Book Chat: Mike Lux Discusses The Progressive Revolution
I'm ashamed to admit that I have an old boyfriend who is a Republican. Yes, it's horrifyingly true. A Hannity-watching, Limbaugh-listening, Rove-idolizing Dittohead. Need I say why we're no longer together? During Bush43's first term, he used to crow about the "Permanent Republican Majority" that Rove touted and that his mouthpieces in the media swore was happening. And even back then, I would laugh not only the hubris, but the complete ahistoric ignorance of that concept.
Anyone reciting the political history of United States of America would not be far off to do so to the tune of "Everything Old Is New Again." Our country was founded and has grown under an eternal tug of war between progressives and conservatives. A tug of war in which there have been times where the conservatives clearly had the advantage and others in which the progressives had the upper hand.
In his fascinating new book, The Progressive Revolution, Mike Lux chronicles those times where progressives have had the upper hand and have changed the country for the better. And these changes have not come smoothly or regularly, but in short bursts of time where great changes come after years of conservative opposition.
Lux has delineated five "big change" eras in our past, where progressives have brought change that has helped shape America for the better, usually stimulated by some catastrophic event:
- The American Revolution, starting with Thomas Paine's Common Sense, Jefferson's Bill of Rights and the birth of the nation
- The Reconstruction era and the aftermath of the Civil War, with the Emancipation Proclamation and the Homestead Act
- The turn of the 20th Century with Roosevelt's Anti-Trust Act, Food & Drug safety laws, and women's suffrage
- The 1930s New Deal, with the establishment of Social Security and the Glass Steagall Banking Act
- The 1960s with Civil Rights, the Voting Rights Act as well as environmental protection laws
Could we be on the precipice of another Big Change Moment? Certainly the last eight years under Bush could qualify for a catastrophic event that generates a big progressive push.
Mike Lux comes by his interest in progressive principles from years of experience in Washington. He is the President and CEO of Progressive Strategies, L.L.C., a political consulting firm he co-founded in 1999, focused on strategic political consulting for non-profits, labor unions, PACs and progressive donors. Previously, he was Senior Vice President for Political Action at People For the American Way (PFAW), and the PFAW Foundation, and served at the White House from January 1993 to mid-1995 as a Special Assistant to the President for Public Liaison. While at Progressive Strategies, in addition to serving on the board, Mike was also a co-founder of Americans United for Change, Center for Progressive Leadership, Grassroots Democrats, Progressive Majority, Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, and Women's Voices/Women Vote. He also played a role in helping launch the Center for American Progress and Air America. Mike also founded and currently chairs a number of new organizations and projects, including American Family Voices, the Progressive Donor Network, and BushRecall.org.
In November of 2008, Mike was named to the Obama-Biden Transition Team. In that role, he served as an advisor to the Office of Public Liaison on relationship with the progressive community and has helped shape the Office of Public Liaison based on his past experience working on the Clinton-Gore Transition, as well as in the White House.
And as completely clueless as I found Rove's hope of a permanent Republican majority, we cannot be likewise blinded to the reality that all too soon, the pendulum will swing away from progressives again. That is why progressives will and should always seek more movement while they have the chance...something with which I think Mike agrees.
So please join me in welcoming Mike to C&L and let's discuss The Progressive Revolution.
I'm here and looking forward to the discussion.
Thanks so much for joining us at C&L today.
And I believe that Adam from Progressive Strategies is here as well, so let me also extend a welcome to him.
to you, John and everyone at C&L for having us on.
Looking forward to the discussion.
Really sorry to hear about your old boyfriend, I have some family members like that, though fortunately not too many.
You know they say that reality has a liberal bias. He finally got tired of me being able to refute every lame conservative talking point he got via Fox and Limbaugh and I haven't heard from him since.
Luckily, I married a wonderfully liberal man, who actually believes in progressive values and often defends them in court as a Civil Rights attorney. :)
Ive only dated one massage therapist (which is odd because Im one...in fact, i did chair massage in Philly's 8th Ward during the Obama campaign) and i dont know how eager id be to do it again because she wouldnt shut up about how much she hates republicans.
now...i understand that the GOP has a lot to answer for and i have a lot of problems with them myself, but at least i have more than one thing to talk about in a damn day.....
its a lot like watching the stand-up comedy of Ant...we GET it...youre GAY...congratulations...now shut up and talk about something else in a 90 minutes set. take a lesson from henry chou, who after 10 minutes will say 'those are my 3 korean jokes and thats all youre getting'
My sister thinks Reagan was god and voted for Wanton Boy twice. She says tax cuts are the solution to everything under the sun. She didn't watch Obama's historic inauguration. Oh, and she has a problem with female priests and the whole gay marriage thing. The Iraq invasion/occupation is just dandy with her. Infrastructure? That's a liberal boondoggle!
