What does making the party more progressive mean?

[BainsBane]

What values, issues, and policies do you want to see promoted?

I have for months now seen proclamations that the party should be more progressive with no discussion of what that actually means. So what issues do you want to see championed? What goals?

[Wounded Bear]

1. It means we're distracted...

from the organizing we need to do while arguing about ideological bullshit.

Carry on.

[BainsBane]

2. We don't argue about ideology

We argue about politicians. If the party is supposed to stand for "something," don't you think we should know what that something is?

[panader0]

27. Agree

Aren't we all united about our principles?

[marylandblue]

3. economic policy

Medicare for all, raise minimum wage, direct investment in job-producing projects, shore up social security. Raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for it.

[guillaumeb]

5. I would start with raising taxes.

Raise the top marginal rate to 90% for all income, earned and unearned, over a set amount. Perhaps 5 million dollars per family.

That would only affect the top one hundredth of a percent of all income earners.

Second, cut the war budget by 50%.

Use that money to finance free education from K through college and other things.

[BainsBane]

8. and if that results in a large-scale capital flight

and a resulting spike in unemployment?

I agree with the rest of your list, but I think a 90% tax rate would be counterproductive.

[guillaumeb]

11. Some economists estimate that trillions are already hidden overseas.

Thus the perceived need for a repatriation tax holiday.

[BainsBane]

18. $20 trillion, I believe

That doesn't mean that more can't follow. Growth in consumer markets are overseas. Why would businesses stay in that situation, with a 90% tax rate? Why wouldnt' private capital flee at even greater rates?

[guillaumeb]

45. Showing the need for a harmonizing of tax rates. Perhaps something for the UN

to consider.

But your argument could also be made to argue against any form of taxation anywhere.

[BainsBane]

58. No, we aren't talking about any kind of taxation

You're talking about taxation in which the person is allowed to keep only 10% of their wealth. An appeal to a global tax rate is not going to work, and you must know that.

The question is what is the goal? Is it to raise revenue to fund state programs, or is it to punish the wealthy? If it's the former, policy has to be based on evidence of what works. If it's the latter, you need to be prepared for a very different kind of economy and govt that will have to cope with declining revenues.

[guillaumeb]

64. Rhetoric aside, trade deals are focused on protecting the rights of the wealthy.

Trade deals could easily focus on harmonizing tax codes and rules about transfer of wealth.

The goal should be raising revenue to fund government. Instead, the GOP has successfully framed the argument to be that any taxation is a taking of wealth that the 1% have supposedly earned.

If the Koch brothers were only worth 1 billion each rather than 40 billion, their lifestyles would not change, but their ability to subvert democratic governance and dialogue would be significantly impaired.

[Blanks]

79. The top marginal tax rate in the 50's was 91%...

We need to bring back the rates from that era adjusted for inflation. I believe any income above $400,000 was taxed at 91%. What this does is essentially set a 'maximum wage' we should adjust it by 10 times so that any income over $4 million is taxed at 91%. They were so high at that point in time to pay down the debt from war.

The cap needs to be removed from FICA too, and capital gains (on stock options) should be included as income.

These high taxes encourage businesses to invest in the business instead of paying executives so much. Since the employer (except for the self employed) send in the taxes to the government, reducing the percentage of taxes that the lower paid workers receive encourages the employer to pay the lower paid employees more, 0% for up to $30,000 or so. Reducing the amount the company sends in to the Feds if they pay the people at the top less and the people at the bottom more (to a point).

FICA should increase above a certain income too, to further disincentivize paying those at the top more.

[tblue37]

48. That's a suggested *marginal* tax rate. Too many people conflate that with the tax rate, so I think

we should be careful about always distinguishing between the two.

[Demsrule86]

52. Unless you deal with capital gains and close loopholes...waste of time.

[guillaumeb]

63. I specified earned and unearned income.

And good trade deals would have to include agreements on tax rates and money transfer to eliminate corporate shopping for low and no tax havens.

[BainsBane]

6. But what happens when environmental concerns

conflict with jobs--such as with pipelines and fracking?

[progressoid]

62. A progressive job plan wouldn't support fracking and pipelines.

It would look for greener alternatives.

[Rex]

12. Wow how hard was that?

Pretty much what everyone wants. Who could have thunk it?

[QC]

28. Please do try to be more sensible and pragmatic.

All this stuff is way more subtle and nuanced than you and I could ever comprehend.

[Kimchijeon]

4. A simple and short answer to me would be

Everything that Bernie was promoting. (and still is a supporter of, just basic level first world country stuff)

That's all I will say on the matter, just keepin' it short & sweet.

[BainsBane]

7. And that is the problem

A politician is not an ideology. As I addressed here.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8719255

[uponit7771]

9. It means doing 101% of what some want instead of 98.5% otherwise they claim the DNC aint shit

[zipplewrath]

10. Middle class support

Especially the lower middle class. Furthermore it needs to get back to the labor union movement. Financial reform will be important too in order to help close the gap between the richest and poorest. That's also going to be a focus on raising the minimum wage. Ultimately it has to get north of $20. We need some immigration reform alright, in the form of rational immigration law.

Then there is climate change and renewable energy.

And we need some work done on the militarization of the police.

[Rex]

13. Get dark money out of politics is my number one issue.

Glad to see so many have the same issue!

[BainsBane]

16. You do realize

there is some conflict between cultivating support among union members and some of the environmental policies commonly championed by progressives.

Clinton was denounced for failing to proclaim a ban to fracking, but people didn't think of much of what was involved in that: jobs; the resulting greater dependence on coal and foreign oil (at least in the interim), and dependence on Middle East oil means for US military entanglements. She had a comprehensive energy policy designed to wean the US off fossil fuels, but that was deemed insufficiently progressive because people found it easier to focus entirely on a ban on fracking, without any discussion about a comprehensive policy to replace it.

She got hammered in the coal regions because she was honest in saying coal wasn't coming back. She proposed an economic development plan to revitalize those areas with other jobs, but her comments on coal were taken out of context and used against her, both in the primary and GE. So the so-called progressive position was. in effect, pro-coal, probably the dirtiest form of energy that exists.

