|
Progressive Party 
Mon Feb 01, 2010 at 07:35:44 PST
|
( - promoted by buhdydharma )
At what point do progressives stop being Democrats' whipped dogs and start acting like a movement capable of putting the Dems in their proper place as the party of the people? David Sirota wrote today about Obama's latest call to increase war spending beyond its already ludicrous proportions.
How many of the extreme right-wing and criminal policies of Bush-Cheney has Obama adopted? How many of those extreme right-wing policies has he exceeded? Last month, knowledge that Obama has gone a step further than Bush, authorizing the executive branch to murder American citizens on the flimsiest of rationales. This sh__ has GOT to end.
|
|
There's More...
:: (30
Comments, 689 words in story)
|
|
Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 14:21:22 PDT
|
|
This entry builds on what Something the Dog Said and rossl wrote in their own entries. Before I get to the meat of my own text, I just want to summarize what each of the previous entries state. Starting any political party, or building an existing one, is going to be a lot of hard work and progressives are going to face an uphill battle regardless of what we do. If we're going to break away from the Democrats, however, it's worth the effort; there are parties such as the Progressives (currently in Vermont and Washington) and the Greens, among others, that have made substantial progress at local and state levels.
That's the short version of what Something's and rossl's entries have to say. I highly recommend reading them both in full. Now, on to my own contribution to this subject. Because I want to provide a real-world context to the topic at hand, I'm going to pick an existing political party (The Progressives), though feel free to substitute your own. I'm going to lay out some first steps that can be taken to get the ball rolling.
One more thing before I begin: know WHY you are forming a new political party, know what your goals are, and have realistic expectations about what you hope to accomplish. Don't hold any illusions. Unless either the Democrats or the Republicans implode, chances are you're not going to replace one of them on the national stage. At most, and if you do things right, you'll force the Democrats to shift back to the left. That's it. If a new political party does rise to prominence, great, but that is only icing on the proverbial cake. All you'll want to do is force one of the major parties to experience an ideological shift to the political left. Expect at least a generation to pass before you get this result. It was twenty years between the 1912 election, when Theodore Roosevelt led the Progressive Party and split the presidential election three ways (thus handing it to Democrat Woodrow Wilson) and that of 1932 when Franklin Delano Roosevelt led the New Dealers to power. It was another generation before the Republicans built their party back up to the point where they could begin taking back political power in government. Finally, don't let the progressive movement become subservient to your party - make the party subservient to the progressive movement. David Sirota explains why far better than I can, so I'll let his words do it.
And now, without further adieu...
|
|
There's More...
:: (11
Comments, 1295 words in story)
|
|
|
|
Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:40:33 PDT
|
|
Cross-posted from my blog at Campaign for America's Future.
Lately I've been getting an increasing recurrence of the same questions: what is the difference between liberals and progressives, and what is the difference between the Progressive Movement and the Progressive Party? The answers to these questions are important, for as we inch ever closer to the general election in November and as primary battles across the country reach their conclusion the future of our country and our world shall be determined by them-and by how swiftly we figure them out.
The first question I shall tackle is, what is the difference between a liberal and a progressive? For that I'll quote the Huffington Post's David Sirota, who explains it far more eloquently than I can:
I often get asked what the difference between a "liberal" and a "progressive" is. The questions from the media on this subject are always something like, "Isn't 'progressive' just another name for 'liberal' that people want to use because 'liberal' has become a bad word?"
The answer, in my opinion, is no-there is a fundamental difference when it comes to core economic issues. It seems to me that traditional "liberals" in our current parlance are those who focus on using taxpayer money to help better society. A "progressive" are those who focus on using government power to make large institutions play by a set of rules.
To put it in more concrete terms: a liberal solution to some of our current problems with high energy costs would be to increase funding for programs like the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). A more "progressive" solution would be to increase LIHEAP but also crack down on price gouging and pass laws better regulating the oil industry's profiteering and market manipulation tactics. A liberal policy towards prescription drugs is one that would throw a lot of taxpayer cash at the pharmaceutical industry to get them to provide medicine to the poor; a progressive prescription drug policy would be one that centered around price regulations and bulk purchasing in order to force down the actual cost of medicine in America (much of which was originally developed with taxpayer R&D money).
