Open Left - community

Spotlight on Community Voices Heard and the Economic Recovery

The Opportunity Agenda — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:48:35 GMT

The economic stimulus package has tackled some of the most pressing job-related issues facing our communities. However, with national unemployment at over 10% for the first time since the early 1980s, we have to make sure recovery monies are spent in communities who need help the most. We have a better chance of achieving success in these areas if we come together to ensure that our most vulnerable communities, including communities of color, immigrants, and the poor, can participate in and contribute to our economic growth.

Over the next few months, The Opportunity Agenda will be highlighting the progress that a number of community groups have had in dealing with the economic recovery. Specifically, we will be highlighting the successes and challenges that these groups have had in accessing stimulus funds, how those funds have been used to increase job opportunities and ensure economic security, and what the economic recovery package has meant for poor communities and communities of color.

As an organization working to ensure equal opportunity in the economic recovery, we have begun interviewing local and state-level groups to gain a better understanding of how our country is faring during this critical period. Today’s post centers on the our interview with Sondra Youdelman and Henry Serrano, focusing on their work with Community Voices Heard (CVH), a membership organization working to build power for low-income families in the state of New York. Sondra is the Executive Director of CVH, and Henry is their Senior Organizer/Voter Engagement Project Coordinator.

During these trying economic times, CVH has been lucky enough to achieve success by taking advantage of stimulus funding opportunities and grassroots activism. Recently, CVH won $25 million in new resources for subsidized employment, partly through regular Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) contingency money. In addition, CVH has been extremely proactive in assuring proper oversight and monitoring of public housing capital funds, specifically in the enforcement of Section 3 provisions of the 1968 Housing and Urban Development Act. The Opportunity Agenda interviewed Sondra and Henry together on October 21, 2009. Here are some portions of that interview:
Opportunity Agenda: Why did your organization decide to get involved in the economic recovery, and specifically in advocacy around the stimulus package?

Sondra Youdelman: There were a couple of reasons. Obviously there is our constituency. Our membership has been dealing with the recession forever. As discussions about the broader recession were coming forth, public recipients were kind of forgotten in the mix as the focus was on the middle class and how they were being impacted in the recession. . . . From an organizing perspective, this is the big thing happening right now and people organize in moments of crisis. With the focus on the federal level, we could use this moment to organize people and make change. It became clear to us that given the public housing crisis here in New York City, there was finally a chance to win funds on the federal level for capital improvements.

The Opportunity Agenda: What are some projects dealing with the recovery, and in particular the stimulus package, that your organization is working on?

SY: . . . One is around the public housing capital funds. It began with having conversations with key federal legislators when the package was being put together. Now, it plays out at the local level; $423 million in public housing capital funds is coming to New York; it’s being directed to 70 projects that are shovel ready. Our campaign now locally is focused on assuring proper oversight and monitoring, and enforcement of Section 3 provisions. There have been historical problems with NYCHA [the NYC Housing Authority] and misspent resources and we want to make sure this doesn’t happen again.

With public housing, we have a local fight to make sure that oversight and monitoring happens with the spending; in order for NYCHA to function for the long haul, the current NYCHA deficit needs to be plugged. There needs to be full funding coming from the city, state, and federal governments. We are trying to set up a community-labor-resident-elected oversight committee to oversee these funds—to be the watchdog group. Another thing around public housing is the Section 3 issue.…

The Opportunity Agenda: Can you broadly describe the Section 3 provisions that you mention?

SY: Sure. Section 3 was enacted in the 1968 Housing and Urban Development Act; it is part of a piece of federal legislation that basically tells housing authorities and developers that receive federal resources that come through the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), that there needs to be “best efforts” on behalf of the entity in providing access to jobs and training opportunities to residents with low incomes residing in the communities where work is being done. So communities of color and low-income communities, including public housing residents, can benefit specifically because of this.

Henry Serrano: In terms of the stimulus, we are seeing that this may be a unique opportunity to change the decision-making structures in streams of federal revenue. We have offices, one in Newburgh, one in Yonkers, etc. We are trying to use the fights we have had over oversight to create the same thing with NYCHA—create an oversight board that includes the participation of low-income residents. In Newburgh, we have gotten the city to create and oversight committee wherein membership of the community can participate in oversight of CDBG, and thereby some stimulus, funds. That just got put in place. . . .

SY: One of our stimulus activity focal points has been around the TANF welfare resources added into recovery packages. We tried to push for there to be a concrete block of money for paid transitional jobs program at the federal level; a paid work program as opposed to unpaid workfare. We had thought that there was possibility within the recovery plans, that we could try to get resources at the federal level—resources that we had not been successful in winning in the last reauthorization debate for federal welfare. But this time, in the recovery bill, we were more successful around TANF. The federal stimulus provides a potential for extra resources for the state for subsidized employment through a 4 to 1 match program. The federal government will match one shot deals or subsidized employment programs. In our regular state organizing work, we were pushing for resources for a transitional jobs program. In the state budget this year, we won $25 million in new resources for subsidized employment, partly through regular TANF contingency money. . . . We now need to launch local city and county level campaigns to bring in new resources, so that we can trigger eligibility for additional federal funds through the state as an intermediary.