The problem is the issues are far more complicated and nuanced than people like to think about.

[zipplewrath]

19. Yes, I do

I also know that this extended greatly from the lack of trust in general between the Clinton wing of the democratic party and the unions. That distrust was built over decades and based predominately on the policies they advocated.

The blue collar vote is always one that can turn away from many democratic ideals. It was the unions that kept them on track and in the fold. By losing the union support (and by diminishing unions in general) that voting block becomes vulnerable. The solution isn't to adopt environmentally unfriendly policies, it is to establish the working relationship with that voting block so you can communicate the realities of the decisions that need to be made. Trust me, about now, people in Flint would be very friendly towards protecting the nations water supply.

[BainsBane]

20. Some good points

I like this:

The solution isn't to adopt environmentally unfriendly policies, it is to establish the working relationship with that voting block so you can communicate the realities of the decisions that need to be made. Trust me, about now, people in Flint would be very friendly towards protecting the nations water supply.

I think the whole Clinton wing argument reveals the sexism that permeates our society and influenced the GE. Hillary Clinton is not her husband, but people were unable and unwilling to see her as a separate person. Ironically, many who professed support for Bill Clinton refused to support her and used aspects of his policies they didn't like to attack her. I don't think a man from the "Clinton wing" would have faced that same situation. Al Gore didn't, not by self-proclaimed progressives.

[zipplewrath]

22. Somewhat

Gore worked to separate himself from Bill. Hillary obviously couldn't do the same thing. I do think she got stuck "defending" policies and decisions that she may not have actually supported at the time. But her own words also contributed to her problems. Her stated positions on gay marriage, on the TPP, and her continued defense of the repeal of Glass Steagall all worked to undermine an ability to separate herself from Bill. And of course there was the whole speaking gig thing. No doubt her gender made it easier to dismiss her, but she was an active part of the wing of the party that advocated many policies that ultimately became unpopular such as DADT, DOMA, and of course NAFTA and TPP.

[BainsBane]

24. Even Warren said Glass-Steagall was largely symbolic

And Bernie abandoned it in his interview with the NY Daily News. It spoke to a public that likes politics simple rather than effective.

I think you're right about how she failed to distance herself from B Clinton's policies we known she privately opposed at the time. That included NAFTA, and her position on trade deals as a senator was deliberately mischarcterized.

The problem with so many critiques of the Clinton administration is that they are made from a presentist perspective rather than in light of the political context of the time. DADT is a key example. It replaced an outright ban on LGBT troops. Do critics really think that was better?

That's also true for the argument the Clinton's turned the party to the right. The country was conservative at the time. The DLC, Third Way thing emerged as a strategy for Dems to try to regain the presidency after being shut out for 20 of 24 yrs. It seems some would have preferred another decade of Reaganism.

I was no fan of Bill Clinton at the time, but I do understand the importance of historical context. I wish others would think about that a bit.

[zipplewrath]

25. Not sure your history is all that correct

Alot of people knew what a disaster DADT was the day it was passed. In fact, the reality is that expulsions got worse at some points after it was passed than before. Functionally, there was very little difference from before to after, at least as a point of law. The way it was implemented, there was little to no protection at all.

And the whole turn to the right thing didn't pan out. It was the beginning of a move to the right that has never really stopped. This, despite having the presidency for 16 of the last 24 years. And quite honestly, Gore should have been president. Clinton didn't get elected because of his move to the right, and his triangulation strategy undermined many core democratic principals. Clinton got elected because of the frustration with Bush (and one can make a case that Perot helped as well.) Bush actually made some moves to the left (He passed the largest increase in federal spending on health care with Part D).

It is sad but true that the democratic party had to be dragged into supporting gay marriage. We had multiple candidates that did the whole "civil union" schtick. It was activity in the courts which slowly dragged them left on the issue. DOMA became an issue that democrats had to run against, and it only happened because of Clinton's triangulation strategy and Morris's influence.

And we can't forget that Clinton's move on the Iraq war cost her in terms of trust with a certain section of the democratic party. It was so clearly a political move on her part, and one that she ultimately paid the price for the first time around, and ultimately contributed to her trust issues within her own party.

And now here we are in the worst shape that the democratic party has been since reconstruction. That's a bit of history that's hard to ignore and it can all be traced directly to the shift to the right of the party, and the abandonment of the blue collar/union/lower middle class. And that's a Clinton legacy. So I don't think you can particularly get away from that, even if you believe it was "necessary" at the time. Even if it was, it was a strategy that should have stopped long ago, and probably was never necessary.

[BainsBane]

36. There was a 1992 primary

And Bill Clinton won. People had the opportunity to support other candidates. They voted for Clinton. To look back decades and blame Hillary for the economic climate of Reaganism makes no sense.

Clinton voted for Iraq, as did Kerry and Biden, neither of which are maligned as Hillary has been. I didn't support Clinton in o8 because of the war, and I protested the war before and after it broke out. But this country and party is full of people who supported the war under Bush but then chose To use it against Clinton 14 years later. I went to many Iraq protests that were scarcely attended. Where the fuck were those people then?

Do you really think the right was outraged by DADT because it was more punitive toward LGBT? How does that compute? The law did include legal protections. You can look these things up rather than relying on what someone who wasn't walking at the time says about it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_ask,_don't_tell

It is also a fact that Hillary tried to implement universal healthcare, something she got no credit for among 21st century critics, despite the fact it was that which led to her being targeted for decades by the right. Only it wasn't single payer, and that was worth turning the government over to billionaires and Russian oligarchs who would overturn ACA. The country has moved to the right but not because Democrats have gotten more conservative. The 2016 platform was more progressive than those in the 80s or 90s. The difference is there was a complacent public who took for granted a great deal that is now being stripped away, and the GOP was aided by a nihilistic contingent who decided they preferred to see the system destroyed than work for the very policies they claimed to support but didn't.

Maybe the lesson should be this. Fight like hell for the issues and candidates you want, but do so without working to promote the GOP and dramatically worsen the lies of everyone but the privileged? Fight FOR something rather than against the Democratic Party and it's nominee? Would it be possible to actually stand for something other than the destruction of the Democratic Party and its candidate? Yes, the party is worse off, in part because people who pretended to be on the left worked to promote Republican power, some of them on the Kremlin's payroll.

