Improvable Objects: Politics Not Sensitive to Concerns and Circumstance of People

Many years ago when I started this Blog, I thought about what to call it. At the time, I remember thinking about Paul Wellstone as he described what he believed politics should be about. He said, "A politics that is not sensitive to the concerns and circumstances of people's lives, a politics that does not speak to and include people, is an intellectually arrogant politics that deserves to fail." A failure I recognized in pure progressive politics is that it does not always account for the differences that wealth and values create for people. Populism, it seemed to me was the missing piece. Giving the people what they agreed they needed seemed to be inherently important to the success of a progressive movement.

   As we know, the progressive left pushed a type of populism under Bernie Sander's leadership that came up a day late and many dollars short of capturing the Democratic Party's nomination. He spoke to the pain that poor and middle class Americans were experiencing, but was running against Hillary Clinton. Clinton, while not the most progressive Democrat was seen as the right woman for the job by many party faithful (particularly after Elizabeth Warren thought better of running against her). The "I'm with Her" bankrollers and supporters, with the success of Barack Obama breaking through the color barrier that served as the glass ceiling for African Americans, believed it was the time for women to do the same.
 
   What Democrats failed to see was the clapback that had been fomenting in the Age of Obama. Sure people were aware that angry people were saying and doing despicable things to showcase their bigotry, but conventional wisdom held that this was a relatively small group of disaffected people and that they were living life in the rear view window, living in America of their imagined past. Progressives and others dismissed these voices as they might anything they assessed as politically incorrect, as fodder for late night talk show monologues or assuring themselves that now that we had, in their estimation by electing Obama twice, accepted that "Black Lives Matter" as the new reality.

   What I and others did not count on was what would happen if populism came at us from the Conservative side of the yard. While we thought the Tea Party movement was "astroturf" as opposed to "grass roots" politics, it turns out that the righteous anger of unheard people could be turned into a type of populism/Nativism that found enough votes in the right places to elect Freedom Caucus members and eventually Donald Trump as our President.

   Paul Wellstone's voice reminds me that "intellectually arrogant politics that is not sensitive to the concerns and circumstances of people's lives...deserves to fail" is what generally what happens after the election. No matter which party wins. Before the election, people have been surveyed and focus-grouped to learn what will move them to vote this way or that.Then the communications are formed and framed around winning the vote--from the top of the ticket to the volunteer calling you at home. You, dear voter, are a fish to be caught in a net. In fact, if you vote early, that's even better, you are still in the net if the candidate says or does something stupid, like say what he or she really thinks.

But after the election, you are a form-letter recipient when the person who you elected does something that he or she told you they wouldn't. Because now, they don't work for you or even try that hard to represent you. Now, they work for special interest groups or self-interested groups. The most self-interested groups are the political parties that are trying to grab and maintain power and pulling the strings behind them are the business and issue groups who want to make sure their interests are properly looked after. There is a country club made up solely of elites and you and I are not invited.

   While those are politics Wellstone said "deserve to fail," the truth is that those politics fail us, not the practitioners of them. Hence a people-powered political base is the only possible solution to the poison in the well of politics. Not a small marginalized group of people, but a large, organized mob of people who realize they have been bamboozled by politics as usual and resort to politics that are unusual. They run for office independent of party bosses and win. Then they win some more. Until finally, the politics of the unusual become the usual politics when people see that their lives are improving by them.

   To be sure, the elite will not go quietly, they will use their resources and knowledge seeking to drive wedges into such a movement. But history tells us that if we have resolve and trust that we will win, even the most corrupting of forces will fail to hold sway against such an army of every day women and men.

    So, I hope you are finally getting a view of what I am seeing so clearly; politics where the "radicals" win is probably a better brand of politics for people when the only other options are supplication or bloody revolution. The radicals on the left and right share something very basic, these are people who want the power in the hands of the people versus the elite. Right or left, it is the same battle. Defeat the political elites and then a politics that is sensitive to the people is truly possible, both before and after the elections.

First Annual Valentine's Day Progressive Love Lists

In keeping with the spirit of Valentine's Day, here are my top five lists of top progressives and why we should show them some love:

National Love

Special Shoutout: Former Senator John Edwards: Despite failing in his bid for the White House, he raised the level of dialogue concerning poorer Americans and the need to clean up politics from corporatization. Also, he is married to one of the finest people on the planet and I wish Elizabeth well in her continued battle with cancer.

5.(Tie) Cynthia McKinney and Cindy Sheehan: These women have taken one for the team with more huevos than anyone. McKinney Former Dem Representative from Georgia now asserting herself for the Green Party's presidential nominee has this weird notion that politics should actually work for the people. Cindy Sheehan, who is not afraid of being arrested for civil disobedience, is running against the disappointing Nancy Pelosi for her Congressional seat.

4. Chris Dodd, Russ Feingold: They tried to stop the FISA bill going through with Telecom immunity. Thankfully the House progressive Dems may have saved the day, with some help of their unwitting Republican counterparts.

3. Dennis Kucinich: Other than having a lovely Valentine of his own, Dennis K is largely responsible for the top issues that the Democrats have been campaigning on. Don't hate the man.

2. Patrick Leahy, as the current chair of the Senate Judicial committee he has raised more hell to improve civil liberties--he just needs a few good men and women to join him.

1. Barack Obama: Who knew that a charismatic first term Senator with a name that would be fodder for the Tightie Righties would turn out to be such a force to be reckoned with? He truly has given the idea of hope --hope. With his plans for health care, the environment, ending the war, righting our relationships globally and the uncanny ability to work with folks across the aisle, I feel change coming.