The Opportunity Agenda: In regard to the economic recovery, how do you measure success? How would you describe success to a reporter? For example, would you measure success by the number of jobs created?

HS: It’s not quantitative, not the amount of jobs created. In some places, especially outside of New York City, it’s about getting the programs created. It’s about the implementation of these programs, not the scale. The first barrier/challenge is to get the programs implemented and then we worry about the numbers. What we are trying to do is to use the development and implementation of these programs as a measure of success.

SY: We don’t want it to be this quick one shot deal. We want to create these new structures that can operate with regular resources in the future. But we also want to create new programs that will meet the needs of the constituency we are organizing with. The broader public wants to know about how many jobs, where they are, etc. That’s important, too. In the broad realm we want to see certain demographics, where they live, what services there are, are they reaching our communities as opposed to just the state. It’s a combination of things.
. . .

To request a full transcript of the interview, please contact Dina Rezvani, dina@opportunityagenda.org.

For more on the economic recovery, from The Opportunity Agenda, visit here.

Blog Action Day: Climate Change

The Opportunity Agenda — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 15:51:16 GMT

Today is blog Action Day. In the organizers' own words:

Blog Action Day is an annual event that unites the world's bloggers in posting about the same issue on the same day on their own blogs with the aim of sparking discussion around an issue of global importance. Blog Action Day 2009 will be the largest-ever social change event on the web. One day. One issue. Thousands of voices.

Although The Opportunity Agenda does not directly work on climate change, the problem is so pervasive that it impacts the issues we do work on. Climate change is not an abstract phenomenon when it comes the lives of everyday people in America. There is mounting evidence that greenhouse gases are increasing the potency of hurricanes, whose impact disproportionately affects those most vulnerable in our society. And as the climate does change, it will be the poorest among us that suffer in increased fuel costs. Finally, the polluting elements that cause climate change are also most common in low-income communities of color. As a result, the health of residents in these areas is worse than those in more affluent neighborhoods.

For these reasons, climate change isn't an issue simply to be addressed by environmental groups. Social activists, too, must see the connections and address this universal concern—a step in realizing the promise of opportunity for all.

Read more at The Opportunity Agenda website.

Peace Prize Victory for "We"

The Opportunity Agenda — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:05:24 GMT

One of the shining moments in Obama's campaign from 2008 was the "Yes We Can" mantra that rang out across America. It was a powerful reminder of the founding principles rooted in our democracy, the idea that we live as "We The People." I think this is an important icon to meditate on after hearing news that President Obama is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

The United States lost a great deal of respect by the world community during the eight years leading up to Obama's victory. This is, I believe, due to the rampant cowboy behavior we wore on our sleeve when stepping out into the world. For eight years, the values of the old frontier—boot straps, Bibles and bourbon—were thrown down on the table; bootstraps because we lived by a "We don't need anyone to help us" mentality, Bibles because we saw the world with certitude as if we were gods, and bourbon because we drank ourself blind with greed and profit.
When I say "we," I'm talking about the nation, a living organism of 300 million people wrapped into one package that is placed out in front of us every time our leaders lead us abroad. Of course, many around the world knew that the views of a few in charge were not those of the masses. However, as any fan of old west films will tell you, cowboys are exciting to watch, but miserable in the responsibility department, one of the reasons why it became more and more difficult to find allies to stand with us.

What's great about Obama is that he returned us to a focus on community, that there is more than just me in this big world. He reminded us that we can't do it alone, that he wouldn't be where he is without the labors of those before him, the same way that non of us find progress without the help of others. Someone did, after all, labor to make those bootstraps.

As the world recognizes Obama for his efforts for peace, we need to remind ourselves that community is key toward progress and peace. Our most tolerant communities are those who accept all people, regardless of their views or background. Listening goes a long way, which is why we should continue to listen to the changes he continues to call for in furthering peace and progress both at home and overseas.

Read more at The Opportunity Agenda website.

Tired of Bad Reporting About Health Care? Break Out Your Cameras to Change the Debate

The Media Consortium — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 17:28:54 GMT

When it comes to the debate around health care, you've heard the same voices of pundits and politicians repeated on the morning and evening news. You've seen a small group dominate the airwaves by shouting and spreading lies at town hall events. You've even seen guns at presidential events enter the fray. But have you seen your personal health care story told? Or that of your friends, families, co-workers, or neighbors?
Your story is getting lost in the shouting and political posturing. But it's these stories that can make the difference in how health care is covered in the national media and how politicians will vote. We're asking you to join us in this exciting citizen journalism project to help uncover the the health care stories of real people, including your own.

At MyRapidReport.com, it's easy to become a citizen journalist. We've broken this down into three simple options. You can do one or all!

1 ) Videotape the proceedings of a health care town hall - try to interview speakers or other attendees.

2) Conduct interviews around your community and gather personal healthcare stories. We've even provided somehelpful starting questions for you.

3) Tell your own personal healthcare story. (Ideas on how to structure your personal story are here.

Upload your captured video by going to MyRapidReport.com and click UPLOAD VIDEO. It's just that simple.