Even now when I ask where people want the party to go, and few if any point to values or issues that Clinton didn't champion. Instead, you are repeatedly falling back on views about Clinton personally, that you didn't trust her. Maybe next time people shouldn't be quite so eager to spread the GOP's propaganda? Maybe people who claim to want the country to move left shouldn't do the right's job for them? Maybe they should think about issues rather than how they don't like the Democrat who gets the most votes in the primary? Politics based on personal animus or reverence is not more progressive or leftist. Far from it. In fact, I can think of little more conservative than vesting so much in personality over policy. We see the results of that with Trump supporters, but that tendency extends beyond the GOP. Democracy--not just the Dem party or progressivism but democracy itself--requires better.

[zipplewrath]

47. Calm down

I was more than walking at the time, I was working, and I was engaged with the community when it started. They were not thrilled. The more accurate history was that Clinton claimed that the congress was getting ready to enact into law, what the military had already been doing, which was expelling members. He'll even tell you that Powell mislead him on how the law would be used (it remains to the reader to decide if that is accurate). Others saw the law for exactly what it was.

It is true that she tried to enact health care. It's also true she failed. I do wonder how much she was consulted. I do know her failure caused the Obama team to decide they had to pacify the insurance industry.

My entire point in this thread that her primary problem was a complete breakdown in trust with very specific elements of the democratic party. This break down was because of specific positions that she, and her husband, took over the decades. Trust is the important coin of the realm when one is trying to lead. One cannot lead without occasionally having to make "hard' decisions that won't be obvious on the surface. It will take explanation, but also require that the community "trust" that explanation. The Clintons, and much of their larger support system, lost much of that, which is where Bernie came from (and to some extent Obama although I don't think most people understood how much of that community he actually belonged). It's easy to point to a dozen or so statements and policies in which she was involved which eroded this trust. Once lost, that's hard to get back.

Looking forward the real point isn't to re-argue Hillary, the point is that going forward, to advance the democratic agenda, we have to remember to "bring everyone along" as we go. That means building, and maintaining trust as you go with elements that aren't going to understand, and may perceive that they are on the loosing end. It means listening to them, responding TO them, and regularly accommodating and representing them, even when it slows you down on other issues. Triangulating them out of the issue isn't a way to build trust.

[BainsBane]

66. Yes, it's about the future

which is why I suggested progressives deal with their future disagreements with the party in more productive ways. Future primaries are likely to result in candidates that aren't their first choice. There will be other candidates they don't trust. If they decided to vote against the Democrats whenever that happens, they ensure the country moves increasingly and dramatically to the right. When so-called progressives push the right's talking points for them because they don't like the particular pol in question, they serve the interests of the right--in this case fascism.

People need to learn everything isn't about them and their egos. Elections are not illegitimate just because their favorite isn't chosen. Other citizens, even other Democrats, also have rights to their political preferences. Self-entitlement is not a virtue, and to construct a political strategy around it will inevitably lead to a worsening of the lives of most citizens.

Now, I speak as a reformed third-party voting asshole. Much to my shame, I voted for Nader in 2000 (in Florida, no less). I learned my lesson from George W Bush and resolved to be a loyal Democratic voter from thereon. Some refuse to learn that lesson.

Yes, Clinton failed on healthcare. "I do wonder how much she was consulted." She headed Bill Clinton's healthcare task force. She oversaw the planning and writing of the healthcare bill. The GOP wasn't having any of it. "I do know her failure caused the Obama team to decide they had to pacify the insurance industry." Here I see a clear implication that you think the country would be better off if she hadn't tried to implement universal healthcare. That conflicts with the entire argument for Bernie's not terribly realistic proposals like single payer. People insisted that we have to try, even if we're not successful. Even though Bernie said there were no more than 8 votes for single payer in the Dem congress, it became suddenly imperative that single payer was the only acceptable proposal to a GOP congress. Success wasn't a concern at all then, yet now you criticize Clinton for trying but not succeeding to get universal healthcare. When arguments change so dramatically given the particular politician under question, it becomes difficult to believe that policies are the priority.

Do yourself a favor and don't tell women to "calm down" when engaging in discussions.

[zipplewrath]

68. Sorry

I didn't know I was communicating with a female. My comment was about getting focused on the past.

When I said "how much she was consulted" I meant by the Obama administration. Her experienced could have been useful the second time around.

And no, you don't "see" that I think we would have been better off without her efforts. I think we would have been better off if we had elected her the first time around. None the less, the point is that by the second time around, she had lost a tremendous amount of trust with the very population that undid her. It was a minority, but it was the difference.

Going forward, it will be important for candidates and the party to remember that we have to communicate to and with a lot of different parts of the electorate, especially those that aren't particularly predisposed to much of our agenda. Trust is built in the communication, not just the accomplishment. And it is definitely not built through triangulation.

[BainsBane]

70. Why do you say she lost trust by the second time around?

In between she served as Secretary of State and had high favorability ratings at the time. What changed besides the fact that people who identify as leftists spread a great deal of propaganda about her?

I don't know if the Obama administration consulted her on healthcare, but I do know that during the 2008 campaign the dispute between Obama and her centered on the individual mandate, which ended up becoming part of ACA.

Trust is important. That also means progressives should not be so eager to spread GOP and Russian propaganda. We saw a great deal of that, and it helped lead to what we face now, a severe move to the right.

I do think part of the issue with some of those people (not you or anyone else who voted Democrat) is that they CLAIM the party has moved to the right but it is really they who have done so, only they refuse to admit it, even as they defend Jeff Sessions and Mike Flynn. See JackpineRatfuckers for evidence of that. I continue to believe their problem with the Democratic Party is that it is not white enough or sufficiently patriarchal, and that will not change in the future. They are part of the whitelash that put Trump in power, which is why they are determined to defend segregationist like Sessions. They share the view that America was better in the 50s and 60s, which is how they can justify defending the Fascist in Chief.

