It's fairly obvious that people here represent a rather wide variety of political views. Yet, most of us would describe ourselves as being 'progressive.'
So, here's a simple question: what fits in the definition of progressive? Is it primarily a definition focused on social issues: equality, civil rights, gay marriage, pro-choice on abortion, etc.? Or is it a definition based on economic matters: pro-labor vs. pro-corporate.
In the '90s, the dominant Democratic brand was of the socially-liberal/economically-pro-corporate model; today, w/new voices in the US Senate like Jim Webb and Sherrod Brown, the brand's tilting much more towards the pro-labor/socially-conservative model. But does this mean that one model is fundamentally more 'progressive' than the other?
Or, to put it another way, are there any 'red flag' issues which a person could hold that would invalidate any other progressive status they might have? Sen. Bob Casey is a good example: he's very much a pro-labor progressive on economic issues, but is distinctly pro-life on abortion rights. Note, though, that Casey does not hold the hypocritical position of being pro-life from conception until birth, but pro-death penalty after that; in addition, Casey has never opposed birth control the way other pro-life people do. Casey is also anti-gun control, and generally socially-moderate to conservative, as is fitting considering his political pedigree. So, combine all this: do Casey's economic stands override his social ones, making him progressive, or do his social stands override his economic ones, making him... well, what?
Or, to look at it another way, is there any issue that someone could hold that would give a person who has otherwise non-progressive (regressive?) views a progressive patina? Say, a person who's radically pro-corporate and socially-conservative on most issues, but holds a libertarian position on abortion rights + illegal drugs. Would this person be considered progressive by anyone?
Another good question: what about Hillary Clinton? Does her unrepentant support for the Iraq debacle invalidate any progressive claims she might make?
Consider this yet another rhetorical hand grenade- I love those,
-Z
Progressive... or not Progressive?
I think we've been through this before: what's the definition of progressive? And the problem is that we could not come to a consensus. It means different things to different people, and the "progressive" community can't even reach a consensus on their #1 issue.
Remember that long drawn out post that never came to a conclusion? I think Gaetano started it. Everybody's top five issues were different. And I believe Ray Murphy concluded that there is no progressive movement because we can't even agree amongst ourselves (If I mischaracterized what you said Ray, I sorry. Didn't mean to if I did).
Esquisite is pretty much
Esquisite is pretty much correct on the past attempts at this. It is an exercise that will not bear much fruit--we do all disagree. But, as I said in a post even before the one referenced above, "progress" is taking a step forward. How can we all agree on what that step is? Or, if it is forward?
Progressive is...
Progressive is welcoming political diversity, rather than avoiding or suppressing it. Progressive is enjoying the idea that people like Bob Casey AND Howard Dean can coexist in the same party because they will both do whatever is best for themselves and will fight to protect each other's right to disagree. Progressive is not dealing in absolutes or using religion as a defense. Progressive is admitting when we're wrong, rather than covering and spinning to avoid ultimate responsibility. Progressive is about listening, not judging. Progressive is about remembering those who are less fortunate and acting on their behalf.
So capital punishment, abortion, gay rights, labor, gun control, immigration, education, stem-cell research, all of these are important issues. But I think being a progressive is being able to make up your own mind on everything, and then allowing others to freely do the same.
Welcoming diversity- I like that
Excellent general definition: the progressive movement is one which welcomes diverse views. But are there certain views which, were someone to take them, would instantly land them outside of the fold? Iraq? Abortion? Labor/corporate economics?
C'mon, people, we can do more than this,
-Z
You Miss My Point
What I was trying to say is that there shouldn't be a way to categorize people as either "progressive or regressive"; the only prerequisite for being a progressive is unconditionally accepting the idea that everyone has a right to make up their own minds without having to stop other people from doing the same. We don't need to attach labels; conservatives do. They believe there is only one right way to do things and that they have a higher purpose to prevent others from going against that which they believe. So it's fine that we have a pro-life Senator, even though I personally disagree. It's fine that we have a DNC Chairman who is pro gay-marriage, which I personally agree. As long as neither of them actively work to prevent other people from making choices within the frame of the law, then we are all equally progressive.
Damn that was preachy. I need a beer!
Just About Everybody Is A Progressive In One Way Or Another
Just about everybody is a progressive in one way or another, just as just about everybody is a liberal or a conservative in one way or another. We do not live in a country substantially composed of people with sweeping, across the board ideologies that last over the years or over the generations.