So what will happen with your stories? Like YouTube, they will be open for the public to view. But you will also have a captured audience of reporters, editors, organizers and more who will be combing over these stories during the next month. Your videos will help identify the needs and hopes of everyday citizens around the future of our healthcare as they continue to monitor, report and organize around this critical issue.

For guidelines on how to capture a successful video story,click here.

If you're passionate about shaping the future of your health care - and American's health care - participate in this critical storytelling project.

By the way, if you happen to live in New York City, GRITtv has generously offered their studio space for you to come in and tape your own personal story starting on Sep. 11 and every Friday afterward. Emailgritv@grittv.org to get more information and reserve your time to tell your healthcare story!

Feel free to spread the word about this opportunity to your family, friends, neighbors, and local community groups. If you're on Twitter, you can use the #mrrhealth.

And one last note, starting on September 1, Lindsay Beyerstein, The Media Consortium's own health care blogger, will start doing daily posts on the most current debates and round-up of reporting around health care for the next month. You can check out the Daily Pulse on this site every day or at http://www.themediaconsortium....

Creative Minds Needed -- Help Us Rename the KDP Blog!

Mike Nellis — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 15:19:46 GMT

It's been about three months since I headed South to Kansas to take over the online operations at the Kansas Democratic Party. I've had the chance to do some cool things and meet a lot of interesting people. But nothing has me more excited than what we'll be rolling out online in the next few months.

Our new website won't be done for a little while but we're leaking a bit of it today. (I couldn't wait!)

One of the newest features of our new website will be a fully functional, community blog in the style of Daily Kos and Open Left. We haven't worked out all the kinks yet but we want to create a place where all Kansas Democrats could go to talk about their local party, candidates, and partner organizations.

Hopefully, it will become the new standard for state Democratic Party blogs.

This new blog will be 100% free to all Kansas Democrats. All we need to do to make official is give it a new name! Can you help us out by suggesting a blog name for our new community blog?
You see, we wanted to democratize the process. This party isn't about me, it's about the thousands of Kansans who believe in good government and sound leadership. They deserve a place to go where they can talk about their issues and their elected officials. That's also why we want you to name it!

Here's how the game rules work.

We'll be accepting your suggestions for blog names throughout the first half of this week with the contest closing Wednesday night at 11:59 PM. Thursday morning, we'll select the best five names from across the state and have you vote for the blog name you like the best. Whichever name gets the most votes by Monday, September 7th at 11:59 PM will be the winner!

Pretty simple all in all. If you win, you'll get to brag to all your friends and family that you named the Kansas Democratic Party's community blog. So if you've got an idea, click here to submit it!

Below you'll find the email we just send out to our list for reference. Thanks for your support.

Friend --
Do you have something to say, but no medium to say it? Well that's about to change.
We're excited to announce that as you read this, work is being done on the new website you asked from us last June. One of the signature features of our new website will be a community blog where you can write about your local party, candidates, and partner organizations.
It'll be 100% free and open to all Democrats. All we need to make it official is a new name:
Click here to suggest a great name for the party's new community blog!
Here's how it will work.
We'll be accepting your suggestions for blog names throughout the first half of this week with the contest closing Wednesday night at 11:59 PM. Thursday morning, we'll select the best five names from across the state and have you vote for the blog name you like the best. Whichever name gets the most votes by Monday, September 7th at 11:59 PM will be the winner!
We strongly encourage you to organize around your favorite name, but we'll talk more about that later. For now, if you've got a good idea for a blog name, submit it below:
http://www.ksdp.org/nameourblog
It's an exciting time to be active in Kansas politics, and we can't wait to hear directly from you!
Thanks for all that you do,
Mike Nellis
Online Director -- Kansas Democratic Party
P.S. This blog is about you -- don't forget to make your suggestion before Thursday!

Flint, MI: A Bastion of Community Values

The Opportunity Agenda — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 15:34:34 GMT

As the American economy claws its way back from the edge of a cliff, Michigan serves as a powerful example of just how bad things are in some places, and, indeed, how bad they could get for the rest of the country. The state continues to have the highest unemployment of any state, and, while the auto bailouts appear to have prevented the wholesale collapse of the industry, there is no question that American automakers will cease to exist if they do not thoroughly reform themselves, which would send the state’s unemployment rate still higher. And yet, in Flint, a city at the center of the storm, where more than a third of residents live in poverty, citizens refuse to give up on their community.

As the city prepares to elect a mayor, an inspiring dynamic has emerged. One candidate, Brenda Clack, is a 64 year old grandmother who has stood by Flint through thick and thin, serving in public office even in the worst of times. Her opponent, Dayne Walling, is a former Rhodes Scholar who grew up in Flint, moved away, but felt compelled to return by his community’s incredible need. What could be behind these two individuals’ motivations? If it’s power, wealth, or a political stepping stone, they picked the wrong city. No, trying to bring change to a city that so many others have written off can only be an act of true love, for one’s community and the individuals that it nurtures.

Regardless of who wins, this race serves as a testament to the power of community. In Flint, and depressed towns across the rust belt, the decimation of the manufacturing base is pulling the last threads from a strained social fabric. Now, it’s time for the federal government, through the dispersal of recovery dollars and other mechanisms, to support these communities by ensuring that our economy does not return to 2007 levels of inequality, but rather grows in ways where the benefits reach everyone.