[zipplewrath]

94. Well, it's a fact

It was a reality. The causes can be debated. And I'd agree that some of it was through actions of the GOP. None the less, she poorly handled the email fiasco and her movement on TPP didn't help her much either. She also altered her position on her Iraq vote that didn't really help her and just contributed to the whole "says anything to get elected" problem that any candidate can have.

I do agree with you about the whole "move to the right" issue. People don't want to admit that they aren't as "left" as they think they are. There is a tendency to admire the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's and yet not want to see it repeated in the modern era. Everyone is an environmentalist, right up until someone tries to tell them how to water their lawn. And more than one right winger has observed the large numbers of people getting back into their SUV's after some liberal rally and driving out to the suburbs to go shopping at Walmart.

[BlueStateLib]

67. Not sure your history is all that correct either, LOL

On October 28,199l at a forum at Harvard University, a student asked presidential candidate Bill Clinton whether he would Issue an executive order to rescind the ban on homosexuals in the military. Clinton responded ‘Yes,” and explained further: I think people who are gay should be expected to work, and should be given the opportunity to serve their country. He continued with that pledge throughout the 1992 presidential campaign? On January 21, 1993, the day after Clinton’s Inauguration, a spokesman reiterated the President’s plan to end discrimination against homosexuals in the military within the first two weeks of his presidency, via executive order.

Congress freaked out and held 12 hearings over the next six months led by Democrat Sam Nunn who promised to undo any executive order that Clinton signed. Sam Nunn and Congress enacted Public Law 103-160, Section 654, Title 10—the homosexual exclusion law passed by both houses of Congress in 1993 with veto-proof, bi-partisan majorities, this law made it illegal to be gay in the military. Don't ask, Don't tell, Don't pursue was a compromise agreement to undo the legal jeopardy that Sam Nunn and congress put gays in the military in.

Legislative History of the Law Regarding Homosexuals in the Military
https://cmrlink.org/content/article/34488

Good documentary on DADT is "The Strange History of Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

[zipplewrath]

69. And DADT didn't work

As Clinton was warned. It didn't protect homosexuals and in fact ultimately streamlined their expulsion.

[BainsBane]

78. Do you have evidence to support that?

That it actually led to more expulsions?

[zipplewrath]

98. Yes

Expulsions increased every year until 9/11. Between 94 and 2001 they doubled. Over the duration of the program over 13,000 people were discharged.

It was also studied during those years:

Ms. Benecke said that under the policy, ''harassment and witch hunts were supposed to end.''

''But Pentagon leaders have not sent this message to the field,'' she said. ''We have asked the Pentagon as a first step to inform commanders of the intent of this policy to respect people's privacy. Leaders need to hold their subordinates accountable for violations. Nearly five years into this policy, that has not occurred.''

[NurseJackie]

46. Thank you ... that was one of the most infuriating things. And ...

She had a comprehensive energy policy designed to wean the US off fossil fuels, but that was deemed insufficiently progressive because people found it easier to focus entirely on a ban on fracking, without any discussion about a comprehensive policy to replace it.

... and sadly, there are many who still have this short-sighted view.

The problem is the issues are far more complicated and nuanced than people like to think about.

[MicaelS]

14. Much more emphasis on Economic Justice.

Push hard for a living minimum wage first and foremost.

Raise the top tier income tax.

Quit kissing Wall Street and the Big Banks asses.

Invest in retraining people with the skills needed for the changing economy.

[BainsBane]

17. All of which Clinton proposed

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/

Yet she wasn't seen as progressive enough. So what specifically needs to be changed?

[zipplewrath]

21. Build trust

She was seen as weak on several issues. Past positions on trade and banking undermined her current positions. The democrats had been losing a particular portion of the voting block for years, it just really flipped this year. The next generation of democrats will have to build trust with the next generation of voters. And it has to start now. Student loans might be a good place to start.

[BainsBane]

31. What positions?

Be specific.

[zipplewrath]

99. Student loans

I could swear I said that. Are you actually reading the content?

I would list trade, wage equality, student loans, and job creation as the primary topics the left must emphasize going forward. I do think we can't avoid having to speak to various social issues associated with civil justice and social engagement. And the trust is built in a cycle of speaking, acting, following up. And this has to include engaging various voter populations throughout the process. You're going to have to do and advocate things that aren't going to be automatically understood. You have to go out and explain why it has to be done, explain how you plan on getting there, actually taking action, and then afterwards you have to explain what you did, why you did it, and how you will continue to act going forward.

You can't campaign on one position, and then implement another solution without first engaging the voters on what you are facing and what choices are available. Then you have to explain how you are going to achieve what you campaigned on, by a different method than you campaigned upon. Furthermore, you have to explain how you plan to proceed going forward from this new position, and then follow through on those plans.

[JI7]

23. for many economic justice depends on social justice

And this is where a lot of the conflict comes in.

For women reproductive rights is key to economic justice.

[Initech]

15. My personal belief is that we have to make sure we're the anti-Trump.

And being the anti-Trump means being anti-McConnell and anti-Ryan. We cannot move closer to them. If we're going to bring these assholes down, we need to attack their unconstitutional policies at every chance we get, and make sure we let the American people know we've got their backs, and the conservatives don't. Uniting with them means we'll move toward a conservative supermajority, and Trump will get everything he wants. We cannot do that. Resisting means just that - resist. We have to make that our party platform.

[pangaia]

26. Whoopsie.. I'm staying out of this one.

[BainsBane]

30. Why?

What's so difficult about saying where you'd' like to see the party go?

[obnoxiousdrunk]

29. It means

taking care of white working class men's needs.

[aikoaiko]

32. I'll keep it general. I would like to see a policies and positions that are

just as progressive on social justice issues as economic justice issues that are being championed by leaders with the credibility to effectively communicate and inspire both. We don't that yet.

Its true that I learn toward economic justice more, but I'm Ok with equal.

[BainsBane]

42. The question here is about policies

Not personalities. What are the policies you want to see championed?

[Blanks]

80. I think we need more emphasis on...

Creating (and helping create) small businesses. Preferably green businesses and tech businesses.

Less talk about minimum wage more talk about opportunities.

