Any Progressives Here?

I added a closing paragraph to the above post (and deleted a distracting meta-remark).


My take? By winning states like W-Virginia back, that's how. And for that you need to go into an entirely different direction than that posed by the ueber-urban, upper middle class, liberal blue-state Hillary Clinton thing.

Now I realise that the looking askance at the liberal blue-state ghetto is something DLC-type centrists do too. But I think they got it ass-backwards. They think that the way to win back "red" states is by paling out even further, by being even more like the conservatives.

That's where I bring up the Progressive/Populist tradition. That was a tradition that was as red-state as any, when it comes to cultural temperament, and did well in red states. That had strong Christian elements too (thinking of Bryan here). But that at the same time was clearly to the left of the Democratic Party (especially today's), on any socio-economic axis. That agressively stood up for common-man interest in a way the Democrats didnt back then, and have unlearned again since FDR.

That's my angle on the dialog on how to restore eqilibrium to the politics of America. Dump gay marriage for the moment, dump gun control, dont go on about the oncoming theocracy. Let them put a Christmas tree on the State Capitol if they want. Defend the right to abortion, but give up on late-term abortions and approach it as a necessary evil, that needs to be replaced by contraception. Dont be pushed into the liberal values agenda by the Republicans' Culture War campaigns. But -- be unabashed in once again agressively standing up for the regular working guy's interest.

It is absurd that in the richest country of the world, so many live in poverty. That there are scarcely workplace protections against the whims of the employer, who can fire you, demand overtime, at will. That cities hardly have rent controls. That massive numbers of people dont have health insurance, and even safely middle-class families buckle down under medical costs if they get health problems. That credit card companies get to agressively pursue people they know are economically vulnerable with misleading campaigns, resulting in a wave of CC debt that can make people homeless overnight. That there is no proper public transport beyond urban centers (see, thats where the nationalisation of the railways would have helped). That mental health care is unaffordable or unavailable for a regular person in Albuquerque. That the public schools in urban or hard-scrabble communities are most underfunded. That noone stands a chance of being elected without courting, and catering to, the millions of big-business interests, leading to corruption galore.

It's a stark exchange, many of you probably disagree with it. Have at it. It would be nice to have a more fundamental discussion on left-wing politics instead of a 727th thread carping about Coulter's latest snide remarks, or who was really behind 9/11.

" Any Progressives Here? "

I support progress AWAY from the power
of each n every government, and away from collectivism,
toward l'aissez faire capitalism
and the hedonistic reign of INDIVIDUALISM.

Each citizen owes it to himself
to pack as much fun into his life as he possibly can
and he shud progress toward that.
David

Nimh
You are one of the few posters on this topic to make more than a little sense. Surprise: I agree with everything in your last two posts. I don't give a **** about arguing with the OmsigDavids in the world so much as getting liberals/progressives to stand up for something, instead of caving to every criticism and biting at the bait each time loser issues are brought up.

Kudos Nihm!

I think the "neo-progressive" wing of the democratic party is pulling in that direction. What's the matter with Kansas is a good example of where that part of the party is moving.

The question is whether they can pull the DCCC wing there, I think they want to but it's a scary change for them. It should be! There's a good chance they will lose a good chunk of campaign $$ moving in that direction. I think they can regain, if not the money the loudspeaker that money buys, through grass-roots organizing and many small contributions though. We'll see I guess.

I think this sums it all up and would make a great stump speech. These are the issues that people care about. These are the issues that most of us can agree about and can get passionate about. Who hasn't had to pay high credit card fees? Who hasn't had to deal with insurance that covers enough, yet costs too much? Who hasn't felt like the game is stacked against them? I have more to say, but it's bed time.

Chiming in, good stuff from nimh, and I agree.

I have one other thing to add. We got to where we are today, no real left alternative, because somehow, everything to the left of center got married up with extreme forms of communism. It's short work from there to show how communism in its extreme doesn't work. Hence, we are all accepting of basic free market capitalist principles. Nobody challenges those. After all of our wars and interventions in the fight against it, to challenge those principles would be un-American.

However, extreme forms of pure capitalism don't work either. Issues like health care, unfair banking practices, and affordable transportation illustrate that. Free market, taken to its extreme, gives us a government run by businesses for businesses and with no regard for people who are not a part of those businesses. Those are the types of things that need to be brought forward if progressives (or whatever they want to be called) want to own the playing field. I say this not even knowing where I am on the political spectrum. I have always accepted free market principles and limited government. I see many instances where the government instituted a program designed to help people which only hurt them, but in a whole new way. But I recognize that profit and quality don't always coincide, and that there are a lot more variables in the equation. I'm interested in whoever can come out, identify the problem, and make an effort to find a reasonable solution which is not immediately handicapped by ideology. And I think I'm not alone in that.