Let's be clear: most progressives are also liberals, and liberal goals in better funding America's social safety net are noble and critical. It's the other direction that's the problem. Many of today's liberals are not fully comfortable with progressivism as defined in these terms. Many of today's Democratic politicians, for instance, are simply not comfortable taking a more confrontational posture towards large economic institutions (many of whom fund their campaigns)-institutions that regularly take a confrontational posture towards America's middle-class.
|
|
There's More...
:: (0
Comments, 1496 words in story)
|
|
Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 15:59:12 PST
|
|
Timothy Gatto posted a column at SmirkingChimp.com Thursday that really, I think, illustrates the fraudulence of this year's presidential election. No matter who wins, we'll be stuck with a president who shall do little or nothing to alter the terrible course our once-great nation has been dragged on these last seven years. It really is like being given a choice between Coca Cola and Pepsi; no matter how you vote, you're still casting your ballot for empty calories and other toxic wastes that serve only to slowly destroy the body.
I think it's time to face facts: the Democratic Party as we knew it is no more. It has ceased to be. What we have left is a pale imitation of the Republican Party. And 2007 is a perfect example. What Progressives really need to do is bring back the Progressive Party. Read on, and I'll explain further.
For a little while now I have been doing my own part to accomplish this goal on my discussion forum. But my efforts are neither original or the first to be made. Already some states have revived the Progressive Party, including Washington and Vermont. In the latter state, Progressives have gotten a number of members elected to the legislature, and are now running their own candidate in the gubernatorial election.
What does this mean for Vermont? Democrats and Republicans in the state legislature are forced to work with the Progressives to get anything done. The political power the party has in this capacity is, therefore, significant -- and growing.
This did not happen overnight, but it did so with surprising swiftness; the Washington Progressive Party reformed in 2003, according to its web site, with assistance from the Vermont chapter. So all this has taken place within the last five to seven years. Not bad for a revived political party that, nearly a century ago, made history by causing an incumbent Republican president to come in last in a three-way election.
Whatever doubts you might have about the effectiveness of bringing back the Progressive Party, the examples of states such as Washington and Vermont should ease or eliminate them. Allow me to paint a portrait in your mind. It's not very likely to happen, but let your imagination loose for a bit as I describe this scenario:
The Congressional Progressive Caucus, made up of seventy-one House members and one senator (Vermont's Bernie Sanders). Frustrated with the refusal of Democratic leaders to end the occupation of Iraq, impeach the Bush-Cheney regime, and pass progressive legislation. Imagine if, some day soon, each and every member were to leave the Democratic Party and register under a newly revived Progressive Party. Like I said, not likely, but suspend your disbelief for a few minutes and bear with me. Imagine the sheer power Progressives would have, especially over Democrats.
"We'll caucus with you, so you keep control of the House," they say to the leadership. "But here are the things you must do for that to happen." And then the Progressives would trot out their list of demands. If the Democrats balk, the Progressives caucus with no one, and control reverts to the GOP. Do you think the spineless, conniving Democratic leaders would dare let that nightmare come to pass? I don't. No, they'd fall all over each other to please the Progressives, desperate to retain their tenuous hold on power in the Legislature.
This is, of course, wishful thinking on my part. But consider the headway already made in just a handful of states by the Progressive Party. Yes, it would take years to achieve results on a national level. We'd have to start locally, of course, work our way up to county and state-level offices. And then, once each state in the Union has enough of a party presence, run national-level candidates.
This is already happening. It has already achieved tangible results. It is now time for Progressives in every state to ask themselves if it's worth the heartbreak, frustration, and continuous disappointment by sticking with the Democratic Party. If you're interested in bringing back a political party to your state that can give real political power to Progressives, you could do a lot worse than to start exploring ways to revive the party that bears our name. If you'd like to give it a try, you may either register an account at my forum or, better yet, establish contacts with the Vermont and Washington state parties to learn how you can bring it to your community.
If we're to eradicate movement conservatism once and for all, we need to create a strong, energized Progressive movement to counter it. It's worth trying.
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reform Immigration -
March for America
Sunday, March 21
March on Washington
Saturday, March 20
|
