Foxfyre wrote:These days it is those most often characterized as 'conservative' who are pushing for tax reform, tax cuts, tort reform, health care reform, prescription drug coverage for seniors, renewed manned space exploration, increased funding for alternative fuels research, school vouchers to reinforce NCLB, medical savings accounts, faith-based initiatives to help people and communities, and some self-determination for social security. [..]
Conversely it is most often those characterized as 'liberal' who have their heels dug in and who throw cold water and try to throw up roadblocks to most of these initiatives while introducing few new ideas of their own.
Well, there is, as you did imply yourself when you wrote, "As soon as Democrats elect their next president or regain control of Congress, the situation will almost certainly reverse again", the tiny question of the Republicans being in government and the Democrats being in (by this point in time) hopeless opposition. So, yes, of course the government is going to come up with all kinds of new programs, ideas and proposals - all of which, in this Bush era, are highly ideologized and rather reactionary - and thus bound to be opposed by the Democrats who simply don't agree with the KIND of change (or change
back) the Republican government is supporting. What doesn't, however, logically follow from that is that they are therefore for the status quo or lack any new ideas themselves.
During the election campaign we have in fact witnessed different currents of liberals propose a great many new ideas, many of which worked out in great detail, some proposing incremental change, others quite radical change -
progress. Practically speaking, there's not much they can do about those ideas right now: they can bring such proposals to Congress, of course, but all they're gonna get is voted out without a chance. The fact that they have few avenues to launch "new ideas of their own" right now, however, does not mean they don't
have any, and thus says nothing whatsoever about whether or not they're still "progressive" or not.
In short, there's a fundamental flaw in your logic. The opportunity to implement change
the desire to see change or ability to come up with what kind of change. There
is no lack of new ideas among the liberals - the presidential candidates have, for example, proposed cartloads of them during their respective primary campaigns. If you're complaining that you see little of those back now, it's obviously because with the current all-dominating Republican majorities in Congress, they have no credible chance of becoming adopted, and thus are often not tabled altogether, and if they are, ignored as irrelevant to the day's politics by the media - and never actually adopted. None of which means they are for the status quo or would rather have everything remain like they are now - that they are conservative, rather than progressive, in short.
To sketch a counterlist to yours, liberals have quite clear ideas about tax reform (worked out in detail by the Kerry team), tax cuts (ones that would not benefit the top 10% above-proportionally, but would instead benefit the middle and working classes more), health care reform (one that
would actually lead to drastically expanded health insurance coverage), increased funding for alternative fuels research (I can't actually believe you put that one in the conservative list, considering liberals propose a way greater increase of funding and the Bush administration has consistently poo-poohed the cause), a more effective and seriously better-funded alternative to NCLB, an arrangement to promote initiatives to help people and communities that does not favour religious organisations in particular, and a long-term programme to reform and save social security at either its current or even better levels, instead of a 'reform' thats aimed rather at its partial dismantlement.
The bottom-line difference between these two lists of proposals of course is that many of the conservative "reforms" focus on actually
undoing much of the progress that was accomplished since the New Deal, and return the US to its preceding state of a more Harding/Hoover-like "small government". In that sense their "reforms" do indeed deserve the label "conservative". They do not foresee a further step forward from where we are now, but one that takes us back, instead, to those pre-Roosevelt days. They constitute an expression of resentment about where we've come from the thirties through the seventies and a desire to turn the clock back.
I just came upon an example in question the other day,
here. The National Labor Relations Act of 1935, the TNR Editors wrote, "was once considered the crown jewel of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which it created, was supposed to ensure that workers enjoyed the [..] freedom of association in the workplace [..] guaranteeing that workers could organize without being fired or threatened". Now we've had some discussion on unions here on A2K, and I know that most conservatives and even many centrists don't consider the unions to be particularly benefitial to anyone (though the stats in the editorial prove that the unions at the very least are benefitial to their members: "Union workers enjoy a 15.5 percent advantage in wages over nonunion workers with comparable skills and are 18.3 percent more likely to have health insurance"). But the right for those workers who
do consider unions to be a good thing to become a member of one is a democratic (small "d") accomplishment, right? Yet even such a basic element of progress is being undone now by the Bush government. Temp workers, disabled workers and even artists' models have been among those whom recent decision by the NLRB have denied the right to become a member of a union if they want to:
Quote:To cut costs, business and public institutions have increasingly replaced full-time employees with temporary or apprentice workers who are not paid comparable wages or benefits. Nonstandard workers like these now make up about a quarter of the workforce. Labor unions have begun to organize them, but employers have objected, and the Bush board has taken their side--ruling, for example, that a union at an Oakdale, New York, long-term care facility cannot organize and represent both workers employed directly by the facility and workers who are employed by the facility but were sent there by a temporary staffing agency. It also blocked organizing of disabled janitors (because they are really engaged in rehabilitation rather than work) and artists' models (who are seen as independent contractors because they own their robes).
Now I'm sure such decisions can be argued to be part of a "reform" of the Labor Relations Act. But since they do not in the least intend to take the country further up the path, but instead aim for it to go
back, back to the days from before those pesky Roosevelt-installed checks and balances, there's nothing "progressive" about them.
[I have previously identified in another thread in which we both participate what I believe to be the US government's faulty actions. However, for example, the invasion of countries which despite our protests permit terrorist encampments within their borders, is not one of them. I think a faulty action pertinent to this thread is our government's aid to colleges which do not correct or remove instructors/teachers/professors (left, right or whatever label) who villify students for student's expressed political views.]
Anyway, in that case I don't know whether I can propose much here anymore that would still help in any way ... 