We get along fine -- as long as we don't talk politics or religion.
Welcome, Mike!
While we give the C&Lers time to catch up to the new thread, let me just highly recommend your book, Mike, to any C&Lers interested in both the history of the progressive movement and some really provocative thinking material on the era in which we find ourselves.
In many ways, I see your book as a great liberal companion to Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine, which C&Lers will recognize is the highest praise from me.
In many ways, the progressive Big Change Moments you describe in the book are reverse Shock Doctrine steps.
As I said in the intro, the whole book is a treatise on the tug of war between progressive movement and conservative reaction and obstacles. Our country has developed not in a straight line, but in fits and starts as the general mood of the country sways between the two ideologies. You’ve delineated five points of major progressive movement. Do you think that we are entering into a new era that will need to be added to your list?
I certainly hope we are entering another Big Change Moment, and think we have a great shot at making that happen: there are massive problems to solve that need big solutions, there is a revitalized progressive movement, and there is a center-left President who wants to make change. But nothing is inevitable—it’s going to take a lot of hard work and pushing by the progressive movement, and it’s going to require President Obama to be bold in breaking out of conventional wisdom thinking.
I always said if it were up to the republicans, we'd still be a colony of England. But, that the radical Adams brothers needed the business men like Paul Revere and moderates like George Washington to make it possible.
The funny thing is that almost sounds bipartisan. However, it's significant that initially a new country was a "liberal" idea. Others only wanted their rights as Englishmen.
Am I far off?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
I have to admit I learned my American history from Richard Armour's It All Started With Eve, and his other books
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
For progressives to succeed, they have always needed to find open minded moderates and business leaders who became disgusted with the status quo and joined the cause for at least a while. But that didn't mean they automatically needed to compromise everything away and be hyper-cautious as too many DC establishment folks do today.
Interesting that you say that. Because the problem I see is that conventional wisdom.
The old saying is that history is written by the victors. But in our country, that really isn’t true. History routinely paints negatively or downplays the efforts of progressives rather than celebrating the achievements.
Conservatives openly wish to demolish the New Deal now, as if it is some horribly wasteful program, instead of the most successful in this country. Every time some conservative brings up privatizing Social Security, I want to scream that they clearly don’t know/remember what it was like prior to Social Security, where you had seniors literally eating cat food to survive.
Statistics show that our standard of living improves under Democratic presidents. What is it that makes us so unmindful of how important these progressive moves were to Americans? What can we do—as a political force now—to remind the general population how well the country does under progressive leadership and encourage Obama and the Democratic majority in Congress to be bold?
I think conservatives are advancing the worn-out and disproven idea that war creates a healthy economy, so they posit that World War II solved the Depression, not social spending. They never take into account that the war blasted the infrastructures of our competitors so we had no one to compete with for awhile.
Just so y'all know these are questions though they may not be structured that way.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
I posted the other day about this absurd argument the conservatives are using right now about how the New deal didn't really work. The fact is that in the great depression we were truly screwed-everything was a mess. FDR stabilized everything, and steadily brought us back year by year, as unemployment dropped over 60% under his watch in the 1930s.
Because it dismantled her argument.
Conservatives in this country have developed such a strong and aggressive infrastructure, especially on the media side of things. They have been very successful, especially over the last fifty years, in defining the frame and terms of the debate. Progressives have been too splintered in that same period to do a very good job of framing the debate our way, and we have to start doing that. The Progressive Revolution is my attempt at creating a long term narrative about American history that clearly demonstrates that when progressive ideas carry the day, America moves forward and becomes a better country, and when conservative ideas win, the country suffers as a result.
Welcome to C&L..I just had to watch Joe Lieberman stand on FOX and defend Obama's plan before I said hello...
Glad u could make it.
How do you see the media in all of this? IMO too many people's opinions are shaped by media conglomerates controlled by the right. This is a serious impediment to the progressive movement
"Someday somebody related to some of these sufferers, these victims, these collaterally damaged souls, may try to kill you. And I have to tell you, I think you’ll have it coming." - Christopher Cooper
You are right. Big media all too often just takes right wing talking points and parrots them, like they are doing on this economic recovery act debate. It's a huge problem, and we should all be sure and support the progressive media shows and sites that are out there that can get the word out.
