. That means that almost any action on the part of the federal government will be perceived as taking money from them and giving handouts to blacks/minorities. And let's be honest, politicians encourage and exploit that attitude for votes.

Just kinda hard to see any kind of political movement that would appeal to minorities and southern white, but like I said, maybe I'm just not imaginative enough.

 

[Blackking]

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

I don't think the barnone post is BS.
most of the people with the most influence in America.... Want none of this BS yall talking.

There are like 3 warren buffets for the liberals and progressive and the moderate democrats movements combined.

and like 75 for each fraction of the tea, conservative, neocon groups. NEWS FLASH, we have a 2 party system controlled by money.

Media - and large campaign donors are against the progressive causes, expect for gay shyt.... and that's just because gays get out there like all groups should on some grassroots guilt you into supporting shyt.
Just because we hear about boogie man liberal media bias n shyt doesn't make it true......Fox news is the station on in the lobby at most gov building and big corps, and anywhere else the most likely voters are at.... Those conservative campaigns are >. They literally just say wtf they want........ Unlike progressive they are kicked in the nuts for not being conservative enough - look at Romney.

Most of the nation wants progressive issues, but dems will put up a moderate again.

Luckily dems get that auto black vote, and good thing they can keep the young vote.. and they slide by on people who are aware of certain issues. GOP should not have a chance in 2016, but they do. And even if the dems when......... it will not result in anything truly progressive because progressives have no version of the tea party... aren't willing to take risk.

 

[tru_m.a.c]

I honestly think the answer to this is the African-American vote. The AA vote is the most cohesive, organized voting bloc on the left. A majority of the civil rights leaders and contributors were strict progressives. When the Devil Reagan Administration came on the scene, and white Democrats (including nearly half of union members!!!!!!!) sold their soul, the African American population held strong.

The problem is fear voting. But I understand how hard it must be if you're a black American. On one side (GOP) you have a party and voting populace that is empowered by racism, racist policies and racial division. Just blatant about it. So of course the alternative ALWAYS looks better by virtue of a default position. But this default position, no matter how logical, is actually detrimental in my opinion. Voting and supporting a Corporate Centrist, especially one that also advocates military bloat, wall street robbery, and expands the Drug War, is extremely harmful to the progress of AA, and by extension, the progressive agenda. I think it depends on the AA vote telling the Democrats not to take the vote for granted. Instead of voting for the "non-racist", the AA vote should demand Democratic Candidates express commitment to repeal this Drug War and Mass Incarceration laws. Send the votes to a third party if the demands are not met. This would require some short term suffering, and that's a tough pill to sell to a part of citizenry that has had to deal with suffering for centuries now.

And I honestly believe that a lot of of the Civil Rights leaders, especially Dr. King, knew that hurdles like Brown v BOE, VRA, and so on, were just the first phase of striving for true equality in this country. They knew it depended on much more than that. In a lot of ways, the death of the progressive agenda began at the Republican Convention in 1964.

We need to get back to this:

Myyyyyyyyy nikka TUH. This was the post I was waiting for! Completely agree.

Can I also add, the other issue with fear voting, is that you start using bullshyt logic that you don't agree with philosophically. Fear voting just becomes pie in your face during the next election cycle.

A progressive party imo would be pretty heavily supported by the black votes im. A progressive party would have to be totally against the Drug War, universal healthcare, the military budget, etc. Really, it's lots of things that a party like that could stand for, mainly ending the socialism that corporations enjoy. Black folk especially would have to be a major driving factor in something like this. They wouldn't be the only ones, but they'd be a major demographic to be had.

Look at the way we sit here and discuss Cory Booker. How many folks do you know irl have those discussions? How many folks understand his history and his policies?

All hope was lost for having blacks strongly support progressives when everyone was scared to hold Obama accountable. The fear that it would look like we're supporting republicans was used against us by democrats, both black and white.

NOOOOOT to mention. I think its safe to assume, that any party that we choose to support, will carry the stigma of being a "black" party. So we have that working against us politically.

So to sum it up:
- fear voting
- politically literacy

 

[Serious]

I honestly think the answer to this is the African-American vote. The AA vote is the most cohesive, organized voting bloc on the left. A majority of the civil rights leaders and contributors were strict progressives. When the Devil Reagan Administration came on the scene, and white Democrats (including nearly half of union members!!!!!!!) sold their soul, the African American population held strong.

The problem is fear voting. But I understand how hard it must be if you're a black American. On one side (GOP) you have a party and voting populace that is empowered by racism, racist policies and racial division. Just blatant about it. So of course the alternative ALWAYS looks better by virtue of a default position. But this default position, no matter how logical, is actually detrimental in my opinion. Voting and supporting a Corporate Centrist, especially one that also advocates military bloat, wall street robbery, and expands the Drug War, is extremely harmful to the progress of AA, and by extension, the progressive agenda. I think it depends on the AA vote telling the Democrats not to take the vote for granted. Instead of voting for the "non-racist", the AA vote should demand Democratic Candidates express commitment to repeal this Drug War and Mass Incarceration laws. Send the votes to a third party if the demands are not met. This would require some short term suffering, and that's a tough pill to sell to a part of citizenry that has had to deal with suffering for centuries now.

And I honestly believe that a lot of of the Civil Rights leaders, especially Dr. King, knew that hurdles like Brown v BOE, VRA, and so on, were just the first phase of striving for true equality in this country. They knew it depended on much more than that. In a lot of ways, the death of the progressive agenda began at the Republican Convention in 1964.

