A progressive Manifesto

[Fovea]

Progressives Building the Future of America.


1. We believe that America suffers from realities it fails to acknowledge. These realities affect the health and security of Americans. Our current obsession with terrorism is a symptom of a greater psychological risk, than an external one. We kill 42,000 Americans on the road every year, surely this is as important problem as the 3000 killed on 9-11. We are ignoring far too many critical parts of American life in the ‘War on Terror.’

2. Further, we believe that some of these challenges, such as oil dependence, health, catastrophic storms, and the environment are inter-related. And this means that the right solution for one problem may solve others.

3. We believe that America has a crisis in health care that will only grow more severe as baby boomers retire in greater numbers. We believe that current policy fails to acknowledge this problem. We believe that America, as the only industrial democracy without universal public health, struggles to compete with economies that do.

4. We believe that the energy infrastructure is in-efficient, vulnerable, and fragile from a generation of deferred maintenance and the tendency to privatize profit and shift debt to the government. The solution is the diversification of production, to include more renewable energy.

5. We believe that an aging America will need a far better system of public transportation. We see America’s future as energy efficient, and we should fund the development of all transportation infrastructure based on energy efficiency, rather than speed without regard to cost. We believe the future of America is brighter with high speed rail than with air travel.

6. We recognize that work in the 21st century will differ from work in the 20th. We believe that to prepare workers to be effective in this new environment, that education is a public good, and we should provide it free of charge to the bachelor’s degree. Additional education at very low cost for good scholars. The future will be dependent on knowledge and the potential of knowledge revealed, but not yet utilized.

7. We also understand that no nation without an industrial output has a secure economy. The ability to design new things is hampered by the inability to construct new things. New standards and methods are needed for manufacture. New regard for labor will be matched by greater value from labor.

8. We believe that the 21st century will be the time to finally remove religious intolerance from the world. We cannot do it alone, but it will not happen, unless we are a part of it. This will mean a new commitment to match our faith to our deeds, and work for the good of all. We believe that if God tells you to pick up a rock, you are not listening to God.

9. We believe that America will not be able to survive the current challenges without better citizenship.
That will only happen if we support it, lead it, and in the end, require it. America needs leadership that is willing to build the better future we are capable of creating, rather than paying an ever-increasing price for a diminishing status quo.

10. America’s future is tied like the Gordian Knot to the future of the rest of the world. If we allow it to be a riot among the poisoned and tortured, we eventually will be rioting, tortured and poisoned as well.

[joelogan]

1. Figures a great post like this one would have no replies

I don't know why I bother coming back here. It's almost all just gossip and misdirected thinking. Oh well.

OK, this is a great first step, this Progressive Manifesto.

Consider please that the main thing that the GOP has done is follow define clearly on telling the public about their economic narrative. THey do not hedge or beat around the bush--they tell everyone what they think. THe rightwing propaganda machine has for 30 years blazed a trail telling people what to think about economics, and the GOP AND the Democrats have followed.

You missed the most important part of the manifesto, though--the part where we DEFINE CLEARLY a compelling economic narrative. You sound JUST LIKE KERRY and the rest of the Democrats--you talk about what you want, BUT YOU DO NOT SAY HOW TO PAY FOR IT.


Where in your manifesto do you mention PAYING FOR ALL THIS STUFF?

THe fact is that we CANNOT PAY FOR ALL THIS STUFF we want and need UNLESS WE CAN TAP INTO THE MONEY. Most of the wealth in this country goes to the wealthy. In countries that have all these things (such as universal healthcare and fre university) that you mention in your manifesto, they use PROGRESSIVE TAXATION to GET THAT WEALTH. The top tax rates (for millionaires) in these countries is 50-75%--on earned and unearned income. Here in America, people like Teresa Heinz Kerry pay something like FIVE PERCENT taxes on their millions.

That is why when polled during the election, voters said that by a wide margin Bush said what he truly believed, while Kerry did not.

I agree with them!

If you want a REAL progressive manifesto, make PROGRESSIVE TAXATION the centerpiece. And say WHY we want and need progressive taxation.

Oh, you'll say Americans don't want higher taxes. Well, I guess I am the only one on DU who has bothered to do even minimal research into taxation in other countries: actually in countries like Canada and France, MOST people do not pay significantly higher taxes there than here. I have actually gone out on google searching for comments/articles on people who have working in both America and countries where progressive taxation is used to pay for welfare states and universal healthcare. They pay about the same, and that is not even accounting for the added benefits provided by that taxation.