Big business is choking out opportunity and the democrats need to be the real champion of the little guy. I could probably come up with a dozen recommendations for government actions that would help small communities be more economically self sufficient.

The problem is too many folks just want a good paying job and aren't really looking for more control over their lives.

Just one example is regular people need access to the food inspectors (and food safety training) so that more (most) food stamp money goes toward locally produced food.

When I talk about small scale agriculture people think I'm talking about subsistence farming, but there are successful small scale farming operations in existence.

We need the ability to franchise successful small scale operations without big Agra, the pharmaceutical industry and the fossil fuel industry interfering. Only the federal government is big enough to pull that off.

40 years ago small town America had thousands of small farming businesses. The one thing we all must reliably obtain every day is food. We come up with a plan to put small businesses in small towns and the republicans won't know what hit them.

These small towns lost their farmers during the Reagan administration, many of them (the towns) never recovered. We can frame food security as a matter of national security and shift a lot of financial assistance to help the effort without increasing spending.

[BainsBane]

90. I do believe there is a resurgence in local farming

often organic, or pasture raised meat and chicken. More people are interested in where their food comes from and that it be good quality. In my area, there is all kinds of local produce, eggs, etc... that wasn't available ten years ago.

So while you're of course correct that farming is overwhelmingly dominated by big agra, smaller farms are undergoing a resurgence.

[Blanks]

93. As democrats we need to support the small Ag effort...

With not just grants and loans, but with legislation that is favorable toward sustainable practices, and unfavorable toward big Agra.

There are several agriculture related jobs that used to be spread throughout the countryside that have been eliminated by centralized farms.

We mow a lot of land that could be used to graze animals and then we could utilize the manure produced to grow crops (even create biofuels first and then utilize the remaining material as fertilizer) as it is we have huge feed lots that produce polluting runoff into our rivers and streams. Abandoned schools in some urban areas have as much as 20 acres, that's enough land for 40 head of cattle, or 40 milk cows or 180 goats, there's no reason that land can't be leased for these purposes.

There's no reason that we can't decentralize huge farming operations, incentivize more communities to manufacture ice cream, beer, or grow strawberries in aquaponics systems with fish that are indigenous to the area etc. Again, we have abandoned schools in urban areas that would be well suited to these uses.

The problem with this kind of thinking is that it threatens big Agra and they are probably big donors to democrats too. The message probably needs to be framed so that it is not a threat to them, which destroys the message.

Some states have 'freedom to farm' legislation which is to small time farming what 'right to work' legislation is to unions. We need to fix these things.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

33. Turn Left!

Left, left, left!

[BainsBane]

34. What do you mean by left?

Same question as in the OP.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

38. Take the lead

on single payer healthcare, environmental issues (clean up the air, water and such), vigorously support workers rights and workers rights to unionize and in the words of Bernie Sanders "make the government work for all the citizens, not just the 1%" (or words to that effect). On edit- spend money on infrastructure repairs/upgrades and work to end global warming...

[JI7]

39. Sanders didn't take the lead when it came to single payer in Vermont

didn't he dismiss it by saying something like he was not there?

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

40. Don't know. I don't live in Vermont.

But I'm a believer we need single payer.

[BainsBane]

41. Are you talking about rhetoric or policy?

Hillary ran on a program to wean the US off fossil fuels. Does that not count as cleaning up the environment?

How do you deal with conflicts between environmental policy and workers concerns about jobs?

How do you create a situation in which the government works for all the citizens? Or is it the messaging that matters more than implementation?

[Warpy]

35. First, America needs a raise, a big one

Second, Medicare needs to be shored up and the eligibility age lowered to the corporate expiration date, age 55, as a first step to reducing the eligibility age until we have Medicare for All. For profit insurance will adapt, offering Medigap policies.

Third, the military needs to go on a diet as far as overpriced, overengineered hardware goes. Savings can go to public works jobs rebuilding our infrastructure, something that is about 40 years overdue and is a more pressing issue than gimmicky airplanes nobody wants to fly. Cheap and reliable wins the wars, as does being able to support oneself when trade is blockaded.

Fourth, ways to bring our industry back have to be explored. Yes, it will be more automated with far fewer good jobs. That's not the point. It's a national security issue that we make cloth, shoes, car parts, and the like.

Fifth, while giving America a raise will also raise revenues, the wealthy are going to have to cough up. I suggest a transaction tax on Wall Street as a first step. That will have the benefits of being easy to track and levy and providing a disincentive to HFT by hedge funds that has so skewed the market. No, there will not be a crash. It will rather encourage the stability of going long.

This is all stuff within the realm of possibility. If I were to dream, I'd say requiring the top 1% of wealth holders to finance 50% of any war that didn't include an attack against the US and 10% of a war that did, make war a bad business proposition. I'd also completely end the drug war, it was one twisted man's vendetta against people who disagreed with his policies. He's dead, so should his "war" be.

Basically, if you want more of something, you subsidize it. If you want less of something, you tax it. I'd say a truly progressive government would know this and know the difference between good things and bad things.

[BainsBane]

37. I like most of those

Thanks for a very thoughtful response.

I disagree about the transaction tax because of the impact on retirement funds. Instead, I think capital gains above a certain amount should be taxed as income. Loopholes allowing some to declare their income as capital gains should be closed.

[Warpy]

43. Even a nominal tax would have the effects I stated plus raise a huge amount of revenue

at least in the beginning. The effect on retirement funds would be negligible unless they're playing fast and loose in the market. Then it would be a disincentive.

[TransitJohn]

44. End the wars,

the illegal spying on Americans, extrajudicial killings, torture, introduce a sane renewable energy policy to wean ourselves from fossil fuels, tax the ultrarich and corporations at historic progressive rates, institute a huge inheritance tax, cessation of privatization in our prisons, schools, transit and water supply systems, removal of all lead water pipes in the country, free tuition at public colleges and universities, etc.

[Demsrule86]

50. I would say that the GOP does those things...but feel free to beat up on Democrats because

Trump is so so much better ...sarcasm...why do none of you attack the right?

[TransitJohn]

57. WTF?

Wow.