When Our Dreams Step Forward

The Opportunity Agenda — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 18:06:21 GMT

Forty years ago, NASA made dreams come true, as humans stepped foot for the first time on the moon. What has impressed me is hearing over and over the praises of former NASA directors who recall the importance each member of the team, which was in the hundreds if not thousands, had in making the mission a reality. Indeed, it's a perfect example of the power we have as a nation—when we realize that we're not in it alone.

Tough challenges require team work. And as we look ahead at the challenges we face as a nation—the economy, health reform, immigration, etc.—there's a lot we can learn from the thousands of nameless laborers who helped Neil Armstrong take that giant leap.

President Obama has done an excellent job in returning our country's focus back on to "We The People," shifting it from what I would argue has been the mantra of American life during the housing boom of this past decade, a culture that cried in its rush for individual prosperity, "Me The People."

The moon landing, more than anything, brought America together during a tumultuous time. It lifted up our founding values of community and opportunity, reminding us that no dream was too big when we all come together. Perhaps, in this new era, our sea of Tranquility can be realized in the dreams for a fair and just economy, in a world that respects the dignity and rights of all, in a future that doesn't rely on fuels that hurt our own beautiful planet. When three astronauts looked down upon our small green and blue rock forty years ago this week, they realized how much we truly were connected, how we were all in it together. Our job is to carry this knowledge forward, as we work toward finding solutions that bring security, mobility, opportunity, and all our other treasured national values within the reach of every person who calls our own rock home.

Read more at The Opportunity Agenda website.

Immigrants Cut From Massachusetts Universal Health Care Plan

The Opportunity Agenda — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:16:36 GMT

In a time of rising economic uncertainty, Massachusetts is moving away from its attempts to provide health care for all. The new state budget eliminates coverage for approximately 30,000 legal immigrants in an attempt to help close a budget deficit.

This is a mistake.

Health care is not commodity but a basic human right. Massachusetts had taken a strong, significant step in this direction. Their experience is particularly crucial right as the federal government works towards expanding health care to everyone across the country. And public opinion is behind dramatically expanding health care. Nationally, 89% of Americans believe that access to health care is a human right and 77% believe that the government has a responsibility to guarantee access for everyone.
Specifically, the Massachusetts' cut will affect permanent, immigrant residents who have had green cards for less than five years and are currently covered under Commonwealth Care, the state program to subsidize health insurance for those who cannot afford it.

Massachusetts attempted to provide health insurance to every citizen of the state. Its main mechanism for doing so was requiring that everyone have health insurance, much in the way every driver is required to have car insurance and providing Commonwealth Care, state subsidized coverage for those earning up to three times the federal poverty level ($66,150 for a family of four).

Health Care For All, a Boston based advocacy group, points out that the rationale behind expanding health care (besides the moral imperative) is "it's less expensive to keep people healthy than it is to pay for illnesses."

When health care resources are distributed evenly and fairly across a large population, everyone gets the care they need before health problems become costly and more difficult to treat. This notion of pooling resources and spreading risk is central to all forms of social insurance and is particularly important in health care.

Hopefully, Massachusetts will return to the values originally adhered to when first working to expand health care to all.

Read more at The Opportunity Agenda website.

"Home" - A beautiful and urgent case for cooperativism

GeoBear — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 02:01:47 GMT

June 21, 2009

Take a slo-mo aerial tour of Earth. Released on June 5th, over two and a half million people have already watched Home. The message is potent: it is too late for pessimism. We can redirect our use of energy, of farming, of transportation. We can and must live a different paradigm.

Tie Global Warming to Local Quality of Life Issues

rufus xevious — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 23:23:23 GMT

When I was in college, I used to drive down this quiet two-lane highway to Cincinnati. Cinci was the closest place from my small Midwestern college that was even close to happening. But the road was beautiful. Everything was laid out before you: old farmhouses, calm fields, large swaths of forest. That is, until you got about a half an hour outside Cincinnati, where the roadside became a crawling neon expanse of service stations and fast food chains. I tried to imagine how many people within a 30-mile radius really needed to eat hamburgers on a daily basis. Why'd they build so many of these places? It was just so unremittingly ugly.

I think about this a lot when I read all of the organized environmental arguments about why we need to do something about global warming - which of our practices cause the most greenhouse gases, the likely effects of doing nothing, the economic benefits of greening the economy, how to combat the powers that be, etc. -- and I'm on board with most of this analysis intellectually, no question.