And you have to educate the voters about progressive taxation, about what taxes are for.

And how do you do that, OUTSIDE OF A POLITICAL CAMPAIGN? That is the important part! THE GOP educated the public outside of any campaign, and then during the campaign, the GOP candidate simply walk into the frame alredy created by the rightwing propaganda machine, and push all the buttons already in place.

That is the most important thing we have to do--EDUCATE THE VOTERS ABOUT PROGRESSIVE TAXATION and our COMPELLING ECONOMIC NARRATIVE. Look for example at the mission of the Swiss when it comes to what they want to do in their country: their goal is different from ours; they simply want to make their country the best possible place to live. The Democrats should adopt that same mission and pursue a goal of making America the best possible place to live. And what a worthy mission!

But you have to have mechanisms and tools to reach the public first. Everything else is secondary. That is why so much at DU is just wasted effort!

[OneBlueSky]

2. I certainly agree that we need progressive taxation . . .

we used to have it, in fact, until the right started chipping away at it piece by piece . . . won't be long before we have a flat tax, or no income tax at all but a national sales tax instead . . . progressive taxation should be part of every liberal and progressive platform and program, and all organizations and polticians on the left should be firmly behind it . . .

[Fovea]

3. I have no problem with progressive taxation.

Nor do I have a problem with nationalizing Oil and setting the profits to renewable energy and public transit.

Nor do I have a problem with requiring that prescription drugs, developed at universities receiving federal research money be sold to a national health program at a fixed percentage of profit, say 5% over a 25 year likely effective lifespan of the drug.

The same should be true of any invention developed with federal research money, the government should get a percentage of the profits from everyone using the patent. Not a huge amount, say 1-2% on little things like the laser, superconductors, fuel cells, etc.

All of a sudden, it is a whole new ballgame.

[joelogan]

4. clue

You wrote: "I have no problem with progressive taxation."

Oh. Okay. Hmm. I never would have guessed that. Cuz, um, that's kinda what makes most of the rest of that stuff possible. You might wanna give it a little mention in a manifesto. Heck, why not make it the centerpiece of your manifesto? If you are planning on making a long journey, you take a look at the vehicle, right?

Let me tell you what I see when I see the Democratic Party: HYPOCRISY. In spades. I see a party that nominated a candidate whose wife paid 5% taxes on her 500 million dollar fortune. And at the fast food joint down the street from Kerry's $19 million dollar Boston mansion, every schlub slaving away in front of the deep fat fryer pays at least 10% and maybe 15% total tax out of every paycheck (payroll and income taxes). What rank hypocrisy. What a despicable party. What kind of a presidential candidate would not get up in front of the news cameras every day during the campaign and rip off a furious preaching rant about such hypocrisy? A Republican candidate?

Gee, I wonder why Kerry lost. I just cannot figure it.

I got news for you. Bush was a TERRIBLE candidate in many ways. His campaign was a tour de force of politics, but as a candidate, he had serious weaknesses of a nature no other candidate in modern times has had. And the economic and foreign situation was worse than than any other in modern times. Hooverian!

You think the Democratic party has a chance in hell in 2008 if the party does not undergo radical change?! You think Dr Dean is gonna save this party? :-) In many ways, he is both a Kerry clone and a Bush clone.

[Jim Warren]

5. kick

This is just getting good.

[Fovea]

7. Uhhh

1. I need no clue about how terrible a candidate Bush was, indeed, had Kerry been less genteel, nothing could have stopped him.

2. I am a Kucinch supporter. Given my way, Kucinich would be heading the DNC.

You might want to write a draft on taxation and revenue generation.
Personally, if we decided we no longer wanted to be New Rome, we could afford it fairly well right now. Some of these percieved cost items, like national health would actually increase worker productivity, and decrease employer costs.

Go ahead, suggest a tax policy. I would love to see it.

[joelogan]

8. clue, part duh

you wrote:


"1. I need no clue about how terrible a candidate Bush was, indeed, had Kerry been less genteel, nothing could have stopped him."