Many tend to identify with their individual economic or social interests, but these often change over time. People who think Social Security is a big ripoff when they are young, for instance, often come to see it as a vital national program when they near or reach retirement age.
Any winning political strategy to move whatever issues one wants to move is almost always inclusive and welcoming rather than exclusive and shunning.
The use of politics and elective office to benefit ordinary people is a matter of forming eclectic teams, and not emulating exclusive private clubs and trying to keep people out. Keeping people out is a strategy that only benefits the status quo.
To the limited degree that there is a dominant American ideology, it is pragmatism: the pursuit of whatever works in a given situation. The side that convinces people it is the most pragmatic or realistic usually wins.
If that is the case, then a
If that is the case, then a lot of people that count themselves as progressive need to jump off the band wagon. A lot of the vocal "progressives" I have encountered in Philly get near fanatical and allow no wiggle room.
Also, the political diversity comment is a bit of a hoot, since, if you are not Dem, you get blacklisted by a lot of groups as not being progressive.
The problem with the Philly Progressive movement is, as someone else mentioned before, they like to cannibalize themselves. Instead of concentrating on a common platform, they form schisms over the stuff they don't agree on. That is one aspect of the two parties that is an advantage over a "progressive ticket". The parties don't tend to come down hard if you don't agree on everything, unless it leads to voting issues for bills.
The premise of Bismarkian Realpolitik is to not maneuver and align along ideological similarities, but along what lets you accomplish your goals. In that frame of reference, even though you think foie gras should be banned and minimum wage should be increased, you go ahead and work with the guy that is anti-foie gras ban, but pro-minimum wage increase. Why? Because in the scheme of it all, the minimum wage issue is probably a hell of a lot more important than the foie-gras ban.
The most successful progressive lead era in US history was predominantly between the two Roosevelts. An era of, overall, successful progressive reform ... and guess what ... both parties were contributors.
So, when deciding what a progressive is, see if a modern progressive fits any similarities with the Roosevelt presidencies. At least there you have a base to start from.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"yes adam gave some informative comments but he also seems to sprinkle a little adam dust on it." - merkin
Well
First off, there is a big difference between being a Democrat and being a Progressive. The convo was centered around the attributes of a progressive minded person, which is why I mentioned the bit about inclusivity. It is very ideological, but that's the kind of discussion we're having. If it isn't, then Z needs to change the title to "What Makes a Democrat".
Second, you shouldn't look to the local Democratic structure as a way to validate your progressiveness. I don't consider the local Democratic leadership to be progressive at all actually, which is a big reason why I was anti-Brady.
As with most labels, there's
As with most labels, there's some ebb and flow with the issues - if you're not A, but you're still B, C, D, E, and F, then you're still a progressive; if you're none of these things however, you're probably not progressive. Everyone has their own ideal, certainly, but there are certain issues that you can organize around - government reform, Iraq, tax fairness - that seem to be universally important.
I've always thought of progressivism as being more of a stylistic difference from old-school "liberalism." This has partly been brought about by the successful demolition of the term "liberal" by both conservative and radical left-wing voices. So it's a term built out of political necessity, but I think it also signals a paradigmatic shift, away from politicians on the left who use the rhetoric of interest-group politics to build coalitions to politicians who focus on broad-based solutions and try to educate all potential audiences about them.
In a way, it's a generational shift - fairly or not, identity politics have been largely discredited in the eyes of many voters, and so politicians interested in social justice need to couch their ideas in more universal terms, and try to really sell people on notions that don't directly benefit them. I think the people who are undertaking this educational project are progressives - and one of the reasons that Philly isn't really a progressive town at the electoral level is that it's politics still follow an antiquated model, based on parochial rather than universal concerns. (One thinks, for instance, about Barack Obama lecturing about improving fuel efficiency to a pretty stunned & silent crowd in Detroit. Would the equivalent of that EVER happen here?) Most of our leaders have not developed the political will to temporarily suppress the make-everyone-happy impulse - if only every once in a while - and push good, outside-the-box ideas forward.
I for one do not want the
I for one do not want the title of "progressive"or anything else, I would rather my actions speak for themselves.
I feel much better with things getting accomplished, than worrying about a title or a "progressive" community.