State Love

Special Shoutout: Des Moines Worker House that contains fine people like Mona Shaw, Frank Cordero and others who walk the walk with moral courage. They have reminded us all that democracy is in our actions not just in our ability to vote.

5. Denise O'Brien: though she fell short of the mark in her race with Bill Northup, she proved that progressive values are not out of sync with being Secretary of Agriculture. We won't be hearing the last of her.

4. Mike Mauro: Our new Secretary of state is tussling with the Governor to make sure every vote counts and he may just get his way. He understands the value of transparency in making sure every vote counts.

3. Joe Bolkcom: The Senate's right hand man, Joe has been a fighter for fairness to working men and women in Iowa and was successful in defeating the onerous "pay day loan" companies charging 300% interest on car title loans. and he's still fighting.

2. Pam Jochum: From mental health, to a living wage, to the Clean Elections Act, this state representative is a progressive's friend in the state house. If it can be done, Pam finds a way to do it. She'll be running for the senate in the next cycle.

1. Ed Fallon: He may have failed to stop the Culver Express, but he may be the next US Representative from Iowa's 3rd District despite a massive difference of cash on hand with Leonard Boswell. But Hey, DFA loves him.

Local Love

Special Shoutout: Mike Wright and Mitch Gross: These new Iowa City and Coralville council members defeated monied foes to gain their seats. Wright, as a historic preservation proponent, a former board of adjustment member, he brings a range of experience to the council and given time will shine. Gross is already making his presence felt and is a rising star in the area.

5. Regenia Bailey is the newest mayor in Iowa City and has progressive stripes. As a manager of meetings (e.g., through her leadership on JCCOG) she gets things done for the public good, as the soon to be done deal with the emergency communications center shows.

4. Janelle Rettig: If ever there was a fighter for the rights of the GLBT community, Janelle is the one. She is relentless in the pursuit of equal rights (including the choice of marriage for all).

3. Karen Kubby: Karen is the Queen Bee of all progressives in Johnson County. If there is a person who calmly and patiently works through issues, she is the model. Besides working with FAIR! and running the Emma Goldman Ctr., Karen finds time to tackle tough community problems like working with local affordable housing issues with dedication and tenacity.

2. Amy Correia: Now in her thid year on the council, Amy has found a strong voice on the subjects of youth engagement, housing, and continues to be unwavering in voting her conscience even if she is the lone voice.

1. Rod Sullivan: Now the chair of the Board of Supervisors, Rod has done yeoman's work in voicing a progressive vision on the BOS. With re-election this year, Rod will have his work cut out for himself, but he is respected and should be reseated.

Steal This Link

Abbie Hoffman would have been proud. Life in the Blogosphere is never boring and occasionally, you learn about some really great ideas. Below is one of them! Good reading too.
To celebrate the milestone of the Facebook group "I Bet I Can Find
1,000,000 People Who Dislike George Bush!" reaching one million
members, Amazon best selling political activism author Heather
Wokusch is giving away her books for free to every single member.
Until midnight Pacific Standard Time on February 18th, you can
download both volumes of The Progressives' Handbook: Get the Facts
and Make a Difference Now series, as well as digital excerpts that
have been linked for easier online activism. Feel free to share this
URL with your friends:

http://www.progressiveshandbook.com/1000000

Heather Wokusch is a blogger and the author of The Progressives'
Handbook: Get the Facts and Make a Difference Now series. Her
political awakening came in 1986 when she spent a year doing
development work in the Philippines and witnessed the People Power
Revolution firsthand. Her commentary is regularly featured on major
progressive sites and her articles have appeared in publications such
as The Baltimore Sun, In These Times, Foreign Policy in Focus and
Germany's Süddeutsche Zeitung. Heather's a former jazz singer, has an
MA in clinical psychology and more than 20 years of experience in
education. 

Democrats Messaging Heartless

Noted linguist, philosopher, and all-around thinking man, Noam Chomsky said, "If we choose, we can live in a world of comforting illusion." Nobody helps us do that better than the Republican party. With "Healthy Forests" that involve clearcutting miles of acres of trees and "Clear Skies" that increase the levels of carbon dioxide emissions leading to faster global warming, the "Way Forward" is well-- "Mission Accomplished." The turn of a phrase has won the hearts and minds of the masses, at least until the 2006 mid-term elections. But, as it turns out, some jackass Democrats want to tear a page out their playbook and get a leg up on their peanut consuming, never forgetting elephant counterparts.

According to The Hill

Democrats are losing the battle for voters’ hearts because the party’s message lacks emotional appeal, according to a widely circulated critique of House Democratic communications strategy.

“Our message sounds like an audit report on defense logistics,” wrote Dave Helfert, a former Appropriations spokesman who now works for Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii). “Why are we defending [the State Children’s Health Insurance Program] instead of advocating a ‘Healthy Kids’ plan?”

Helfert sent the memo this week to an e-mail list of all Democratic press secretaries and communications directors after staffers met on Monday to discuss rolling out the Democrats’ latest message.

He said the meeting left him cold because it focused on what polling shows voters want rather than how to present persuasive messages. Republicans have done a better job by developing poll data into focus group-tested messages like “culture of life” and “defending marriage,” along with attacks like “cut and run” and “plan for surrender” in Iraq, he argued.

In particular, Helfert points to Republican pollster Frank Luntz, who helped develop the 1994 “Contract with America” and is credited with helping Republicans come up with terms for polices like “Healthy Forests” and “Death Tax.”