One of the things that makes America great is freedom. Most people in America take their freedom for granted, but it is a 2-edged sword.

You have the frredom to do really well for yourself and your family, but you also have the freedom to do really bad at the same time. By wishing we had so many social programs to prop up the underclass, are we not taking the freedom of failure from them?

Nimh makes many good points in his post above, as he almost always does, but he also paints a very bleak picture. I would like to address some of these points.

Workplace protections? I strongly disagree with the idea of workplace protections. I have been a victim of random layoffs (so it seemed to me at the time) twice. The first time came completely out of left field. My wife was 7 months pregnant with our second child, we were in a lot of debt, had a mortgage and suddenly I was out of work. It was very traumatic for me, but I had a new job in 2 weeks and it turned out to be a very good career move for me. I even turned down 2 other job offers.

Companies have to be able to have the freedoms to be competitive in their fields. That means cuts sometimes and it also means that companies have to be able to have the freedoms to make a profit. That's why they are in business. Not one single employee is forced to work where they are. Employees are free to leave their jobs at will, companies should have the same freedom to let employees go.

Credit cards are dangerous items. Our country seems to be in trouble in regards to credit card debt, of that there is no doubt. But, I have yet to see a single goon standing behind someone forcing them to use their credit card. That goes back to the freedom I was referring to. If you go into debt, you are expected to pay it back. There are plenty of credit advisors everywhere. Education in high school would go far in teaching kids the problems with debt and why they should avoid it at all costs. Instead, they are being taught how diversity is important and how to do a multitude of things that have no real-life applications.

Our country is too big to have effective public transportation outside large urban areas. The population density doesn't and can't support it.

Public education is an area that concerns me. I used to teach high school biology, but got out of the profession because I became disillusioned by the lack of parental involvement in their childrens education. I was no more then a baby sitter to 3/4's of the students and that's not why I wanted to teach. Parents and communities don't seem to want to put the effort into helping their children become educated. It's a shame, but the community is at fault, not the government. Drugs, violence, and disinterest is rampant in most urban schools. It's not a matter of funding for the most part as throwing more money at those schools will not help much unless it's used to hire cops to patrol the halls and keep order. Is that what is wanted by the left? A school/police state?

I understand the points you are making but I do not believe that government is the answer to the questions you have raised. I believe people are the answer. People that want a better life for themselves and are willing to put the effort in to see it through. That's what I have done and I know it can be done.

Of course, those things are true. So does that mean that there is no such thing as predatory lending practices? Does that mean that the banks have no obligation to operate fairly? Does that mean that they should do all they can to push people into bankruptcy if it means they maximize their profit?




What is wanted by you? What's your proposal for this problem? That the community just wake up tomorrow and decide to be better and make it happen? Is there a free market solution to poverty? Rampant drug use and dealing? That's the free market. Drugs are very profitable. Violence? Cheaper than a lawyer -- free market. I believe in community involvement in public education, and that people improve their communities. But you realize that all the problems you tick off are side effects of poverty, which is a side effect of free market, don't you? Nobody is saying it is anyone's fault. Fault is useless in addressing these problems.



Fair enough. The government isn't the be-all-end-all answer. But the government adopts policies that can benefit the situation, do nothing about the situation, or make the situation worse. I think it should always opt for the first.

The biggest reason I think the government sould give schools more money is to hire more teachers.

the more teachers you have per student the more a teacher can focus on problem students.

That's the one big problem I've heard with urban schools: class sizes are too large.

How can one teacher effectively handle 40 students?

plus more teachers means more eyes to watch the kids in the hallways.

The second thing would more scholarships for students who do well to go to college.

many kids don't try because they feel there is no point; they don't feel they will be able to afford college and so they won't be able to go. That may also be why many parents don't support.

if you give more opportunities for higher education, more students may believe they can make it.

I never came back to this thread after my 'speech' but now that I did I still wanted to thank FreeDuck and McG for their responses.

McGentrix, we dont agree on much anything you wrote, but that was a serious and articulate explanation of where you stand. Hey, I cant remember last time I seen you write that much <smiles>

Liberal progressive living in a corporate nightmare.

Re: paull




Another falsehood, I'm afraid, me young bucko.