But the thing I hear so rarely from environmental and political organizations (okay, excepting Bill McKibben and some other individuals), the simple gut-smacking truth outside all the facts and figures and political this-and-that, is how tragic it is that the way we've used land these last 50 years has turned one of the most extraordinary continents on the planet into something ugly to be around. And that right there is the connection between aesthetics and greenhouse gases. Because all this extra ugliness needs enormous amounts of carbon-spouting energy to run: factory farms to grow and harvest pesticide-infested food, buildings upon buildings to sell the food, energy from coal to power the buildings, fences upon fences to protect the buildings, cars upon roads under cars to get people to the buildings, drab, energy inefficient subdivisions to house the people in the cars, and electricity-sucking lights to keep it all illuminated (and the stars hidden from view).
Why am I doing all this hand wringing about our increasingly ugly communities? It's not just aesthetics. It's basically about motivation. People get quickly overwhelmed by the statistics and the factual debates over global warming. But if the call to action was more about making our towns places that once again please the eye and the spirit, you might see folks from all walks of life realizing they were environmentalists after all. You might see them out in the street making things happen. Not in Washington, but in their own towns, the places they can relate to best.

I mean, when you sit down to think about it, there's no reason Ohio shouldn't be as beautiful as Vermont. What I'd love to see from the environmental movement is a little less of an appeal to facts, figures, and political strategies (as important as they are) and more local organizing around beauty. It may actually be the most galvanizing and least naive thing to do.

What ugliness in your town should be changed? How could beautification positively impact greenhouse gas reduction?

The Simpsons: Keeping the Border to Springfield Open

The Opportunity Agenda — Wed, 20 May 2009 21:06:09 GMT

There's no television show more quintessentially American than The Simpsons. During it's twenty year long run, the show has become a mainstay of American life. A prism on our society, The Simpsons has tackled one topical issue after another and despite its superficial appearance as having lax values, many would argue otherwise. The show has even spawned several books about its religious themes. Most recently, in their season finale, the show took a look at the immigration debate. (You can watch it on Hulu.)
As an influx of immigrants (of Norwegian descent) make their way into Springfield, the locals respond favorably at first. These Ogdenvillians have a strong work ethic, are good at what they do, and are embraced by Homer and his fellow townspeople.

Eventually, Springfielders simply grow weary (and wary) of the "others."

It's when working with the new immigrants—comically building a wall to keep these very people out—that the residents of Springfield realize just how similar they are to the new residents. Both Ned Flanders and one the Ogdenvillians craves but has trouble finding four button cardigans. Bart and an immigrant child share a passion for graffiti.

The new immigrants have become part of the Springfield community. Newcomers are just as invested in Springfield and have become part of the town. As The Simpsons shows us, immigrants' success is Springfield's success.

Clearly, this message has particular resonance in today's financial climate. We need everyone's help and know-how to repair our economy, improve education, and generate jobs. Immigrants have a stake in those systems and are part of the collective solution.

To read more, visit The Opportunity Agenda.

A Community-Minded Generation

The Opportunity Agenda — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 21:17:04 GMT

Much has been made of the vitality that President Obama brings to the White House. To be sure, this is in part the story of his relative youth—only Clinton, Grant, Kennedy, and Theodore Roosevelt were younger when assuming the office—but it’s also a function of his ability to convince the millennial generation (or vocalize the millennial generation’s belief) that their voices matter. Given the size and scope of the challenges facing our nation, we need young people to see the stake that they have in their communities.

There is reason, then, to be optimistic about our future. The dramatic increase in young voter turnout is one positive sign, but perhaps even more encouraging is the number of young people running for, and winning, elected office at the local level. Last Tuesday’s local elections in Wisconsin, for example, saw the election of a 22 year old mayor, a 24 year old mayor, an 18 year old alderperson, and a 25 year old alderperson. This was one day, in one state, but it’s reflective of a larger trend of increased involvement by young people in their communities.

Younger voices in local civic affairs will, hopefully, lead to revitalization in the form of new ideas and long-term thinking. And there's good reason to believe that coming of age in an era of heightened inequality has led them to see the importance of a society that works for all of us. If they make good on this promise, the "millenial" generation will soon be known as the "opportunity" generation.

Investing in our Communities by Investing in Our Community Members

The Opportunity Agenda — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 13:55:50 GMT

Our communities are more than just the physical spaces, or indeed even the relationships, that constitute them. Rather, our communities are a reflection of the countless individual times when each and every one of us has looked beyond our parochial interests to invest time, energy, and resources into something bigger than ourselves. Bringing food and comfort to an ailing neighbor, organizing a block party, or even stopping to pick up a single piece of litter; these are the actions that build a community.

Every year, tens of thousands of Americans, young and old, feel such a strong commitment to their local, state, national, and international communities that they choose to participate in full-time service programs such as AmeriCorps and Peace Corps. Participants engage in a range of community-building activities, such as after-school tutoring, environmental clean-up, and home building, and receive a meager stipend and, in some cases, tuition assistance or loan forbearance. In addition to strengthening the physical and social infrastructures of communities, these programs strengthen economies by providing a transition into the workforce or higher education for participants.

The House and Senate have both recently passed legislation to dramatically expand these programs, and President Obama has expressed enthusiasm, citing his own work as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago. In times of economic instability, these types of investments—grounded in our values, and yielding long-term economic and social benefits—make so much sense.

Opportunity on Ice

The Opportunity Agenda — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:33:59 GMT

There's been a lot of conversation lately over what Wall Street needs to finally fix the economy. Some say a good paddling, those most outraged with federal money paying AIG bonuses, while others feel that reinvestment in assets is the only way to jump start its engine and finally pull the world out of the mud. What Wall Street needs isn't so much a massive flow of cash, but a deepening understanding in their interconnectedness with communities all around the country. This became quite clear to me the other night during the second period of the New York Rangers game.