And that's why sites like C&L and Media Matters are so valuable, because we hold up to scrutiny the disinformation in the mainstream media.
And I dearly hope that citizens' media is starting to get a foothold within the general population's mind, since we clearly can't trust these media outlets.
I remember around 1977 reading about conservative think tanks and corporations trying to create their own network of news services, and I just shook my head and thought, "Goodluck."
It wasn't that I thought the media was liberal, but moderate, and the average American wanted it that way.
Cable was still for porn. I have a vague memory of a show called Electric Blue or Midnight Blue, something along those lines.
Now the job of defeating the nefarious conservatives looks like a job for:
http://comiccoverage.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8345...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
I got involved in a great e-mail discussion over which kind of media to link to. We have to do a better job at linking to original reporting by Sam Stein at HuffPo instead of original reporting by the Politico.
There is some fantastic original reporting going on in the blogosphere, and just as importantly, fact-checking on others.
One of the reasons I inherently trust our (and Stein's) reporting is that we actually link back to our sourcing, so it makes it easier to evaluate whether or not to give credibility to the reporting, as opposed to the Politico's unsourced assertions that look suspiciously like Republican talking points.
n/t
you were reading my mind.
"Someday somebody related to some of these sufferers, these victims, these collaterally damaged souls, may try to kill you. And I have to tell you, I think you’ll have it coming." - Christopher Cooper
To ysbaddaden's point of the radically liberal concept of a new country, Mike, you've opened my eyes to Thomas Paine.
Thomas Paine often looked upon as the first libertarian, but that’s not correct. Paine was a radically progressive activist and you’ve pegged his writings as the first big marker of the progressive movement in this country. I’ll be honest and say that I don’t remember in either high school or university history classes anyone making that big a deal out of Paine. My 10 year old’s American history textbook makes only one mention of him at all, as the author of the pamphlet “Common Sense”, and nothing at all about the reverberations of such a radically new concept of a populous democracy. And as you write in your book, his importance was diminished during his lifetime by conservatives threatened by his populous notions, so maybe it’s not a surprise that his legacy is not highlighted in school lessons. Perhaps that’s why Republicans and Libertarians have been happy to co-opt his mythology when it suits them. Can you say a few things on the legacy of Tom Paine that shows that he truly is the father of American progressive thought?
I would rate Tom Paine was one of the most remarkable people in all of American, and world, history. He was an unmatched political theorist, yet wrote in a way that spoke directly to working class and poor people. You literally can credit him for:
a. Completely re-shaping the debate about whether the colonies should break from Great Britain at all.
b. Changing the thinking about what kind of government the new country should have—without his influence, it’s quite possible we would have just substituted one king for another.
c. Inspiring American soldiers and citizens throughout the war with his stirring pamphlets.
He was also remarkable for being so far ahead of his time: he advocated the end of slavery, women’s rights, a Social Security program for the elderly, an estate tax and progressive income tax, and various social welfare programs. I would rank Paine alongside Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as one of the two most important progressive leaders in American history.
First? Are you forgetting about John Locke or even some of his predecessors?
And Thomas Paine would never go for the type of crap that passes for "liberalism" these days.
$900 billion bailouts? Thomas Paine would decry such tyranny.
Some Paine quotes:
...
...
...
...
Are these the words of a socialist progressive?
An interesting book published in the early '80's by Arthur Sleshinger Jr., (the spelling of his name escapes me right now)describes the very cyclical nature of history.
Arthur Schlesinger Jr., also wrote an interesting book called The Vietnam War Years, that traced our involvement there back to World War II, and fighting with the Japanese over oil and or rubber rights.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
I referenced and quoted from Schlesinger's brilliant book a lot in mine- he made some very important points. As I discussed, though, if Schlesinger's cycles were immutable, the 1990s would have been a great progressive era as he predicted. Nothing is inevitable, though, and we blew it in the '90s.
http://homedir-b.libsyn.com/podcasts/757d6791...
http://www.radiorevisited.com/images/sets/LUX...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4jg4ulBBV4
(Don't mind me, I'm just the village idiot.)
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
eom
Really strong –and really needed—progressive change often is compromised or watered down in an effort to appease conservatives…just as we’re seeing today.