“Republicans have been kicking our rhetorical butt since about 1995,” Helfert wrote.
Democratic leadership aides were not impressed, and indicated that the memo did not have a vast and immediate impact.

So, if I understand this, Dems, like the Repubs, want to find better catchphrases to help the rest of us "get with the program." I know words are powerful, but there is something to be said for telling people the truth. As I recall -- actions speak louder than words. Try speaking plainly.

We are waiting for leadership--actions, not just words. You want to appeal to our emotions, show us that you will end the war, take care of our children's health, and keep us safe and employed. As the late Paul Wellstone said, "A politics that is not sensitive to the concerns and circumstances of people's lives, a politics that does not speak to and include people, is an intellectually arrogant politics that deserves to fail.”

Paul Wellstone "It's Not about Me"

Today is the 5th anniversary of the death of Senator Paul Wellstone, his great wife and partner, Sheila, and their daughter, Marcia in a tragic plane crash as he ran for re-election in 2002.

I wonder what he would make of the current situation in Washington and his colleagues equivocations concerning children's health care (I recall when he said "The welfare rolls may have been cut in half, but not poverty. I don't quite understand how the White House, or any Democrat or Republican, can proclaim this policy a success when we have done so little to actually reduce poverty in our country, especially the shameful poverty of women and children. Rather than all this boosterism, let's have an honest policy evaluation to find out what is really happening to poor families.") .

Glenn Hurowitz and Daily Kos have columns about his legacy that are well worth reading about the popular, progressive Senator from Minnesota.

Fortunately, his legacy lives on through the Wellstone Action. Many people I respect in Iowa City have gone through their training camps and are now walking his walk.

Dreaming of a Better Tomorrow

As a progressive, I often think of where we could be, if a truly progressive agenda were in place. So here is my summary of what we are missing out on:
1) Our troops in Iraq would be home and relations with foreign countries would be on the mend.
2) All Americans would have access to affordable medical and mental health care (by either a single-payer or hybrid model).
3) Lower income Americans would have a liveable wage and an increase to the earned income tax credit which would lead to a better quality of life.
4) Savings from defense spending would be invested to strengthen borders, increase inspections at ports of entry.
5) Education would address reasons for gaps between high performing and low performing schools.
6) More incentives would be available for renewable energy and mass transportation systems.
7) Social Security would be shored up by savings from defense and a robust economy fueled by new, clean industries.
8) The United States would be in a leadership role to battle the effects of global climate change.
9) State governments would benefit from dependable funding streams for education, roads, and needed economic development projects.
10) Civil liberties would be restored, Guantanamo closed, and rendition programs suspended.
11) Upper income earners would pay their fair share.
12) Environmental issues would be addressed in ways that improve air and water quality.
13) Predatory lending and exorbitant credit card rates would be addressed.
14) Persons seeking union representation would have the ability to do so with all workers who receive benefits chipping in.
15) Human services and housing would be funded at appropriate levels and private/public partnerships would be encouraged that seek to maximize the raising of people out of poverty into sustained employment.
16) Moderate judges would likely be selected to fill vacancies at the district, appellate, and federal courts.
17) Agricultural policies would support the family farmer's interests as well as big agribusiness.
18) Legislation for publicly-funded election would see daylight.

Iowa A Progressive Star State

State Senator Joe Bolkcom's Networker reports:

On June 14th, Progressive States Network and the Center for American Progress Action Fund hosted a panel in Washington, D.C to highlight the series of progressive victories being won in states across the country. I was invited to participate in a panel along with legislators from Maryland and Washington to discuss our Iowa legislative accomplishments.

I reviewed our accomplishments addressing climate change and energy policy as well as reviewed a series of other progressive accomplishments of the General Assembly and Governor Culver.

Iowa was one of six states that received a Star State designation. The report can be seen at Progressive States Network.

A long time ago, (April) I was also invited to participate in the Progressive States Network Gala. See a YouTube video of my comments at the Gala at YouTube Video.

Also check out this link if you wonder what folks like Joe are doing about health care.

Libertarians and Progressives - Strange Bedfellows?

According to the Libertarian Party website, a Libertarian is "A person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action. Capitalized: a member of a political party advocating libertarian principles."

"Libertarians believe in, and pursue, personal freedom while maintaining personal responsibility. The Libertarian Party itself serves a much larger pro-liberty community with the specific mission of electing Libertarians to public office.

Libertarians strongly oppose any government interfering in their personal, family and business decisions. Essentially, we believe all Americans should be free to live their lives and pursue their interests as they see fit as long as they do no harm to another.

In a nutshell, we are advocates for a smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom."

On the other side of the coin, according to the Center for American Progress, "progressives believe that America should be a country of boundless opportunity—where all people can better themselves through education, hard work, and the freedom to pursue their dreams. We believe this will only be achieved with an open and effective government that champions the common good over narrow self-interest, harnesses the strength of our diversity, and secures the rights and safety of its people.

Real progress will be achieved only through innovative solutions borne of open collaboration.

To realize our vision we must:

Build an opportunity nation where every hard-working person, regardless of background, can realize their dreams through education, decent work and fair play.

Reawaken America's conscience, our sense of shared and personal responsibility, to build healthy, vibrant communities.

Reform government so that it is of, by and for the people: open, effective, and committed to the common good.

Use America's strength to bring the world together, not pull it apart."

So are Libertarians "Progressives without a moral compass" or are Progressives "Libertarian-lite"?

It's an interesting question because there are some common beliefs. For instance, Libertarians, like Rep. Ron Paul, believe that the government should not interfere with our civil liberties, same with Progressives.