This past weekend, my wife and I stopped into a favorite Irish pub of ours, known for having the best burgers around The Garden. The place is nothing fancy, more Irish by its staff and patronage than on its walls. We love the place not just for the burgers, but, by Irish pub standards, its quite clean, lots of big screens and always easy to find a big booth once the Rangers take the ice.
After the first drop of the puck, we became curiously interested with three folks who had walked into the pub, looking clearly overdressed for Molly's usual clientele. They took the booth next to ours and waited, not so patiently, to be served. The trio, talking well above the first period lull on the big flat screens, enquired from the waitress what was the house red. It took her a few minutes before recalling a Long Island wine, the name rolling more eloquently off her tongue than in the eyes of the group, who seemed displeased. They negotiated through several more options until settling on a final decision and then picked up in conversation.

Two of the three were a couple, with the other gentleman in graduate school, visiting the city during spring break and somehow connecting with the couple who he barely knew.

As their talking persisted, you could clearly hear the best dressed in the group share his resume, a hedge-fund analyst who had just moved to another company after his last group had closed its doors. The prior company had dealt heavily with mortgage backed securities, one of those many cards that had fallen when the house came down.

As he described to the graduate student, who was studying finance and statistics, what his daily routine was, it seemed that he was now in a much safer environment. Though he lingered with nostalgia on his previous job, clearly bored by his new line of safer practice.

My poor knowledge of such blue chip ventures drew my attention more toward my vinegar and chips that had just arrived. Yet, I was greatly impressed at the degree by which the relatively young analyst was boasting about his involvement with the mortgage crisis. It was almost as though he was bragging, the way that a young WWII pilot might have bragged about being part of the blitz over Dresden while he was still young and cowboyish in his ways.

The conversation opened my eyes to the realization that there were those in Wall Street who still couldn't see beyond their own mirrors. The opportunity that had been stolen from millions of Americans was a small smudge on the glass as they looked at their own prospects for financial opportunity.

How people stay fixated on their own self interest and completely ignore the needs of the community around them isn't just a problem with Wall Street. Self interest has driven much more in American culture than just finances. Nevertheless, it's clear these past few months that Wall Street doesn't just effect the real estate industry in Long Island. And, therefore, it needs to learn more about placing value on communities, the same way it places value on secure investments.

Even Milton Friedman, one of the leading minds behind the Chicago School of business theory, asserted in his book Capitalism and Freedom, that the free market had to respect social responsibility. When markets ignore our communities, we deprive them of the opportunity that free markets are suppose to create. It's more like every man for himself in the Old West, calling back to the cowboyish tone of the man sitting next to us at the pub.

The reality is that there are still those who wouldn't notice stolen opportunity if it pained itself shamrock green, jumped up onto a piano and started singing, "Look at me, I'm opportunity..." Rather, they stay fixed on their own desire for wealth, regardless of how it's acquired. If we're wanting to prevent such neglect from happening again, we'll have to make sure that community values are rolled out onto investors portfolios. The government has moved in this direction as it works to rebuild America, recognizing the importance in health and energy as a way to make america stronger for the future who will cash in on our investments. Business should take this lead, looking to the marble libraries and institutions that display the names of past industrialists who recognized the need to give back to the community.

Read more at The Opportunity Agenda's blog.

An Uneven Journey

The Opportunity Agenda — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:18:18 GMT

Earlier this year, I visited my father, who lives in the Bay Area. As we drove from the Oakland airport, the conversation quickly turned to the Obama presidency. Born in 1923, my dad survived the Great Depression, fought in World War II, endured vicious Jim Crow segregation and violence, participated in the Civil Rights Movement, and, this year, witnessed the inauguration of an African-American president of the United States.

On our drive, he reminisced about how, at age 8, he had gone with his 2nd grade class to see the cavalcade of then-president Herbert Hoover as it drove through downtown Detroit. A year later, the country would throw Hoover out of office for his gross mishandling of the economy, choosing Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his message of change. Before my dad's teen years were through, he would join the Marines and defend a segregated nation from within a segregated military. Traveling to and from southern military bases, he would experience racial humiliation, threats, and violence from white fellow Americans, often while wearing his Marine uniform.

As we marveled at the progress we've made as a country, we drove by block after block of boarded up houses in some of Oakland's African-American neighborhoods, many with foreclosure signs visible. Many homes in the same neighborhoods still sported lawn signs reading "Change" and "Hope."

As the Obama presidency sinks in, many are interpreting it in absolute terms: arguing either that it shows that racial bias and discrimination are no longer factors in American life, or that the election means little for race relations, reflecting merely a unique confluence of events-a historically unpopular incumbent, a historically bad economy, a gifted politician raised by white folks who ran a flawless 21st century campaign against a pair of tone-deaf 20th century opponents. News media coverage mostly echoed that polarized, simplistic discourse, with an emphasis on the "post-racial America" narrative.
As usual, the reality is not nearly so simple. As my dad said to me back in Oakland, this election reflects a huge step forward, but we've still got a long way to go.