One of the “tempering agents” of our radically progressive notion of a new democracy for the people, by the people and of the people was the Electoral College, something that continues to be a problem to the functioning of our democracy today. What other past concessions to conservatism do you see as an ongoing concern?
of this change simply by "doing."
I would include:
a. All the ability to slow and stop things because of the filibuster rules in the Senate
b. The lack of accountability and democracy in the Federal Reserve system and the Supreme Court
c. The fact that states decide their own rules about voting laws.
There are a lot of others as well, but in the interest of time, I'll just mention those. Maybe other folks have other thoughts.
but my question is what is conservative about the electoral college? If our leader was elected solely on majority votes, than all federal funds would go to New York and LA and the rest of the nation would get nothing. That's my concept of the value of the electoral college.
That was one of the concerns of the smaller colonies/new states. So the Electoral College, the Bill of Rights, the Constitutional Tripartite system, Checks and Balances were all to reign in the Federal Government, although they reserved the right to the Federal Supremacy clause.
Additionally, they avoided Aristotle's concern that democracy was based on selfish interest; he prefered a Constitutional Monarchy. The Founding Fathers did him one better by creating a Constitution Democratic Republic (indirect as opposed to direct Democracy). That way they also avoided what they called Mobocracy, rule by who could raise the biggest mob.
Now that's the job of news corp (FAUX.)
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Coming from Nebraska, that's not how I see it. Small states are very well represented in the Senate, and the only thing they have to worry is their Senate delegation's relative effectiveness. On the other hand, states that are strongly GOP or Dem have no influence at all in Presidential politics, unless they are an early primary state.
I talk in The Progressive revolution about how the entire idea of the electoral college was to take power out of the hands of regular voters, and how it has caused crises time and again over the years.
in 2000.
"Someday somebody related to some of these sufferers, these victims, these collaterally damaged souls, may try to kill you. And I have to tell you, I think you’ll have it coming." - Christopher Cooper
But isn't that emblematic of an era when senators were appointed by state legislatures instead of by direct vote? And wasn't that why they required each state to have two senators, but representation in the House was by population? To settle the fears of the smaller states?
Of course now we directly vote for senators, so that could be an argument that the Electoral College is just another anachronism from this early period.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
My vote, as a Californian, is worth less than yours. My tax dollar does not come back to me, but goes to states paying less, so I get less benefit for it.
Unpopulated land masses do not elect presidents, but the votes in those areas are weighted heavier. Sadly, population centers tend to be more Democratic, and our voices are weighted less.
Sounds like a desire for proportional voting.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
I think that it's a more small-d democratic system.
We have a Congress and a President who are happily, it seems, transferring vast amounts of money to banking swindlers.
These people should be in bankruptcy court. A number of them should be in jail.
Without public hearings or the full testimony of experts the government is completing the scam.
When I see the second coming of Glass Steagall I will believe it.
We have a government bought and paid for by Wall Street.
We (the peons) will be much the poorer for it.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
We are in the middle of this huge upheaval, and the Democratic party and Obama administration are in a huge debate with themselves over whether to go with strong progressive change, or whether to follow the establishment wisdom. I think the seriousness of the problems will force Obama to go to bigger and more progressive solutions, just as the depression did with FDR.
...in the new Obama administration (and yes, we're so impatient for bold strikes and it's hard to remember he's been President for less than a month), I hope that you're able to convey those progressive hopes to him, Mike.
Is there something we average citizens can do to back you up?
He was a senator for 4 years and what did he do? He voted for the banker swindle, retroactive immunity for illegal spying, the credit card company wish list bill, etc.
His biggest donors were from Wall St. He is their guy.
I was a part of the transition, but decided I could do more good raising hell on the outside, so I'm no longer in the administration. The most important thing we can all do is to keep pushing hard, in every way we can (blogs, through organizations, through the Dem party, through lobbying congress), for Obama to bring the changes he promised.
Progressive change versus establishment status quo.
So far, the Democrats are acting precisely like the establishment.
FDR closed the banks and audited them.
Indeed we do need something akin to that. Complete forensic audits and taxpayer control through nationalization of the largest banks.
They say they are capitalists, let them act like capitalists. Leave the bad assets to the capitalists because they are the risk takers and they deserve the results.
Socialize the good assets because the taxpayers had nothing to do with the capitalist's folly and do not deserve the consequences.
But these are complicated issues and difficult to respond to off the cuff.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
Will I be able to withdraw my money before Obama declares a "bank holiday"?