Libertarians think the government should stay out of our bedrooms and let us make our own decisions about our bodies, so do Progressives.

Libertarians believe in a liberal immigration policy, as it should not be up to the government to get in the way of the free market, Progressives believe in human rights and support a liberal immigration policy too.

Libertarians don't believe in corporate welfare, neither do Progressives.

Libertarians believe in smaller government and rights for individuals, so do Progressives (albeit, for a Progressive smaller government applies to the Department of Defense).

Libertarians believe in personal responsibility and don't think drugs should be criminalized for consenting adults, neither do Progressives.

Where Libertarians and Progressives do part ways is the balancing act between small government and effective government.

Libertarians think that the invisible hand of the government should stay out of the marketplace---Progressives do too, only not in cases, where oligopolies or monopolies prevail, 0r where human beings are harmed or mistreated.

Libertarians are for school-choice, Progressives believe that public education needs to be fixed.

Libertarians believe that welfare should be eliminated entirely, Progressives believe that a social safety net is appropriate and just, for as long as the underlying causes of poverty remain in place.

Libertarians would eliminate income taxes, Progressives are for the elimination of regressive taxes that cost the middle class and poor more proportionally than the top 10% of income earners.

Libertarians believe in strong defense, but limited foreign policy, while Progressives are for limited defense and strong foreign relations.


So it is clear, Progressives and Libertarians are very different, but it is equally clear that there is common ground to work on issues--some might say more so than between liberals and conservatives.

Loebsack in the CPC

Well look who is in the Progressive Caucus fold.

Member List
Co-Chairs
Hon. Barbara Lee, Hon. Lynn Woolsey

House Members
Hon. Neil Abercrombie, Hon. Tammy Baldwin, Hon. Xavier Becerra, Hon. Madeleine Bordallo, Hon. Robert Brady, Hon. Corrine Brown, Hon. Sherrod Brown, Hon. Michael Capuano, Hon. Julia Carson, Hon. Donna Christensen, Hon. Yvette Clarke, Hon. William “Lacy” Clay, Hon. Emanuel Cleaver, Hon. Steve Cohen, Hon. John Conyers, Hon. Elijah Cummings, Hon. Danny Davis, Hon. Peter DeFazio, Hon. Rosa DeLauro, Hon. Keith Ellison, Hon. Sam Farr, Hon. Chaska Fattah, Hon. Bob Filner, Hon. Barney Frank, Hon. Raul Grijalva, Hon. Luis Gutierrez, Hon. John Hall, Hon. Phil Hare, Hon. Maurice Hinchey, Hon. Mazie Hirono, Hon. Jesse Jackson, Jr., Hon. Sheila Jackson-Lee, Hon. Hank Johnson, Hon. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Hon. Marcy Kaptur, Hon. Carolyn Kilpatrick, Hon. Dennis Kucinich, Hon. Tom Lantos, Hon. John Lewis, Hon. David Loebsack, Hon. Carolyn Maloney, Hon. Ed Markey, Hon. Jim McDermott, Hon. James McGovern, Hon. George Miller, Hon. Gwen Moore, Hon. Jerrold Nadler, Hon. Eleanor Holmes-Norton, Hon. John Olver, Hon. Ed Pastor, Hon. Donald Payne, Hon. Charles Rangel, Hon. Bobby Rush, Hon. Bernie Sanders, Hon. Jan Schakowsky, Hon. Jose Serrano, Hon. Louis Slaughter, Hon. Hilda Solis, Hon. Pete Stark, Hon. Bennie Thompson, Hon. John Tierney, Hon. Tom Udall, Hon. Nydia Velazquez, Hon. Maxine Waters, Hon. Diane Watson, Hon. Mel Watt, Hon. Henry Waxman, Hon. Peter Welch

Impeachment, the War, and doing the right thing

Across the blogosphere there is a flurry of discussion about impeaching the President, ending the war in Iraq, and whether the political stomach to do such things exists.

Theories about where things are:

1) The Democrats don't have the stomach to do it because it sets the Republicans up for success in 2008.
2) The Republicans want to be vindicated for the war--If we had only stayed the course...
3) Politics doesn't move in real time. Wheels are in motion to address the concerns of the public, but patience is a virtue.
4) It's about power: whose got it and who wants it.
5) The President (has no clothes) but warns we have nothing to play for advantage, but fear itself.
6) Both parties say "If we are going to get anything done in a bipartisan way, we have to avoid distractions."
7) Both parties are chickensh**t and are jockeying for position.

My crystal ball view: We are likely to see mass prosecutions after 2008, but as long as there is a war, nobody's going to impeach anybody. The Democrats are building up political capital for 2008. The Republicans are retrenching and looking for their issues. The President is looking for a legacy and can't get it without Congressional support. Prediction: The war will end in Iraq before 2008, the middle east will be in more turmoil, the Dems will take the White House in '08. Domestic issues will take the front seat.

Good Golly (I'll) Miss Molly

Syndicated political columnist Molly Ivins died of breast cancer Wednesday evening at her home in Austin. She was 62 years old, and had much, much more to give this world. She remained cheerful despite Texas politics. She emphasized the more hilarious aspects of both state and national government, and consequently never had to write fiction. She said, "Good thing we've still got politics - finest form of free entertainment ever invented."

Gark Note: Molly Ivins was the first person who made me sit up and pay attention to politics (albeit, it was Texas politics--a much more cynical brand than practiced in Iowa)--she reviled the politics of fear that is practiced these days. I will personally miss her greatly. Below are some Molly Ivins quotes that I think give you a flavor of what she was made of.