The blocks of foreclosed homes in Oakland are a good example of the new world we're in when it comes to equal opportunity. Despite occasional incidents, the "whites only" real estate signs (and burning crosses) of my father's day are largely gone. Oakland has an African-American mayor, and a diverse city government. And foreclosures and crushing debt in that city are affecting people of all races.

At the same time, though, it is well documented that people and communities of color have been racially targeted by unscrupulous lenders for sub-prime and, often, predatory loans. Research by The Opportunity Agenda, the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, and the Poverty and Race Research Action Council found that people of color were far more likely to receive high-interest subprime loans than were white borrowers with the same income. Indeed, the racial divide in subprime lending is larger among upper?income borrowers than among lower?income ones. Predatory lending-a subset of sub-prime lending-has also long been targeted at communities of color. For these and related reasons, people of color have higher rates of foreclosure, whole neighborhoods in communities of color are in danger of deteriorating, and a generation of people of color are losing the most secure path to building wealth: homeownership.

Research shows that discriminatory and predatory lending practices have combined with practices like institutionalized housing discrimination, banking deregulation, and disproportionate disinvestment in communities of color to help perpetuate a racial gap in economic opportunity. Studies have found similar patterns in employment and in other sectors. Indeed, on some measures of equal opportunity we are moving backwards as a nation-our public schools, for example, are more racially segregated today than they were 30 years ago.

Obama's victory does show that, in a single lifetime, transformative change is possible. Yet it also makes clear that significant progress on one front (or even many) does not guarantee similar progress on all. Accepting and understanding these two co-existent ideas is key to fulfilling our nation's promise in the 21st century. And crafting new rules for our globalized economy that promote greater and more equal opportunity for all is key to our entire nation's economic recovery, as well as to our long-term prosperity.

Read more at The Opportunity Agenda's blog.

Strong Communities, One Crisis at a Time

The Opportunity Agenda — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 16:12:34 GMT

It's been said that when your neighbor loses his or her job, the economy is in recession, but when you lose your own, the economy is in depression. In addition to being overly glib, this idea has always struck me as a fundamental underestimation of the strength and compassion of our communities.
From the surge in volunteerism to the heroic efforts of food banks to meet increased demand, we are responding to the current economic downturn not by retrenching, but rather by recommitting ourselves to our obligations to one another. This may seem like a fairly dull silver lining to such an overwhelming crisis, but if you believe, as I do, that economic events are temporary but cultural events are lasting, then it is fair to assume that the current spirit of community-mindedness will drive the creation of an economy that is fairer to all of its participants. And this new, fairer economy may in fact be what prevents the recurrence of the type of events we are currently experiencing.

Perhaps no group better exemplifies this reinvigoration of community values than Millennials. As the cohort of Americans who are roughly 18 to 30 years old today, Millennials have come of age in an era of skyrocketing inequality. Their backlash to this inequality has been a commitment to community service and political participation. They understand, intuitively, that we're all in this together and that we rise and fall together. If that's the future of America, we have plenty to be optimistic about.

Read more at The Opportunity Agenda's blog.

Healthy San Francisco Clears Another Hurdle

The Opportunity Agenda — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 17:40:03 GMT

Access to quality health care isn't something that affects us as individuals; it impacts us as families, friends, neighbors, and coworkers. Health care is fundamental to the well-being of us as persons and equally fundamental to the well-being of communities, cities, states and the country. It was with this understanding that the City and County of San Francisco undertook a bold and audacious effort to ensure that everyone in the City By The Bay has not just the promise of health care in the form of insurance, but actual, delivered health care.

The program, Healthy San Francisco, currently provides health care to over 27,000 uninsured San Franciscans, including an estimated 37% of the City's uninsured adults, and looks to triple in participation by the end of 2009.

The program is funded in part by a per employee health care tax, levied by the City upon local businesses, requiring them to spend a certain amount on employee's health care or to pay into a City fund if they spend less than the requirement. By establishing a tax rather than creating a "mandate" for employers to provide health care to their, Healthy San Francisco avoids a federal law--the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, known by the acronym ERISA--that prohibits states and localities from regulating or interfering with employer-based health insurance or pension benefits.

As with any innovative program, however, Healthy San Francisco faces some challenges to its continuation, one being the question of whether the program does actually escape running afoul of ERISA. Yesterday, the entire federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (the federal appeals court that includes California) upheld the ruling of an earlier panel of the appellate court's judges, finding that Healthy San Francisco can continue without running into ERISA problems.

The case will now likely go before the U.S. Supreme Court. The decision by the Supreme Court may have a major impact on the ability of states and cities to attempt health care reform absent Congressional action.

The case is Golden Gate Restaurant Association v. City and County of San Francisco, No. 07-17370 (9th Cir. Mar. 9, 2009).

The Pentagon (Finally) Displays Some Pragmatism

The Opportunity Agenda — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 18:22:46 GMT

Urgency has a strange way of making people more pragmatic. In the context of a crisis, outdated prejudices become stumbling blocks and, consequently, not so deeply held. It's surprising, then, that it took the Pentagon so long to realize that, at a time when our military is stretched thin in two combat wars, turning applicants away from the armed forces due to immigration status was not a workable solution.