There needs to be a significant effort to make our legal system perform in the way that respects the rule of law. There also needs to be some fundamental changes to our laws and the legislative branch of the government.
"Someday somebody related to some of these sufferers, these victims, these collaterally damaged souls, may try to kill you. And I have to tell you, I think you’ll have it coming." - Christopher Cooper
In the 60's (the last pregressive emovement) the FM stations were the source of much of the progressive information being disseminated. There were also underground newspapers. The internet has truly nurtured the progressive movement of this era.
"Someday somebody related to some of these sufferers, these victims, these collaterally damaged souls, may try to kill you. And I have to tell you, I think you’ll have it coming." - Christopher Cooper
is absolutely critical in the new progressive movement, and in creating another big change moment in general.
I've been very impressed with Obama's domestic agenda so far. It's not what I would describe as fully progressive but it's not "bad" either.
On foreign policy - meh, not so much. Iran is still wrongly described as seeking nukes, there's to be a mission-less "surge" in Afghanistan, Israel can still do no wrong, he's covering up for torturers and their enablers. I feel he's handed FP to the hawkish realists, the neo-libs. I don't see his first term showing as a foreign policy success.
Mike, how does the "progressive movement" deal with that when right now it seems to be very shy of not being in lockstep with the WH?
Regards, C
You've written extensively on the myth of bipartisanship and the folly of Obama's post-partisanship appeals to the Republican minority. Why do you think progressives—when in the majority and therefore, "in power", continue to appease conservatives?
Is the problem that bipartisanship on Obama's part, is so he doesn't continue the Imperial Presidency and centralized power structure of the boosh years?
But in the meantime solutions for pressing problems are talked to death?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
It didn’t use to be that way, as progressives were very bold in the 1960s, 1930s and at other times in American history. I write a lot in my book about what I call the Democratic “Culture of Caution”. I think being in the congressional majority so long made us fat and happy and distinctly unbold, and I think the Republican media infrastructure did a great job at beating up on our folks so hard, so consistently, and in such a sustained way, that it caused Democrats to get cautious.
I think symbolic outreach to Repubs is fine- being warm and gracious and all that. But we have to get over the idea that we are going to give in to their ridiculous demands. We need to push for big change, not settle for watered down conservatism.
We spent a LOT more time in the streets.
"Someday somebody related to some of these sufferers, these victims, these collaterally damaged souls, may try to kill you. And I have to tell you, I think you’ll have it coming." - Christopher Cooper
They don't get the media coverage they used to.
And honestly, I think they are minimized or ignored by the media to downplay public sentiment when it goes against the conservative agenda.
They are too peaceful (see cautious).
"Someday somebody related to some of these sufferers, these victims, these collaterally damaged souls, may try to kill you. And I have to tell you, I think you’ll have it coming." - Christopher Cooper
There are always three crowd estimates: the organizers of the protest, those opposed to the protest, and the police count.
Meanwhile they're cordoned off in "Free-Speech," zones a rather Orwellian term, where they can safely be ignored by all and sundry.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Why does everyone insist on continuing to call progressives "progressives" and regressives "conservatives"? They aren't conserving anything for crissake. They're trying to regress back to an earlier time when they think everything was perfect. It's called REGRESSION. It's the opposite of the natural order of things.
They're REGRESSIVES.
Say it with me:
"REGRESSIVES".
What are progressives progressing toward? They never say.
I write about both the historical argument that progressives have always made about issues, and the current day issues we need to be pushing.
Well, the future, for one thing. I would think that's obvious, given the definition of the word.
2: a forward or onward movement (as to an objective or to a goal) : advance
3: gradual betterment ; especially : the progressive development of humankind
Progress=future.
Regress=past.
A future where the government is small, taxes are minimal, individual rights are maximized?
Or like a Road Warrior type of future?
What kind of future are progressives progressing toward?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7IImWToRlA
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
A future where mice rule the world?
Well, count me IN!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7L7WLFBYR4
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
We are all created equal and deserve both equal rights under the law and equal opportunities to make good lives for ourselves and our families. That means that the laws should not be formulated to favor one race of people or to help the wealthy over the the poor. And it means that we all should have a good education, enough food to eat, adequate health care if we get sick and a decent place to live.
Our society works well only when it has a sense of community, an understanding that we are all interdependent on one another, that we are all diminished if any one of us is suffering and that we look out for those who can't take care of themselves.
America is a democracy that should be a government of, by, and for the people. We don't trust elites to look out for the rest of us, and we want everyone to have a say in how the government and the economy are run.