Progress will be made with St. Rep Tony Payton can get the REACH bill passed, and some more of our elected officials take a serious looks at the ills of society and reach our to work across the board to accomplish goals than worry about whose name is on the bill.
One day I hope we can understand what a community is and how it is supposed to function instead of trying to figure out who is in it.
The topic is *not* 'What Makes a Democrat'
After all, it should be noted that the Democratic Party was, for large parts of its history, strongly identified w/Southern institutional racism; I think that we can all agree that institutional racism is definitely *not* a progressive quality.
Here's another little thing to throw into the mix, too: Michael Bloomberg has just officially left the GOP, and re-registered as an independent. Does he qualify as a progressive? I would say yes, even while he was a member of the GOP. Ditto Jim Jeffords. On the local scene, I would suggest that Sam Katz qualifies as a progressive on many counts; he was certainly a more progressive Mayoral candidate than John Street.
-Z
I definitely was not trying
I definitely was not trying to do a "what makes a democrat". I was merely making sure to segment progressive from political party, which your post also accomplishes.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"yes adam gave some informative comments but he also seems to sprinkle a little adam dust on it." - merkin
Well, generally, we have
Well, generally, we have gone over this quite a bit. But, my general definition of a progressive is someone who believes in society and government's ability to affirmatively do good things for all of its citizens.
And, Sam Katz was 'certainly' more progressive than John Street? Really?
Katz more progressive- yes
On most social issues- especially gay-related ones- I believe that Katz' views were considerably more progressive than Street's. This is not to say that John Street is some kind of paleo-conservative, merely that he's less progressive than his Republican opponent for the last two elections.
That being said, it's abundantly clear that Mike Nutter is far more progressive than Al Taubenberger.
-Z
Change + Equality + Optimism = Progressive
I would add to Dan's definition above that because progressives believe in the government's ability to do good things, progressives want and actively promote change -- they don't just want to continue the status quo.
I worry, though, whether referring nonspecifically to "good things" isn't begging the question in some way. I want to say something like: for progressives, "Good things" usually work to maximize social equality. Sometimes this involves protection of civil rights and individual freedoms; sometimes it involves greater regulation and the use of public resources. Libertarians and traditional conservatives don't have the same stake in equality, or at least using the gov't to promote it.
Instead of "social equality"
Instead of "social equality" I would say "social justice". You'll never have social equality without extreme levels of government regulation to the level of communism.
People with money will always have social advantages over people without. The goal is not to necessarily give those without the same as those with, I would say the more attainable goal is to make sure those without aren't penalized for it.
As an example to illustrate, use post high school education. Social equality would be making UPenn have an equal number of students from every demographic. Social justice would be making sure everyone has the ability to have some level of post high school education.
The important thing for any movement is to have an achievable scope. Movements are sustained by having periodic successes. You set the scope too high and the movement falls apart due to lack of achievement or attainment of goals.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"yes adam gave some informative comments but he also seems to sprinkle a little adam dust on it." - merkin
Just Bizarre
The most interesting aspect of the Bloomberg decision for me is his abondonment of party. One of the most bizarre elements of this City for me, as a new resident going on five years, is a complete devotion by most self proclaimed progressives to the Democratic party. The "Vote for Oh" post a few days ago shows this devotion better than I can describe it.
I would think that most people agree with what Bloomberg is doing in NY. His fiscal and social policies run circles around our municipal politics. While its true he used much of his own money to get elected, and could have done it entirely on his own, his decision to abandon his party shows, in my mind, the shackling of a candidate to an ideology he may not agree with. The policies of a candidate go beyond the R or D tag at the end of their name. Before I get tackled out of bounds, the Republicans do have a lot of excess baggage, but I think this belies the real reason for Bloombergs switch.
Councilman Goode, are you saying you wouldn't vote for Bloomberg if he ran as a Republican, after the job he's done?
"If I could not go to Heaven but with a Party, I would not go there at all"
Sour Grapes in Philly - Better Grapes in New York?
I'm voting for Mike Nutter and the entire Democratic slate - Bloomberg is not running in Philly.
I admire the fact that New York City has a competitive multi-party political system where party labels don't mean as much - that's a good thing.
And although Philadelphia doesn't even have a two-party system, it does have a very diverse Democratic party - that's also a good thing.
As I've said in previous posts, the rigorous competition in the May 15 Democratic primaries was a great thing!