[Demsrule86]

49. In my opinion it mean less electable.

[gopiscrap]

51. Single Payer health Care

and a turn towards socialism

[Demsrule86]

53. Right...because the fact that the GOP has 33 state houses and 2/3 of the state legislatures

the House, the Senate and the presidency indicates we are ready to elect socialist and enact single payer.

[vlyons]

54. What is means to me is not supporting

elected officials and/or candidates, who have taken large donations from monopolistic corporations, fossil fuel industry, the NRA, anti-Planned Parenthood entities. Money corrupts.

[KPN]

55. It's not the issues, values or policies so much as

following through on those once in office. Get the frigging money out of elections! Everything else will fall in place.

[BainsBane]

59. That requires a legislative majority

[KPN]

61. True. But we've had that in the Senate

for 18 of the past 30 years, and 12 of the last 30 in the House. The Party has moved right on economic issues over that entire time-frame in response to big money influence and the neo-liberal rush to embrace "globalism" (which I tend to believe is also influenced by big money).

[JI7]

71. when we had house and senate it was because of conservative democrats

[KPN]

73. Yup. And therein is the problem.

The Party establishment is no where near as liberal as it likes to think it is in my view. To my dismay, I've watched it move right on economic policy issues for almost 40 years running.

[BainsBane]

74. But the country is no where near as liberal as many like to think it is

Last edited Sat Mar 4, 2017, 03:49 PM - Edit history (1)

If we want to hold the majority, it means including red state dems who can get elected in their districts.

[KPN]

82. Darn, you have another point there. At the same time

I think the country is more "liberal" on economic issues than you may think. Mind you. not neo-liberal.

[BainsBane]

89. Isn't what matters

is how they vote? Their voting behavior in recent years suggests otherwise.

[JCanete]

102. It isn't as liberal is it would be if we unabashedly denounced money in politics and started

truly promoting a fight that puts the poor and the middle class on the same side of the issue. Our middling approach comes across to people as "taxes are going to be raised on me to pay for him." We need to stop that. "Taxes are going to be raised on the rich, because they have been stealing from everybody, and because they benefit from our laws and stability a thousand times more than any individual with far less means." We still have to do the work to prove it, but this does two things that is a huge start:

1) It undermines the powerful reaction that is loss avoidance. People's limbic systems are in full flare-up because they think that progressive means stuff comes from them and goes to somebody else.

2) If we use "pie in the sky" messaging--promises that of course we can't achieve in this political environment, but which are entirely feasible if we have the support of the public behind them, and if we make it clear how we are going to pay for them and why that makes sense, we can make our platform feel tangible.

The best criticism against this approach is that if we go after the money in such a targeted way, it will fight back HARD. That will be brutal, given that the media is not now, and will certainly not be, our friend. We'll need to appeal to alternative messaging outlets to carry ours to the people, while corporate media tries to make us into crackpots day and night. But we'll have the unassailable record of not taking money from those special interests...of walking a walk, and of having even more demonstrable proof that the Republicans are the ones who are being propped up by the money and thus, are not working for the little guy.

Yes, that is scary and tenuous. This was my sales pitch, but it doesn't mean that the result will be what we hope for. It's just that the pattern is getting pretty clear what a more conciliatory approach has been netting us since 1996. As a party, if seats are the measure, we're in the red.

[JI7]

75. the party is more libEral. those that left did so because tgey did not want equality

In opportunity with women and minorities.

[KPN]

81. Not on economic issues - heretofore at least. We shall see going forward.

[JI7]

83. yes it is. social issues is what helps bring economic justice

[KPN]

84. Meh. That's taking a limited view.

Understandably, viewing everything through the lens of social issues leads to that sort of conclusion. But economic policy decisions are economic policy decisions regardless of social issues or positions -- not that certain social groups are benefited/harmed more than others by those decisions.

[JI7]

85. it's reality. black people did not benefit from many fdr policies and that's why many white people

Were ok with welfare then. But turned against it when non whites begin to benefit with passage of civil rights.

[KPN]

86. I'm sure there's more than just some truth to that. At the same time,

the working class as a whole has been harmed more than helped by national economic policy over the past 35-40 years. The Democratic Party has been complicit in that. But no question, racism is alive and manifested in 45s election.

My point relates to the question posed by the OP, not whether or not the Party is liberal enough.

[BainsBane]

88. My question wasn't whether the party is liberal enough

Rather it was to get at what people mean when they say they want the party to be more progressive. I see terms like left and progressive thrown around with little to no attention to what they mean. I don't find that adequate.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

100. And for the past 30 years

Democrats have held the Presidency for 16 years, 12 of which they have had to deal with a half- or -fully Republican-controlled Congress. Without full Democratic control of WH and Congress, NOTHING gets done, esp when Republicans can filibuster a lot to death in the Senate.

[KPN]

56. Nobody knew that it would be this complicated!

[HughBeaumont]

60. Start by getting pro-Republican economic policies OUT of our party.

By "Pro-Republican economics", I mean "Belief and Support of one or more of the following theories":

* The prime function of a business or corporation is to care for the shareholder's needs only, by which I mostly mean "major".

* Business functions best as a "top down" model; hypothetically speaking, of course.

* You CAN "feed the birds by giving the horse more oats".

* That this country's economic problems have more to do with "high taxes", "high wages" and "strangling regulations" than wealth inequality and top-heavy greed.

* "It's absolutely not possible to pay workers a better wage and still be profitable" (an idea that completely ignores the very real fact that Middle/Working/Poor wages haven't risen in real dollars since 1979 while income of the wealthy has outpaced inflation, productivity, their cost of living and lotteries).

* "The post-WWII boom cannot be replicated" (no one's really saying it HAS to be; that doesn't mean we have no choice but to accept "Trickle-On" . . . there ARE happy mediums).

* The Republican model of Free Trade, a zero-sum proposition that surmises because the price of tchotchkes are going down, the worker is better off . . . among other things (this ignores the very real fact that it's ever-increasing-in-price necessities (i.e. education, housing, health care, transportation, food, etc) that are killing the average American's pocketbooks).