Fri, 02/06/2009 - 10:52 — neamhni
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5qa6mVC3b0
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
But I have a couple of questions I still want to get to. Honestly, I could spend another hour on Roosevelt's New Deal era, as I see it as the most analogous to our current situation, but given that your time is very limited, I'll limit myself.
The modern Conservative ideology was born of the “states’ rights” debate in the mid-1800’s. But that really was a prettified cover for the inherent racism of conservative ideology. To be fair, it’s not just racism, but fear of the Other, where the Other could be (or has been) a different gender, a different race, a different nationality, a different socio-economic status, etc. Can you tell us a little bit about how racism has played a part of conservative thought in this country over the last hundred years? And given that, why do you think that the “face” of conservatism of late has made a point of looking more diversified (see Michael Steele, Michelle Bernard, etc.)?
Issues of race are deeply, deeply ingrained in the psyche of American culture, politics, and history, and conservatives have in every era been good at scaring people with these issues. Conservatives argued vehemently for states’ rights and against universal rights using racism as their wedge, sometimes very openly and in more recent years a little more subtly, but never hesitating to use the race specter. Not just on slavery and Jim Crow, by the way, but on a wide range of other issues: voting rights, welfare, immigration, etc.
Because racism is starting to fade a little, though, conservatives and Republicans have realized that they can only get away with their fear-based wedge politics if they sometimes put a person of color up as their spokesperson
I actually heard a man say yesterday that we were going to have a nationwide shortage of bananas because they were all being sent to the White House.
"Someday somebody related to some of these sufferers, these victims, these collaterally damaged souls, may try to kill you. And I have to tell you, I think you’ll have it coming." - Christopher Cooper
The national discourse we’re having right now in terms of economic stimulus is one we’ve had over and over in the past: “Trickle down” vs. “Bottom up”. Again, this parallels my question as to why we seem to be so unmindful of what works in this country. Has “trickle-down” policies EVER worked? Of course not, yet we as a nation are still subjected to these arguments as to how the economy should be stimulated back into health. Why do you think progressives have been so lacking in being able to articulate a plan to the American people that shows they have the weight of history behind them? What can we—as a new frontier in terms of disseminating information—do to combat this?
No conservative policies (economic and every other kind, for that matter) have ever actually worked for most people in American history. One big string of failure. We have to do a better job of telling that story, which is why I wrote The Progressive Revolution. Again, I think caution is a big part of the answer as to why progressives have failed in that messaging in recent years. Part of it, too, is the lack of coherence in the movement—too many single issue groups, not enough broad progressivism. And part of it is that I don’t think enough people take history seriously, to really learn how it has been that progressives have moved the country forward.
There needs to be MASSIVE numbers working together for a movement.
"Someday somebody related to some of these sufferers, these victims, these collaterally damaged souls, may try to kill you. And I have to tell you, I think you’ll have it coming." - Christopher Cooper
what failures conservative principles have been? And not just in his recent speeches about the simulus. As he's seen, bipartisanship doesn't work with them..
Would you consider the $900 billion (0.9 trillion) spending bill to be trickle down or trickle up?
The money comes from (?) and goes to the government to be dispersed, eventually trickling into the economy (resulting in massive inflation later).
1.3 trillion dollars in tax cuts, mostly going to the rich: that's trickle down. Money being invested in creating middle class jobs, and in doing needed things for our country like rebuilding schools, weatherizing public buildings, etc: that is investing from the bottom-up.
Handing out non-existent money and creating inflation, making the poor even poorer, is called "investing from the bottom up" now, is it?
Some people don't get the difference between using tax wealth to enrich the already rich
Or for investing in the common good.
Their days are over, so taxes aren't used in this way anymore:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfFVwAD248A
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Mike, I know that you have a lot on your schedule and I thank you so much for spending this time with us.
I really found The Progressive Revolution fascinating reading, and I hope that C&Lers support our progressive leaders by purchasing the book (link above, hint hint).
I think this has been just the tip of the iceberg of what your book covered. Hopefully it whets some appetites to get further into the progressive revolution and become activists to push for bold strokes right now.
Thank you again for your time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDAx473AFpA&fe...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
This has been a wonderful opportunity, and I thoroughly enjoyed the discussion.
I haven't read this book yet, so I'm wondering if the author thinks the Homestead Act was a good thing.
Millions of acres of land given away free to poor people, I'd rate that as pretty damn good.
... the poor Indians who already lived there?