It was not the gentility of Kerry that caused his loss; it was his bloind hypocrisy and his abandonment of his core constituency (working people) for latte sipping yuppies. If Kerry had just said: "Our tax ploicy is letting rich people rip us off. We are going to double the top tax rate on earned and unearned income so that millionaires pay 50-60% on all income, no loopholes," he would have won.

You wrote:
"You might want to write a draft on taxation and revenue generation."



OK. How about this: if you make 500K a year, you pay 50% of it in taxes, no loopholes. And graduated increments above and below, etc.

Not real complicated!

[Fovea]

9. How very simple

hmm, naw, too easy.
Thank you for your effort.

[agarrett1]

6. A critique

First off, nice job. It's always good to see things spelled out like this. Now, I recognize that I'm one of the more conservative members of this board, so you may take my critique or not as you wish.

My first complaint is the rather general nature of your points. I'm one who always thinks that the devil is in the details. Having a broad overall philosophy that a program fits into is nice, but it's usually an optional extra. It's the program itself, how it's structured and run, that determines its effectiveness. It would be nice to tie each of your 10 points to some specific program - either something new, or something existing that can be improved, reformed, or disbanded. On the other hand, that may make it too long to be catchy.

1. You analogy fails for me here. In auto accidents, the drivers have a measure of control. This makes a huge difference in how we react to the situations - it's why people fear flying more than driving, despite the well knows statistics that flying is safer than driving. A situation where we have no control is considered worse than one where we do, regardless of how deadly the two situations are. I suppose you could say that, since it's still deadly, this is an example of "ignoring reality," but I can respond that failing to recognize that difference is an example of the same on your own part.

Further, the attack on the War on Terror at the end feels tacked on. Nothing leads up to it - save that the same 'denial of reality' argument is frequently used against the Bush administration. Even accepting that, the argument fails. Personally, I'd like to think we could handle both auto safety standards and a war at the same time. I think you'll need to make this argument more explicit.

2. This is a nice, general point. You can hardly argue with it. But it accomplishes nothing without an example - it's as true for the right as the left - one solution might solve multiple problems. Then again, it might not. Or it might cause still other problems. Wishful thinking is not policy. I think you need an example here - give a program that will solve two or more of the listed problems.

3. This is an excellent point to play on. Health care is a growing problem, as you point out. However, it's also a fairly complicated one. A simple call for universal coverage glosses over one of the prime difficulties. Right now, our generally private coverage is covering the costs of health care development for the world - the U.S. is where companies make their profits. If we cut that out, development will drop off. On the other hand, I think we're getting a bit tired of subsidizing the rest of the world. I don't have a great solution myself. I think recognizing this complexity can add to this point, along with a call to look for new solutions. Or maybe not - that's a bit wishy-washy for a manifesto...

4. I'd include nuclear in with your call for renewable energy. It's a proven technology, and generates energy very cheaply. However, one reason our infrastructure has grown fragile is the inability to build new processing plants and refineries. Would you support such growth? That does seem the trade off you're asking for.

5. Here's one where I'll pretty much disagree. Public transport makes great sense in cities. We could even make better use of it throughout the north east corridor. But in most areas of the country, it simply makes no sense.

6. This call will go over like a lead balloon unless you also recognize the great failures of our public schools, especially in inner cities (but sadly spreading well beyond that.) We need a way to improve existing schools, before trying to expand public education beyond its existing grade limits. The current leading mechanism is 'school choice.' Do you have another suggestion?

7. This needs specifics. I don't even have anything else to say - it's just too vague.

8. OK, here you're saying we need to remove religious intolerance. But, you'd better believe the way we say religion works.

Well, it's a message.

I'd be just as happy to keep things as we have them here. Government should not take sides with regards to religion. Individuals should feel free to practice their faith as they see fit, insofar as that practice does not cause harm to other people or otherwise break existing laws. End it there.

Some religions preach intolerance for those of other religions. Again, the state should not interfere with that, save to enforce anti-discrimination laws. I'm not even really in favor of private action to reform those religions, although proselytizing is just fine (in other words, try to convert the people to your view, rather than the religion.)

9. This needs more detail, or at least rewriting. Right now, it sounds suspiciously like 'we need to dissolve the people and form a new one.'

10. Again, a simple banality. Also, the Gordian knot is a terrible metaphor here - we all know, after all, that it was cut.

I don't know if this will help, or if you'll even agree with any of my points, but this is offered constructively. Enjoy.