Therefore, it's silly to believe that the only way for someone to show independence within the Democratic Party is to vote for a Republican nominee or a non-Democrat.
Supporting non-endorsed candidates in the party primary is "independent" but not supporting party nominees is generally "sour grapes" - and not very progressive.
WWGjr
Councilman Goode has a point re. supporting Dems in the general
Councilman Goode has a point re. supporting Dems in the general election.
Last week I had a conversation with an elected official who had not supported Michael Nutter in the primary. He said he thought Nutter would be a very good mayor and that he intended to support him and work with him.
I have been happy to see the way party regulars who were not Nutter supporters have rallied around him. If we liberals/ progressives want party regulars to support progressive candidates when they win primaries, perhaps we should be willing to do likewise.
No. Horrible policy. If
No. Horrible policy. If the party knows you will support them whether they adopt your policies or not, why would they care about catering to you? You are telling them your vote is in their pocket no matter what.
Also keep in mind, there is typically a big difference between elected officials of a party and those merely registered. People registered have no obligation to the party. Elected officials, typically, have a built in need to tow the line.
As I mentioned before, people need to ask themselves if the goal is to push forward progressive ideas or to push forward the democratic party?
A good example is the Janie Blackwell election. She is definitely not progressive. If the GOP running against her is, why would it be in a "progressive person's" best interest to vote and support Blackwell just because she is a Dem?
People are losing sight of how voting and candidate support works. Support and vote for the candidate that most aligns with what you believe will make your life better, not with the one that you hope throws you a non-committal bone or because you are scared of crossing them.
Don't alienate people that want to push forward your agenda just because of what their registration says.
Party regulars will support progressive candidates if they win the primary because it is typically their job to support the democratic nominations. As Goode mentioned, Clarke apparently snubbed him in the primaries. I highly doubt Clarke is going to come out and say "Vote for Oh over Goode". He will back up all the Dem ticket.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"yes adam gave some informative comments but he also seems to sprinkle a little adam dust on it." - merkin
I'm sorry. I didn't know the party catered to you.
So, the Party caters to you now?
Or the Party will cater to you - after you vote for Oh?
And voting for Oh won't hurt the Democratic nominees in your mind, so the Party will then push your agenda?
Yeah, that's well thought out.
WWGjr
Umm, yeah. We are the
Umm, yeah. We are the voters, aren't we? You better damn well cater to what we, the voters, want.
Who cares about hurting the Democratic nominees if they don't support what you believe in? Like I said, you tend to have to hold a different line being an elected official of the Dem Party. Registered voters do NOT have to support the dems if the candidate doesn't align with their agenda and what they think is right.
And again, who has a better possibility of someone's agenda? A democrat that doesn't openly support it or someone that does?
If 'you' are a registered democrat and for lower taxes and supporting the dredging of the river (which is some of what Oh is about), why would 'you' vote for someone that is against dredging and keeping the taxes where they are just because they are a Dem candidate? Why vote for the guy that is NOT going to support your agenda?
Yeah, that's well thought out.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"yes adam gave some informative comments but he also seems to sprinkle a little adam dust on it." - merkin
Maybe that's City Hall's
Maybe that's City Hall's problem. You don't know you are supposed to listen to the voters?
-----------------------------------------------------------
"yes adam gave some informative comments but he also seems to sprinkle a little adam dust on it." - merkin
The Voters
Wasn't I just renominated?
WWGjr
Yeah and you also wrote
Yeah and you also wrote legislation transferring more money to the School District, which was a large outcry amongst the voter base. So, I guess you could say you have been catering to some of the voter base. ;)
-----------------------------------------------------------
"yes adam gave some informative comments but he also seems to sprinkle a little adam dust on it." - merkin
I do my job. I get reelected.
I do my job. I get reelected.
On the school funding issue, I led the way.
But thanks for acknowledging my work. :)
WWGjr
I never have a problem
I never have a problem giving credit where credit is due. I was very supportive of you in that legislation.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"yes adam gave some informative comments but he also seems to sprinkle a little adam dust on it." - merkin
No question that money is
No question that money is sorely needed, but state law requires any contributions to the school district to continue ad infinitum. Where will the money come from every year? Over the next five years thats fifty million dollars. In addition to a recurring funding source for SEPTA, we need reliable funding for our schools that isn't just shifting dollars between funds.