They got poorer.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
And lets not forget the environmental impact.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEKhl1-G7Jo
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Nicole Belle (who I actually like, even though I always give her a world of poo) wrote:
Our country was founded and has grown under an eternal tug of war between progressives and conservatives.
Yeah. IT'S CALLED THE CLASS STRUGGLE. This unappealing chubby hairy jewish-like fella from Germany talked about it - oh, that's right - Karl Marx.
Progressives are just the petit bourgeois intelligensia who want things to be nice and fair, but are unwilling to be revolutionaries and get the job done. Progressives COULD push the agenda stronger and use a more scientific understanding of history, but that would, again, lead to Marxist conclusions, and the necessity of violent revolution in order to overturn the dominance of the bourgeoisie - something they are loathe to do, because they think radical change can be accomplished in peaceful manners.
What the Marxists and the fascists don't understand is that they both inhabit the same end of the spectrum from what needs to be done:
wholesale abandonment of the industrial system for the sake of life on this planet.
But the fascists won't do it, because they would lose piles of money, and the Marxists won't do it because it would mean the end of the proletariat, the class they have pinned their hopes on. So, the left and the right will fight over what little is left of the resources.
It's similar to what Obama said: SUV, Hybrid - it doesn't matter if you're driving right at a cliff. The answer, and it is one he is loathe to do, is to stop the car and walk to safety. The class struggle will continue, but in the context of solar based agrarianism.
It's called the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it.
-George Carlin
Marx was overly concerned with the economy, there's is more to the struggle than that; one that pops to mind is recognition and approval.
He also wasn't very original; he was borrowing from an instructor of his, Hegel, thesis/antithesis/synthesis approach, which seemed reminiscent in it's way of Aristotle's Golden Mean.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
thank you.
You will want to check with Monsanto first.
Curtilingus has other links.
I watched part of that again. There are many implications. Originally I saw primarily the issue of the appeals court (09:30) finding that 'falsifying news is not actually against the law.' There are more, obviously.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
Sonofabitch!
Ok, I'm a believer now.
I had surgery on my shoulder awhile back. I needed calcium, so I figured drink milk. I put on 50lbs. I stopped drinking milk, and I dropped 45 of them. I can only wonder what's in store for me in the future. sigh
What is your conceptual, continuity?
as bad as that is and it is plenty bad.
the Federal Government has allowed the patenting of genetically modified food.
They don't even list it on the ingredients of the food. If they did and fifty million people drop dead there would be enormous liability.
This is a travesty of incalculable import.
We have a predator state that protects the corporations, not the citizens.
Here the Future of Food - Genetically Modified Food.
Here is an update on one of them where a Canadian Farmer was sued by Monsanto because their patented genetic strains drifted onto his land. He stuck to his guns and won. He is a hero. But the battle is not over.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
n/t
What is your conceptual, continuity?
the Canadian farmer is a hero. He has set legal precedent against a predator corporation.
You can see him in the Future of Food video above and here.
He needs help for his legal bills:
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
There is no pendulum. There is only effort.
I think US belief in a pendulum that swings from liberal to conservative keeps people from working to make really lasting improvements in our society. Americans seem to just conform to whatever social mood the media tells them the pendulum is on. Notice how rapidly a large majority of Americans started claiming to be Democrats once Obama was in office, even though the popular vote was pretty close at 52/48.
Same thing went on in the 1980s and during the Gingrich era when you had Democrats rebuking the word liberal and joining Republicans to slash social programs and bloat the military, all because they felt the imaginary societal pendulum had swung to the right. The environmental and social problems of the time were still there, still needed the same progressive approach to solving them, but Americans felt those approaches had become unfashionable in an era they'd been told had inexplicably become "conservative." Accepting right-wingers' views on things caused the environmental and societal problems to get worse.
The problems faced now are still the same, there are only a limited number of ways to solve them, and none of those ways can be found among right-wingers. An imaginary pendulum has nothing to do with that.
The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided “battleground” states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 “battleground” states. Similarly, in 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule enacted by 48 states, under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.
Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.
In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, of course, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded.
The bill is currently endorsed by 1,246 state legislators — 460 sponsors (in 48 states) and an additional 786 legislators who have cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.