"Love those Iowa results. Nothing better than a huge political scrum where the front-runner stumbles, the guy everyone wrote off for dead six weeks ago comes roaring back, an unknown emerges, an old war-horse drops out -- a wonderful scenario. Let's hear it for upset, confusion and the conventional wisdom with egg on its face. A banana cream pie right in the kisser for everyone who pretends they know how a political race will turn out. Happy days. Ain't democracy grand?" 1/22/2004

"I'm sorry to say (cancer) can kill you but it doesn't make you a better person," she told the San Antonio Express-News in September 2006, the same month cancer claimed her friend former Gov. Ann Richards.

"If you think his daddy had trouble with 'the vision thing,' wait'll you meet this one," Ivins on George W. Bush in "The Progressive," June 1999.

"If left to my own devices, I'd spend all my time pointing out that he's weaker than bus-station chili," on Bill Clinton, from the introduction to You Got to Dance With Them What Brung You

"Naturally, when it comes to voting, we in Texas are accustomed to discerning that fine hair's-breadth worth of difference that makes one hopeless dipstick slightly less awful than the other. But it does raise the question: Why bother?", in a 2002 column about a California political race.

"The poor man who is currently our president has reached such a point of befuddlement that he thinks stem cell research is the same as taking human lives, but that 40,000 dead Iraqi civilians are progress toward democracy," from a July 2006 column urging commentator Bill Moyers to run for president.

"Many people did not care for Pat Buchanan's speech; it probably sounded better in the original German," Ivins in September 1992, commenting on the one-time presidential hopeful's speech to the Republican National Convention.

"I dearly love the state of Texas, but I consider that a harmless perversion on my part, and discuss it only with consenting adults," from a March 1992 column.

"I love Texas, but it is a nasty old rawhide mother in the way it bears down on the people who have the fewest defenses," Ivins wrote in September 2002.

"....our very own dreaded Legislature is almost upon us. Jan. 9 and they'll all be here, leaving many a village without its idiot," from a December 2000 column.

"Any nation that can survive what we have lately in the way of government, is on the high road to permanent glory."

"As they say around the Texas Legislature, if you can't drink their whiskey, screw their women, take their money, and vote against 'em anyway, you don't belong in office."

"In Texas, we do not hold high expectations for the governor's office; it's mostly been occupied by crooks, dorks and the comatose."

"Being slightly paranoid is like being slightly pregnant - it tends to get worse."

"It's hard to argue against cynics - they always sound smarter than optimists because they have so much evidence on their side."

"It is possible to read the history of this country as one long struggle to extend the liberties established in our Constitution to everyone in America."

"Satire is traditionally the weapon of the powerless against the powerful. I only aim at the powerful. When satire is aimed at the powerless, it is not only cruel - it's vulgar."

"I believe in practicing prudence at least once every two or three years."

"During a recent panel on the numerous failures of American journalism, I proposed that almost all stories about government should begin: 'Look out! They're about to smack you around again!'"

"The thing about democracy, beloveds, is that it is not neat, orderly, or quiet. It requires a certain relish for confusion."

"What is a teenager in San Francisco to rebel against, for pity's sake? Their parents are all so busy trying to be non-judgmental, it's no wonder they take to dyeing their hair green."

"Half of this administration in under average. The other half is under indictment."

"You only have two other options. You can cry. And you can throw up. And both of those are bad for you."

(On Texas) "We consistently rank near the bottom by every measure of social service, education, and quality of life (leading to one of our state mottoes, "Thank God for Mississippi")." Molly Ivins, in Who Let The Dogs In? (2004)

6 Pillars of Character

The six pillars of character, according to the Iowa Character Institute are: trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring, and citizenship. I wonder how the institute would grade our politicians re: character. Dear readers, please submit your grades for the politicians you think show good character. After all, don't we want leaders that exhibit these traits, in addition to critical thinking ability and political acumen?

TRUSTWORTHINESS

Trust is the basis of all good relationships and a cornerstone of good character. Trustworthy people keep their promises, are honest, reliable, principled, and never inappropriately betray a confidence.

· Be honest - don't deceive, cheat or steal
· Be reliable-do what you say you'll do
· Have the courage to do the right thing
· Build a good reputation
· Be loyal-stand by your family, friends and country


RESPECT
Treating people with respect helps us get along with each other, avoid and resolve conflicts, and create a positive social climate. Respectful behavior means treating others with civility and courtesy, accepting personal differences, listening to what others have to say, and refraining from ridiculing, embarrassing or hurting others.
· Each of us has a role in creating a respectful climate.
· Treat others with respect; follow the Golden Rule
· Be tolerant of differences
· Use good manners, not bad language
· Be considerate of the feelings of others
· Don't threaten, hit or hurt anyone
· Deal peacefully with anger, insults and disagreements


RESPONSIBILITY
Responsibility is often regarded as a burden, but we discover that it is actually a great source of personal power. It is the key to taking charge of our lives. Responsible people do what needs to be done, fulfill their obligations, are accountable for their actions, use good judgment, and don’t let people down.
· Do what you are supposed to do
· Persevere; keep on trying!
· Always do your best
· Use self-control
· Be self-disciplined
· Think before you act-consider the consequences
· Be accountable for your choices


FAIRNESS
Nothing makes people bristle like injustice, but often it’s difficult to know what’s fair and what isn’t, or what to do when faced with injustice. Fairness means living by the golden rule, doing what it takes to be a fair and just person, and realizing how much our personal actions do matter.
· Play by the rules
· Take turns and share
· Be open-minded; listen to others
· Don't take advantage of others
· Don't blame others carelessly


CARING
Caring is not just a way of feeling, it’s a way of behaving. What makes us caring people is doing caring things. Caring people respond selflessly to the needs of others and treat others with kindness, concern, and generosity.
· Be kind
· Be compassionate and show you care
· Express gratitude
· Forgive others
· Help people in need


CITIZENSHIP
Citizenship, at its core, is social responsibility in action. It is doing your part for the common good, serving your community, and helping make our democracy work. One person can make a big difference!