He didn't shift dollars
He didn't shift dollars between funds. He increased the percentage of the real estate tax that goes to the school district every year. He increased the dedicated funding.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"yes adam gave some informative comments but he also seems to sprinkle a little adam dust on it." - merkin
It's actually almost $100 million over 5 years ...
It's actually almost $100 million over 5 years ... and that amounts to about only 1/2 of 1 percent of the five year financial plan - but it is a reliable source of funding that requires no further action. It's now the law - the school district will get 60% of real estate tax revenue every year.
For me, it's about setting public policy priorities for the future. Public education should come first.
WWGjr
Councilman Goode, you and
Councilman Goode, you and raideradam are correct, and I was mistaken. In my rush to post I confused two different measures and posted them with an air of conviction.
Your measure will result in $95m in foregone revenues over the life of the plan, just as you said. What I was talking about was the $10m taken from Benefits and Indemnities to finance the school system, the bill that staffers were losing their hair over because the initial draft had errors in it.
I think my point still stands, though. Claiming that it is a small percentage of the plan is a logical fallacy. It is still $95m that the City must make up somewhere. Given that PICA is about to withhold state funds due to the preliminary plan being unbalanced, I would say its more than a drop in the bucket. By state law, the plan must be balanced. A deficit of $10m is still a deficit.
I apologize for attributing this to you incorrectly.
PICA & Street's 5-Year Plan
There will be a positive fund balance for FY08 - not a deficit - even with the millage shift. The next Mayor will then craft his own 5-Year Plan beginning with FY09. I believe that it will be balanced - even with the millage shift. Democratic Nominee Michael Nutter testified on behalf of the millage shift and understands its fiscal impact. Not to mention, the Street administration has consistently underestimated revenue but , nevertheless, still created its own holes in the Plan.
PICA recently threatened to hold up funds primarily because the final plan had not been submitted - not just because an earlier draft is unbalanced. When the Street administration submits the plan, by Monday, it will be balanced. It will probably also contain tax increases that will never happen.
Please note, for the record, that I introduced my legislation before the Mayor's budget address and draft of a 5-Year Plan.
WWGjr
No, it is not money that
No, it is not money that needs to be "made up". It is prioritizing education over other budgetary items.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"yes adam gave some informative comments but he also seems to sprinkle a little adam dust on it." - merkin
That elected official
was me.
I do believe that Michael will make a very good mayor. We all have some very tough problems to face in the next term, but with all of our cooperation, we can make it work. We can put this city into a bright, new and exciting direction.
Mayor Nutter will need, however, the latitude and team effort to make this city a success. I am very excited about the prospects.
City Councilman Jim Kenney
311 For Philly
Bloomberg and Katz
It's also worth noting that both Michael Bloomberg and Sam Katz were lifelong Democrats before leaving the party due mainly to local circumstances. Neither of them wanted to go through the process of winning support within a local Democratic machine that they probably both thought had lost its way. Socially you won't find too much difference between either of them and the national Democratic platform (ie pro-choice, pro gay rights, etc.) and locally, you won't find much difference between Katz's fiscal policies and those of just about every 2007 Democratic candidate for mayor. They all acknowledged that reforming the tax structure and continuing to lower certain rates was important.
"Not sure I agree with you
"Not sure I agree with you police work there, Lou"
Much has been said on this topic, so I will be brief. The nihilistic argument applies here. One could contend, and I am tempted to, that such a variation inside one party advocates a dissolution of the party into a purely idea based system. Evidence of such ideological variation in the party belies the fact that the ideological center is no longer applicable.
I don't think this is a bad thing. Jefferson was on to something, despite his obvious faults in logic.
Let's keep it simple and blunt.
Some candidates lost in the Democratic Primary on May 15. I once lost an election - before I won the next 5. So what? It's not the end of the world ... or the party. If you want to change the party - strengthen it from within, don't weaken it.
WWGjr
progressive = liberal
...which to me is a blend of economic and social positions, perhaps as captured here (or as attributed to the Democratic Party here). Because the term includes such a range of issue positions and world outlooks, I don't think that a single issue can be said to be the most critical required component (although these days support for habeus corpus comes close), but one could reasonably expect a self-described progressive to have share a large number of such views -- say, wider availability of healthcare coverage, or the notion that corporate tax-breaks aren't necessarily the way to achieve a healthier and more just economy, or belief in and concern about global warming...
acm
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
— Margaret Mead