The National Popular Vote bill has been endorsed by the New York Times, Chicago Sun-Times, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, Hartford Courant, Miami Herald, Sarasota Herald Tribune, Sacramento Bee, The Tennessean, Fayetteville Observer, Anderson Herald Bulletin, Wichita Falls Times, The Columbian, and other newspapers. The bill has been endorsed by Common Cause, Fair Vote, and numerous other organizations.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. This national result is similar to recent polls in Arkansas (80%), California (70%), Colorado (68%), Connecticut (73%), Delaware (75%), Kentucky (80%), Maine (71%), Massachusetts (73%), Michigan (73%), Mississippi (77%), Missouri (70%), New Hampshire (69%), Nebraska (74%), Nevada (72%), New Mexico (76%), New York (79%), North Carolina (74%), Ohio (70%), Pennsylvania (78%), Rhode Island (74%), Vermont (75%), Virginia (74%), Washington (77%), and Wisconsin (71%).
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 22 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, Michigan, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes — 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
What the Founding Fathers said in the U.S. Constitution is "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."
Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, that the voters may vote and the winner-take-all rule) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.
In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, it was necessary to own a substantial amount of property in order to vote, and only 3 states used the winner-take-all rule (awarding all of a state's electoral vote to the candidate who gets the most votes in the state). Since then, as a result of changes in state laws, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the winner-take-all rule is used by 48 of the 50 states.
The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes.
3% can block a federal constitutional amendment
The process for amending the U.S. Constitution does not reflect the will of the people. A federal constitutional amendment favored by states containing 97% of the people of the U.S. can be blocked by the 13 smallest states containing 3% of the people.
The National Popular Vote bill is not an "end run" around the Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the states over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "exclusive" and "plenary."
The winner-take-all rule currently used by 48 or the 50 states is not in the U.S. Constitution. The winner-take-all rule was used by only 3 states in the nation's first presidential election in 1789. Our present-day system was neither specified by the Constitution nor favored by the Founding Fathers.
The congressional district allocation of electoral votes that is currently used by Maine and Nebraska is not in the U.S. Constitution. No state used that system in 1789.
States can, and frequently have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. All the U.S. Constitution says is "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ."
The small states are the most disadvantaged of all under the current system of electing the President. Political clout comes from being a closely divided battleground state, not the two-vote bonus.
Small states are almost invariably non-competitive in presidential election. Only 1 of the 13 smallest states are battleground states (and only 5 of the 25 smallest states are battlegrounds).
Of the 13 smallest states, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Alaska regularly vote Republican, and Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC regularly vote Democratic. These 12 states together contain 11 million people. Because of the two electoral-vote bonus that each state receives, the 12 non-competitive small states have 40 electoral votes. However, the two-vote bonus is an entirely illusory advantage to the small states. Ohio has 11 million people and has "only" 20 electoral votes. As we all know, the 11 million people in Ohio are the center of attention in presidential campaigns, while the 11 million people in the 12 non-competitive small states are utterly irrelevant. Nationwide election of the President would make each of the voters in the 12 smallest states as important as an Ohio voter.
The fact that the bonus of two electoral votes is an illusory benefit to the small states has been widely recognized by the small states for some time. In 1966, Delaware led a group of 12 predominantly low-population states (North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Utah, Arkansas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Iowa, Kentucky, Florida, Pennsylvania) in suing New York in the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that New York's use of the winner-take-all effectively disenfranchised voters in their states. The Court declined to hear the case (presumably because of the well-established constitutional provision that the manner of awarding electoral votes is exclusively a state decision). Ironically, defendant New York is no longer a battleground state (as it was in the 1960s) and today suffers the very same disenfranchisement as the 12 non-competitive low-population states. A vote in New York is, today, equal to a vote in Wyoming--both are equally worthless and irrelevant in presidential elections.
The concept of a national popular vote for President is far from being politically “radioactive” in small states, because the small states recognize they are the most disadvantaged group of states under the current system.
The National Popular Vote bill already has been approved by a total of seven state legislative chambers in small states, including one house in Maine and both houses in Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont. It has been enacted by Hawaii.
The people vote for President now in all 50 states and have done so in most states for 200 years.
So, the issue raised by the National Popular Vote legislation is not about whether there will be "mob rule" in presidential elections, but whether the "mob" in a handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Florida, get disproportionate attention from presidential candidates, while the "mobs" of the vast majority of states are ignored. In 2004, candidates spent over two thirds of their visits and two-thirds of their money in just 6 states and 99% of their money in just 16 states, while ignoring the rest of the country.
The current system does NOT provide some kind of check on the "mobs." There have been 22,000 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 10 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. The electors are dedicated party activists who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.
Comments are closed on this entry