· Do your share to make your school and community better
· Cooperate
· Stay informed; vote
· Be a good neighbor
· Obey laws and rules
· Respect authority
· Protect the environment
· Recycle

Bush Says "Show me Your Plan"

President Bush on Saturday [1/13/07] challenged lawmakers skeptical of his new Iraq plan to propose their own strategy for stopping the violence in Baghdad.

"To oppose everything while proposing nothing is irresponsible," Bush said.

Forgetting for a moment that he is our Commander-in-Chief and should have asked for alternatives prior to making his own announcement, he asks a valid question.

So what are the Democrats' plans? Here are the plans that announced candidate's for President in 2008 propose.

Sen. Joe Biden's Plan (August 2006)

The five-point plan [General Les Gelb and] I laid out offers a better way.

First, the plan calls for maintaining a unified Iraq by decentralizing it and giving Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis their own regions. The central government would be left in charge of common interests, such as border security and the distribution of oil revenue.

Second, it would bind the Sunnis to the deal by guaranteeing them a proportionate share of oil revenue. Each group would have an incentive to maximize oil production, making oil the glue that binds the country together.

Third, the plan would create a massive jobs program while increasing reconstruction aid -- especially from the oil-rich Gulf states -- but tying it to the protection of minority rights.

Fourth, it would convene an international conference that would produce a regional nonaggression pact and create a Contact Group to enforce regional commitments.

Fifth, it would begin the phased redeployment of U.S. forces this year and withdraw most of them by the end of 2007, while maintaining a small follow-on force to keep the neighbors honest and to strike any concentration of terrorists.

This plan is consistent with Iraq's constitution, which already provides for the country's 18 provinces to join together in regions, with their own security forces and control over most day-to-day issues. This plan is the only idea on the table for dealing with the militias, which are likely to retreat to their respective regions instead of engaging in acts of violence. This plan is consistent with a strong central government that has clearly defined responsibilities. Indeed, it provides an agenda for that government, whose mere existence will not end sectarian violence. This plan is not partition -- in fact, it may be the only way to prevent violent partition and preserve a unified Iraq.

Sen. Christopher Dodd's Plan (January 2006)

The time for blunt force is long past. Instead, we ought to withdraw our combat troops from urban centers of sectarian conflict, where they are simply cannon fodder. We ought to focus on training reliable Iraqi security forces whose allegiance is to the greater Iraqi people, not to any specific sect. We need to redouble counterterrorism efforts and border security to deny al-Qaeda a failed-state foothold. And, perhaps most importantly, we must engage Iraq’s leaders and its neighbors to promote political reconciliation.

If the only solution to Iraq a is political one, diplomacy is the only weapon we have left.

What has the administration been doing in the last four weeks? Since the time the Iraq Study Group’s report was released, almost 100 American soldiers have been killed and by many estimates, four to five thousand Iraqi civilians have been killed in the widening strife.

And the President’s solution to all of this was to ignore the most important recommendations of the Iraq Study Group – namely “robust diplomacy,” and instead settle on an escalation of our current combat strategy.

This is a tactic in search of a strategy, and it will not bring us a stable Iraq.

The American people have spent $14 billion training and equipping 300,000 Iraqi police and security forces. Yet, today, 23 separate sectarian militias operate with impunity throughout Baghdad. Sectarian killings continue largely unabated—averaging scores of deaths a day, and thousands a month. This is not random violence: It is a targeted civil war, complete with ethnic cleansing.

Those of us who have been to Iraq recently have seen it with our own eyes and heard it with our own ears.

Beyond that, president’s own intelligence experts have told us that the Islamic world is growing more radical, and that the terrorist threat is greater today than it was on 9/11—not despite, but because of the continuing war in Iraq. Iraq, they conclude, has become both a physical and an ideological training ground for the next generation of extremists.

The wider region has been further plunged into violence, Hezbollah has crippled the Lebanese government, civil war in the Palestinian territories now seems more likely than ever, Syria and Iran are more powerful and emboldened than they’ve been in recent memory. We are further away from stabilizing Afghanistan, as drug traffickers and tribal warfare now threaten to destroy its nascent democracy, and the Taliban is stronger now than at any point since our invasion.

And perhaps, most troubling of all is our standing in the world. According to the Pew Center for Global Opinion, more people in Great Britain, France, Spain, Russia, Indonesia, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, Pakistan, Nigeria, India and China think that the War in Iraq is a greater danger to world peace than either Iran or North Korea. The President says we are in a “war of ideas.” But how can we possibly win a war between democracy and extremism when so much of the world considers us to be the threat?

Isn’t it the State Department’s job to engage in this debate and win the world over, or at least try? Instead we’ve had year after year of inaction, bellicose rhetoric, a categorical refusal to ask for help, to work collectively, to engage—and what has it bought us?

Sen. John Edward's Plan (October 2005)

A plan for success needs to focus on three interlocking objectives: reducing the American presence, building Iraq's capacity and getting other countries to meet their responsibilities to help.