* The Republican model of offshore outsourcing, another zero-sum proposition that laughably states "While we ship low-skill work over THUR, it frees up better jobs fur the higher-skill 'Murkin workers over HERRR!" (yet again ignoring the fact that high-skilled work is ALSO being shipped overseas and companies are getting tax breaks to DO so).

* "Americans simply have to accept a lower standard of living adherent to their inevitably lower wages" (There's never a discussion on how wages can keep up with the cost of living, productivity and inflation . . . only that we can't participate in a consumer-based economy by proxy, but the wealthy absolutely HAVE to have THEIR needs met first, foremost and often times, ONLY).

* No solutions to the oncoming Automation issue (i.e., no new industries, no raise in wages, no training programs, still clinging to costly college, no WPA/Infrastructure Repair/Repurposing programs, etc., etc.) except "suck it up, buttercup".

[haele]

65. Start out from a commonly agreed upon position. Then move forward together.

Which means we won't move fast from those positions, no matter how urgent some people's causes are.

Look, in a bi-cameral political environment, the "Party" is always too large for a truly unified front and policy; the Party either marches lockstep led by "The Top" to move quickly - throwing a most of their own supporters and any semblance of actual needs under the bus without consideration, or the Party walks forward with deliberation and consideration of valid points of view, sometimes slowing down or seeming to slide backwards a bit so pretty much everyone can get to the same place around the same time.

Progressivism is not the same as Populism. Theodore Roosevelt, Wilson, FDR, Kennedy, Harding, Reagan - and Putin were/are elected as Populists. Not all of them are Progressives.

To move quickly and still maintain the Constitution and what it represents - as FDR did, there needs to be a serious, catastrophic need to save a Democratic system of Laws and representative Government - and a leader who has both the vision and the backing that can sustain progressive momentum.
And even then, lots of people - even people who were saved by the New Deal - despised Roosevelt and what he did for the country as "socialism" - they would have rather seen the U.S. fall even further into chaos and suffering, so that the "natural leaders" could control all the resources for the rest of us - and we'd end up with Fascism.

So, what needs to happen is that the Democrats, to be progressive, need to stick to their platform - equality under the law, equality of economy and service provision - the health and welfare of the country for both its population, and for its resources - and work from there.

We can walk and chew gum.
Racial Justice, Economic Justice, Social Welfare, Environmental Welfare - they are all interconnected because you can't have any of them without any of the others. Democratic policies can work, even if they're negotiated down from being "perfect" to being "better and continuing to get better" because 1/3 of the population is afraid of change because they see everything as zero-sum and want to remain in their version of personal control, 1/3 of the population is eager for change because they crave innovation and are interested in what comes next, and the last 1/3 of the population could care less - they just want to live their lives in peace and comfort.

Republicans have it easier. They have a majority of the third of the population that wants to remain in control of the rest of the 2/3rds of the country. So they can frame things into Us v Them.

If we do that, we lose. 2/3rds of the country do not do well with Us v Them, or "We Must, or They Will". We need to craft our policies and strategies to realize an attainable future that at least 2/3rds of the country can accept. And both be honest about what needs to be done, emphasize the upsides and benefits (i.e. future profits) that will happen during the and more importantly stick with the plan as best we can.

Oh, and emphasize that a politician must do the best s/he can to be lawful, while understanding that there's a lot of "negotiation" and honestly quid pro quo that goes on just to get things done when just two people don't see an issue the same way.

We all know Corruption is always part of politics, and no politician is magically clean and pure. If a politician is on the take or trying to profit off policy - don't allow the cover up - take the hit when found out, assess how much actual damage the corruption does, and go forwards, even if it means someone else has to take over if the corruption is serious enough.

Be real, and be progressive.

Haele

[eniwetok]

72. a democratic America and corporations on a leash

I think Dems, even liberal Dems, are oblivious to how our antidemocratic political system... one that effectively steals power from Dems and give it to the GOP is at the root of many of our problems... from grotesque wealth inequality to expanding corporate power to diminished labor, to the lack of a sensible Single Payer health system, to the public getting gouged on pharmaceuticals, etc.

When the system itself has a right wing bias... and small minorities can block any reforms... and sometimes the minority can govern... we see how those above problems can get out of hand.

What I see is identity politics can blind many Dems to the bigger issues of basic economics and dysfunctional government. Maybe this is something created by dysfunctional government. When people don't think their vote matters... and government seems unresponsive and reformproof... sometimes it's easy to lose sight of the big picture and focus on something more personal.

[WhiteTara]

76. In our county, it means kicking out all the members

of the Central Committee and putting in know nothings in charge. I used to call myself a progressive and if blowing up the party is what it means, I'm not one.

[vlyons]

77. Go read the 2016 Dem platform

It's pretty progressive. Most important progressive thing to do is to get these corrupting dark money campaign contributions out of politics.

[BainsBane]

87. I'm continually told the party has moved to the right

but you are saying the 2016 platform was progressive. Do you think the people making the claims about the party moving to the right informed themselves on the platform or positions out candidate ran on?

[Hekate]

92. Somehow I don't think they have

Thanks for your OP, btw

[vlyons]

96. well considering that Bernie Sanders had a lot of input into the 2016 platform,

either someone is flatout lying to you or too lazy to get the facts. You could have answered your own question by simply googling "Bernie Sanders input to 2016 Dem platform." I got a lot of responses to that search. Here's a link to Bernie's web site.

https://berniesanders.com/democrats-adopt-progressive-platform-party-history/

Then you can go look at Hillary's web site and see what issues she focuses on. I think you'll find more in common between them than not.

[BainsBane]

107. You are obviously haven't read my posts in this thread.

The point of my question was not that I'm too stupid or lazy to do read candidates positions on issues or follow news about the platform. It was to ask what your explanations for claims the party has moved to the right.

[JCanete]

103. It was pushed to the left this last election cycle, and previously, in increments by phenomena like

Occupy Wall Street. That is the better direction, and certainly isn't to blame for our loss.

[BainsBane]

106. Fascinating that you point to Occupy

That was over years ago. Black Lives Matter was far more influential in the last election.

[JCanete]

109. I was referring to it as a lead-up to Obama's rhetoric versus Romney. yes, it was over by then but

the animosity towards Wall Street was still lingering.