We need to get back to this:

@theworldismine13

 

[Blackking]

Seems like a serious progressive pow-wow. I'll respect it... as much as i can.

it's not --------- And you shouldn't respect it. It's wishful thinking and really the reason y they usually only end up fighting to keep a moderately left issue on the table, but not progressive.

NTM you have to study some of these progressive issues and know stats n shyt to make a case to a voting group. IT's not easy... Plus progressive means change -- AKA doing something that most people are uncomfortable with even if it's good for them and their demographic.

Conservatives have the easy job
1) the majority of the southern vote is dumb as fukk. CAC in the south/mid west give NO fukks, they just want their basic shyt... and they aren't brainwashed by northern unions and labor groups and Eastern liberal whites as much.

2) Blacks , LOL - most live in the Southern states, and the states they live in normally Go GOP and conservative against their wishes.. .: them nikkas have no voice.

3) You don't need to study social movements, crime states, health initiatives, tax code, social issues, welfare issues, worry about groups like the gays, "******s", spics who aren't Cuban or pro GOP , etc etc.. And you don't need to worry about the asians, you'll worry about them later , like 3016 elections.

4) Issues are a simple sell. Gun - a right. Small business - a right. Hard Work - A right. Not taking care of people poorer, darker, or gayer than you - A right. Defend our freedom regardless of the cost. Fighting drugs and crime regardless of the cost. Huge Businesses are taking advantage, but shyt they have cheap products and they are simply as American as apple pie.

 

[MidwestD]

Liberals have very few in Washington pushing their agenda (Alan Grayson being one of them imo). I don't know how to more effectively PUSH a true liberal agenda, when we aren't even getting common sense legislation done. For ex., roughly 90% of the country wants common sense things in place for gun purchases, such as background checks for all gun sales. But even in the aftermath of Sandy Hook, that bill was killed by a small group of tea partiers that have a borderline sexual lust for guns. The Citizens United SC decision will only make it harder to get liberals on the ballets, because there's not a Koch Brothers alternative for liberals to use.

 

[DEAD7]

4) Issues are a simple sell. Gun - a right. Small business - a right. Hard Work - A right. Not taking care of people poorer, darker, or gayer than you - A right. Defend our freedom regardless of the cost. Fighting drugs and crime regardless of the cost. Huge Businesses are taking advantage, but shyt they have cheap products and they are simply as American as apple pie.

I agree, but society(in general not just ours) has a natural slide towards socialism, and as the welfare state grows, progressives will be tapped to manage the growing mess they have created. Or as they like to put it, "reform".
You really can't beat free shyt, which is why we are fukked... and if you did, taking it away literally means the starvation of people...
so you're fukked either way.

Interesting thread though, I didn't know there was so much disagreement among socialist.
I though tit was just rob "rich people" to feed the "poor".

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

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).

The Nixon example was particularly stupid, for starters. I don't even know anything about John Ashbrook in 1972, but I know that attempting to use a failed primary challenge against a sitting President running for re-election in 41 years ago as a portent of why it would be politically unwise for a PAC to support a more progressive candidate against the frontrunner for an election 3 years in the future makes no sense at all. A total non-sequitur.

The article chides "the professional left," coined by Robert Gibbs. The author David Weigel is a registered Republican who voted for Gary Johnson in 2012 and John Huntsman in the primary btw, if case you didn't know. You're citing a Republican to basically tell us why he thinks the left wing of the Democratic party sucks.

He knocks the PCCC for throwing early support behind Warren. Gee, god forbid a progressive PAC actually support the progressive candidate. The fukk is the point of their existence if they're just supposed to shut up and rubber stamp whatever corporatist establishment Democrat happens to be the presidential frontrunner?

He says the left should be creating a grassroots political infrastructure instead of using a presidential campaign as a testing ground and calls it "risky." They already are a grassroots operation. The PCCC has been heavily involved in congressional races at the state and federal level, they push hard for progressive policy issues, they successfully helped in getting businesses to sever ties with ALEC and they basically drafted and funded Elizabeth Warren into her Senate seat and raised almost a million dollars for her. But they're supposed to not even verbally support Warren, the candidate who better represents their vision, and who's political career they practically made because it's "risky"? What does that even mean? Pressure from the left on Hillary or whatever establishment Democrat is good thing. You can do the undercover grassroots establishment, which the PAC in question already does, and still support a progressive presidential candidate. If Warren does run against Hillary and she loses, that would still be a better thing for progressive policy than if liberals all just shut up and worked in the shadows. Hillary would be forced to respect the pressure from the left to garner base support from the left and AT LEAST speak the progressive language on policies, which would help get them in the public debate. The notion that a Warren run would make the left more irrelevant is baseless.

The Grover Norquist comparison is silly too because nothing about Grover Norquist is grassroots. Grover Norquist came from the Chamber of Commerce and is as well-connected to and well-funded by corporate America a political operative as anyone. And Grover Norquist works on behalf of corporate America, who funds the Republicans. He's basically just an effective middleman between Microsoft, Pfizer, ExxonMobil, etc. and the GOP. The notion that there's anything equivalent to him on the left that could push for progressive policies as effectively is ludicrous.

The article basically just boiled down to "progressives are annoying and should shut up." Shocking to hear from a Republican giving Democrats supposed well-intentioned advice (yeah, sure).

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

What does this smiley supposed to mean bruh? Most people do not want SS and Medicare cuts...not even tea partiers.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

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?

I have no idea.

Here's some info I found just from googling. http://www.publicampaign.org/home