First, we need to remove the image of an imperialist America from the landscape of Iraq. American contractors who have taken unfair advantage of the turmoil in Iraq need to leave Iraq. If that means Halliburton subsidiary KBR, then KBR should go. Such departures, and the return of the work to Iraqi businesses, would be a real statement about our hopes for the new nation.

We also need to show Iraq and the world that we will not stay there forever. We've reached the point where the large number of our troops in Iraq hurts, not helps, our goals. Therefore, early next year, after the Iraqi elections, when a new government has been created, we should begin redeployment of a significant number of troops out of Iraq. This should be the beginning of a gradual process to reduce our presence and change the shape of our military's deployment in Iraq. Most of these troops should come from National Guard or Reserve forces.

That will still leave us with enough military capability, combined with better-trained Iraqis, to fight terrorists and continue to help the Iraqis develop a stable country.

Second, this redeployment should work in concert with a more effective training program for Iraqi forces. We should implement a clear plan for training and hard deadlines for certain benchmarks to be met. To increase incentives, we should implement a schedule showing that, as we certify Iraqi troops as trained and equipped, a proportional number of U.S. troops will be withdrawn.

Third, we must launch a serious diplomatic process that brings the world into this effort. We should bring Iraq's neighbors and our key European allies into a diplomatic process to get Iraq on its feet. The president needs to create a unified international front.

Too many mistakes have already been made for this to be easy. Yet we must take these steps to succeed. The American people, the Iraqi people and -- most important -- our troops who have died or been injured there, and those who are fighting there today, deserve nothing less.

Edwards on January 9, 2007

"George Bush's expected decision to adopt the McCain Doctrine and escalate the war in Iraq is a grave mistake.

"The new Congress must intercede to stop Bush from stubbornly sticking to the same failed course in Iraq and refuse to authorize funding for an escalation of troops. They should make it clear to the President that he will not get any money to put more of our troops in harm's way until he provides a plan to turn responsibility of Iraq over to the Iraqi people and to ultimately leave Iraq. George Bush wants to dig a deeper hole, but we need to climb out.

"The situation in Iraq demands a political solution — the Iraqi people must take responsibility for their country. Escalating the war in Iraq, which our own generals agree won't help, sends the wrong message to the Iraqi people, to the region, and the world. In order to get the Iraqis to take responsibility for their country, we must show them that we are serious about leaving, and the best way to do that is to actually start leaving and immediately withdraw 40–50,000 troops. Once the U.S. starts leaving, the Iraqi people and other regional powers will be forced to step up and engage in the search for a political solution that can bring an end to sectarian violence and allow reconstruction to take hold, creating — as should have been done long ago — Iraqi jobs for Iraqis."

Sen. Michael Gravel's Plan (December 2006)

Senator Gravel believes that the United States should withdraw from Iraq immediately – “not six months from now, but now.” He believes that the Baker Commission on Iraq is likely to come out with a plan that seems reasonable that would keep US troops in Iraq for another two years. Gravel asked, “What’s reasonable? What is reasonable when you’re killing American solders every day – when you’re killing foreigners – is to stop.” He believes that the likely Baker plan will be crafted to maintain “American hegemony” over Iraqi oil in the long run.

He believes that the motivations for going to war in the first place were related to Iraq’s oil. One of these motivations in his view was to prevent Saddam Hussein from re-denominating the sale of Iraq’s oil in euros from dollars - something that could have had a disastrous effect on the dollar. He also believes that certain senior US leaders, including Vice President Dick Cheney, wanted control of Iraq’s oil in order to cement influence over the world economy as a whole.

He believes that

the tragedy for the world and ourselves is that they’re using all this treasure for this ill-advised adventure in Iraq to sustain our ascendancy in power over the oil economy in the world which is what is causing global warming when in point of fact we should be using this treasure to get ourselves off this carbon dependency and move into energy alternatives.

When asked whether he was concerned that an immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq would lead to an expansion of Iranian influence over Iraq, Gravel said “No. I have no concerns about that.”

Rep. Dennis Kucinich's Plan for ending the war in Iraq (January 10, 2007)

1. The U.S. announces it will end the occupation, close the military bases, and withdraw.
2. The U.S. announces that it will use existing funds to bring the troops home and the necessary equipment home.
3. We will order a simultaneous return of all U.S. contractors to the United States and turn over the contracting work to the Iraqi government.
4. We'll convene a regional conference for the purpose of developing a security and stabilization force for Iraq.
5. Prepare an international security peacekeeping force to move in, replacing U.S. troops, who then return home.
6. Develop and fund a process of national reconciliation.
7. We have to once again restart the programs for reconstructions and jobs for the Iraqi people.
8. Reparations for the damage that's been done to the lives of Iraqis.
9. Assuring the political sovereignty of Iraq and making sure that their oil isn't stolen.
10. Repairing the Iraqi economy.
11. Economic sovereignty for Iraq. And,
12. An international truth and reconciliation process, which establishes a policy of truth and reconciliation between the people of the United States and Iraq.

And last but assuredly not least Gov. Tom Vilsack

Your [John McCain's] suggestion to deploy additional American servicemen and women to Iraq would make a big mistake even bigger and send the wrong message to President Bush, who has stubbornly refused to recognize that his Administration's military and diplomatic failures in Iraq have recklessly endangered America's national interests.

Additional troop deployments would also make the Iraqi government more dependent - instead of less dependent -- on the American military presence. Our efforts should be focused on including more countries in the reconstruction effort and strengthening local governments across Iraq."

"I welcome the view of Congressional leaders Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi that President Bush's plan to boost troop levels in Iraq is wrong. In early December, I expressed my fundamental opposition to leading more troops into harm's way in Iraq because I think it would make a big mistake even bigger. We've stretched our military too thin already, and even our top U.S. commanders agree that adding troops won't solve the political problem. I'm glad we agree on this."

Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack calling on Congress to block funding for a troop increase. But Vilsack said he is wary of holding back funds to try to force the return of troops already deployed in Iraq."I'm not willing to suggest we have a cutting off of funds that would really put people in greater danger than they are today," Vilsack told the AP.

President Bush Must End 'His' War in Iraq

From Progressive Democrats of America

Rep. Jim McGovern: M. Speaker, President Bush Must End 'His' War in Iraq
January 11, 2007, Washington, DC

Rep. Jim McGovern made this speech on the House floor around 5:00 PM, Wednesday, January 10, 2007, before the president's televised address:
M. Speaker, tonight we will once again listen to President Bush as he describes yet another strategy for the War in Iraq. By all accounts from the media, the president will tell the nation that he intends to send more U.S. troops to fight and die in Iraq. This is not “stay the course,” M. Speaker, this is escalation. And at a bare minimum, Congress must find the wisdom and the courage to require and vote upon specific new authorization to escalate the number of troops in Iraq. This is what Senator Kennedy from Massachusetts called for yesterday. He has introduced legislation that prohibits any federal funds from being used to increase the number of U.S. forces in Iraq without a specific authorization of Congress by law for such an increase.

More

Heroines of the Progressive Movement

I want to mention that women have played an important role in the development of progressive ideas. Jane Addams, Susan B. Anthony, Emma Goldman, Barbara Lee, Barbara Jordan, Shirley Chisholm, and Mother Jones, are just a few that come to mind. I often hear people say that the US is not ready for a woman president, but it is well past time--do you feel me, Barbara Boxer and Kathleen Sebelius?

As in all things presidential, it is about the person with the right ideas and the ability to communicate those ideas. Many people have forgotten about Shirley Chisholm's
run for the presidency in 1972 and won and received 152 delegate votes. I often wonder what would have happened had "Unbossed and Unbought" Shirley Chisholm had won the nomination. It would have been quite a different story--perhaps for Nixon too.

The packaging of Hillary Clinton is clearly underway-- its just a matter of time before the announcement is made. I may be one of the few who think that she is not the "light and the way"--and frankly I'd be insulted, if I were her by those who whisper we would get "two Clinton's for the price of one" if she chooses to run in 2008. Regardless, who can argue that she is not qualified?

Thanksgiving

I am thankful for this past election cycle because it gives the nation a chance to regroup and reprioritize. I am thankful to the crop of candidates that ran for office and for those who succeeded of the progressive stripe--62 of whom are in the Congressional Progressive caucus.

We need to focus our attentions on smart security--and taking care of people by:

> Reducing global warming, reducing urban outgrowth, and lessening our energy use footprint
> Increasing family security including equal rights to the GLBT community, creative solutions to increase affordable housing stock for low income people, universal healthcare, improved care for our elders.
> Improving educational opportunities focusing math and science literacy along with reading and language fluency.
> A mandatory one year national service for 18 to 24 year olds to provide necessary activities to serve constituencies in fields like education, healthcare, child/eldercare, and the environment.
> Attaching requirements for fair (liveable) wages, energy efficient building design, and efficient use of resources to industries when economic development tax dollars are involved.

Have a Happy and Safe Thanksgiving

Popular Progressive- Putting People First

Hi,

I am Gark, and no, it is not my name. However, because I want to be honest in what I say, I choose to be "undercover" as I describe the murkiness of Progressive ideals.

Mainly, I wanted to create a blog that is open to disagreement, even within the friendly confines of "progressives"--because I don't think we all agree what that means.

I believe "Progressive" is making conscious choices that improve the lives of people and considers both the intended consequences (and the unintended consequences) of decisions that affect us now and our children down the road. I define these choices in terms of social, economic, and personal. Specifically I define progressive issues around sustainable policy, that is fair to those affected by it, and results in fiscal and moral/ethical responsible outcomes.

For example, global climate change (aka global warming) is an issue that requires a progressive approach because the results of global warming are likely to be devastating by all measures, economic, social, and personal, and the solutions are likely to have significant consequences to the American Way of Life (AWOL).

Solutions will be complex and will require sacrificing other important goals--e.g., a mass consumption based economy.

A progressive response could to be to join in with other nations approving a carbon dioxide emissions standard (ala the Kyoto accord). It would be to invest in alternative (clean, safe, lower carbon dioxide producing) energy production, improved mass transit, incenting consumers to either convert existing cars to biofuels, adopting higher CAFE standards for fuel economy, and so on. In addition to invest into our educational system to encourage science and math literacy and encouragement for all students to pursue careers in science, math, and engineering fields.

Progressive Politics has a ways to go to become "mainstream", but it will only happen if we can present our ideas and plans to people in ways they can understand. In other words, we have to make our case AND learn what the needs are of people that are not being met in today's political environment.

Since this is my blog, I will attempt to make my case.

This is what I think is wrong about how political parties work.

1) People are not valued for what they can contribute to political discourse, but for what they CONTRIBUTE $.
2) Political parties do not reach out to constituencies that REALLY need political clout (e.g., the poor)
3.) Political parties build leadership through attrition--Darwinian "survival of the fittest" mentality.
4.) Political parties do not know how to "play nice"--that is make your point versus the opposition, but don't go to the lowest common denominator to do it.
5.) They mostly work by instilling fear about the alternatives.
6.) Political parties do not generally match people to their talents effectively.

Next, what should the Progressive agenda be?