Black Lives Matter absolutely had an impact, and hopefully it continues to grow and garner support.

[BainsBane]

110. You said this last election cycle

It was pushed to the left this last election cycle, and previously, in increments by phenomena like

Occupy Wall Street. That is the better direction, and certainly isn't to blame for our loss.

The animosity toward Wall Street in recent years began with the Tea Party, not Occupy.

"Black Lives Matter . . . hopefully it continues to grow and garner support." I don't know what world you live in, but the government is currently run by White Supremacists with a segregationist as Attorney General. He has already dropped investigations into police killings of black men, which anyone with a functioning brain stem knew would happen if Trump won. Black Lives Matter is not gaining support. Hate crimes are on the rise, and the election made people feel entitled to express their overt racism. NOTHING is getting better for black lives or anyone but racists, right wingers, the Russians, and the wealthy. Well, most white men will be fine, particularly the narcissistic ones who decided it was better to plunge the country into fascism than allow a strong, competent woman become president.

[JCanete]

111. Actually you just quoted what I said...."the last election cycle, and previously..."

The Tea Party wasn't particularly mad at Wall Street. The people astro-turfing their anger didn't really gin that up, and why would they? Like they want a class war. That the right saw it as an opportunity to place any discontent that did exist at the feet of Democrats like Clinton doesn't speak to them being particularly furious about it. These people were suckered into trying to stop the Auto Bailout. If I'm wrong about this you'll have to point me to it. I certainly don't remember the Wall Street outrage.

Black Lives Matter hasn't gone away, and it has brought awareness to issues that have been swept under the rug, and the Democrats at least, as you stated, have had to listen. Yes there is a shit-bag in the White House, and he is riding the backlash of people feeling like they are losing their grip. If we can't stop him now, we weren't going to be able to stop the next one who emerged 4 or 8 years from now. It's not like our political system has gotten more sane over the last 20 years. It gets crazier and crazier and the voters more and more confused, scared, and uninformed...by design. The shit he is doing is tangible and devastating, but hopefully overreaching, and thankfully clumsy as fuck. It is perhaps, not an opportunity that was worth risking, but it is an opportunity, and it is a wake-up call.

Of course nothing is better now. Its not even better for some of the groups you mentioned. This isn't a surprise to me, or to any of the lefties who abstained from voting for Clinton. But they see these results as a consequence of our two-party system and the influence of money on politics, which our party has to shoulder some of the blame for. The Trump's of the world should not be able to get that close to the Presidency in the first place. It should not be the only option to have to choose a candidate you don't believe is truly acting in the people's best interest just because the other guy is certainly not acting in the people's best interest. As I've already said, I voted for Clinton because it looked like she was starting to define her positions concretely on some things that I care about. I was convinced enough to accept that she was going to work for the American People against the big money...but I was only just convinced enough to put my faith in her. Those who weren't, I can't despise, nor will I lay the blame for Trump at their feet when the far bigger factor is the corporate media...an entity the Democratic party does not assail...corporations the Democratic party does not admonish for their massive influence on what laws are possible and who ultimately makes them.

[hollowdweller]

95. Here's my list

Ending tax breaks for offshoring.

Raising Min Wage.

Keeping Obama's rule on overtime.

Double time for any hours worked over 40.

Allow those in states with only 1 insurer to buy into medicaid.

Mandatory paid vacation and sick leave for all workers.

Greater subsidies for college and technical education.

Free medicaid insurance for anybody taking care of kids or older people.

Reinstatement of Glass Stegal.

Repeal of Taft Hartley.

[vlyons]

97. To that I would add

raise taxes on the rich - individuals making $250K, $500K for couples and above

raise the social security contribution cap on those making $250K and above

cut defense spending across the board by 12% and divert the money saved to infrastructure projects

fix the voting rights amendment, require bi-partisan commission in each state to establish congressional district boundaries

regulate banks to charge no more than 2% interest on student loans, and no interest on direct Fed loans

increase funding for Pell grants

[JudyM]

105. To that I would add

Strengthen IG offices throughout the govt
More aggressive on climate change research and funding
More enforcement from and enforcement resources to EPA, OSHA, NOAA, Ag & SEC
Pass the ERA
Pass DC statehood
Institute Federal standards for voting equipment quality and security and make sure they're followed. (In addition to other voting rights issues already mentioned)
Develop clear and robust conflict of interest rules to be applied government-wide

Progressiveness, to me, requires more emphasis on environmental and labor issues and preventing moneyed interests from having more influence on legislation than citizen's welfare has. Centrists compromise far too much on important societal issues and look the other way to give leniency and favors to donors or would-be-donors. Cleaning up the swamp should be something Dems champion without favors.

[Tiggeroshii]

91. It means care more about the health and well-being of actual people instead of mechanical entities

and corporations.

You could always be more progressive, and I suppose there will always be a force in the party that won't be happy with where it is ever. And I think that is a good thing.

[LisaM]

101. IMHO, we need to be more inclusive.

Progress can take many forms. Chaining ourselves to a few things is not the way to move forward.

[lagomorph777]

104. How about just a little consistency in representation?

Our "representatives" need to keep one simple damned principle in mind when they vote:

"What is the morally just position?"

Almost always, the answer is simple. And almost always, it is "whatever the Reputin Party opposes."

[BainsBane]

108. The responsibility of elected representatives is to

Last edited Tue Mar 7, 2017, 01:05 AM - Edit history (1)

Represent their constituents. The concerns and interests of voters are not identical across the country. That means a Senator from W Virginia is not going to vote the same as one from VT or MN. In addition to ideological differences between red and blue states, there are also differing economic concerns. That is why MN reps will always vote in accordance with the interests of medical device companies, DE for credit card companies, Iowa for farm subsidies, VT for Lockheed Martin, WA for Boeing, and NY for finance. None of them are above that.

I disagree that opposing anything Republicans suffices. The party needs to stand FOR core principles.

[lagomorph777]

112. Yes, stand FOR core principles of course.

I'm just saying (as it happens), that will almost always place one in opposition to Reputin core principles.