An article in this past Sunday’s New York Times discusses an Army pilot program which will allow immigrants with temporary resident status, but no green card, to enlist, provided that they have lived in the United States for at least two years and bring needed skills. Enlistees will then have the opportunity to become citizens in as little as six months.

Opinions of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan aside, this move can easily be seen as recognition by the Department of Defense that excluding any group of individuals from full participation in our nation’s rights and responsibilities weakens us all. As Lieutenant General Benjamin C. Freakley, the top recruitment officer for the Army, said, “The Army will gain in its strength in human capital, and the immigrants will gain their citizenship and get on a ramp to the American dream.”

Opinions of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan aside, this move can easily be seen as recognition by the Department of Defense that excluding any group of individuals from full participation in our nation's rights and responsibilities weakens us all. As Lieutenant General Benjamin C. Freakley, the top recruitment officer for the Army, said, "The Army will gain in its strength in human capital, and the immigrants will gain their citizenship and get on a ramp to the American dream."

The Department of Defense has now joined the ever-growing list of employers who understand that integrating immigrants into our social, civic and economic life is the only way to remain competitive and uphold our commitment to economic mobility. Now if only we could find a way to give every employer the ability to grant citizenship.

When The Political Is Personal

Natasha Chart — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 17:16:18 GMT

Quoted with permission from an email discussion on Obama's political style, as based on David Sirota's post on the ghettoization of progressives in the appointment process, Pastor Dan of Street Prophets said the following, opened with a quote from a previous post of his:

I think this might be the right moment to introduce a useful distinction between political movements and communities:
The former is always goal- and often status-oriented; movements are driven toward particular ends, usually by large personalities, if not big egos. They require a great deal of coordination which almost inevitably turns into a desire for lockstep-action.
Communities, on the other hand, are focused on persons and the relationships they manifest. Movements succeed when they accomplish their objectives, but communities succeed when they nurture the members they have - and when they expand their circle. Movements are short- (or at least limited-) term and transactional, communities play the long game and are transformative.

Obama's genius has been to figure out a way to create community - and to make it trump the ideological conservative movement. (Also, to be fair, he was able to figure out a way to convert the communities he built into a partisan movement that launched him to the White House.)
A certain part of what we've been struggling with ..., I believe, is that many of us are movement types. But Obama's not - when push comes to shove, he's a community guy. This is why he chooses some baffling moves, such as not horsewhipping Joe Lieberman or populating his cabinet with centrists, rather than progressives. He's playing a game of incremental change, one that requires a steady expansion of coalitions. Not to beat a dead horse too badly, it's also why Obama has always been strong among religious voters. Anybody who's spent time in a religious community knows that the art of life in a group like that is to do what you can with the people you have, even when they piss you off.
Anyway, take it for what it's worth. I name it because this is what ... progressives at large are going to be banging their heads on the wall over until they get it figured out. Obama's shifting the political paradigm in ways that we're not going to fully understand until years later.

I have admired Pastor Dan's writing and community-building efforts within the blogosphere for years and it pains me to disagree with him. But except for his saying that we probably won't know the full impact of the coming administration for years, that's just good sense, disagree I must.
Denominational Change

If we're going to be talking about church models as a tool of understanding, I don't know that one congregation is the appropriate scale. The Democratic Party is at the very least a full denomination.

Now perhaps the Democrats in the Senate, or in Congress as a whole, feel that they're more a congregation unto itself. They do seem to feel more affinity with each other than with outsiders. They do seem to have those qualities that approach tribal or familial sentiment, where they may scream at each other in private so loud that it wakes the neighbors and carry weird grudges for years, but no one else has permission to say a word against one of them in the other's hearing.

I don't understand how this is different from the Beltway/Village mentality that the blogosphere has been complaining about, lo, these several years.

So-and-so may be a creep, but they're our creep. ... Every prediction she's made has been wrong for decades, but look, she's been around for decades and so she will never be without a job. ... I like that program, but I can't stand the sponsor, there's no way it gets funding. ... I can't support this or he'll oppose every other move I make for years. ... Say what you will about her, she stood with me on that one bill back in '88, and I still owe her.

The problem with that sort of community is that it's hard to have a proper conversation with it from the outside, which makes it a bad operating model for a government responsible for the interests of an entire nation. It's dysfunctional in a way that resists transparent interaction and public negotiation.

It's surely a better form of government than monarchy. We've been watching The Tudors around here, a helpful reminder that back then, politics was all personal. Plus, if you got a crazy king, you might be stuck with his warmongering, bad financial decisions or execution sprees for 50 years or more. Though on one score, I empathized with King Henry: why shouldn't he be able to get a divorce like all the other powerful people could just because he was married to the aunt of the Holy Roman Emperor, who was holding the Pope virtually hostage?

Which brings us back to denomination-scale politics. When the administrators of a very large, ideologically-oriented organization decide that they're more like a ~~country club~~ congregation than a set of representatives for principles and functions that serve the stated goals of that larger group, they're leaving themselves wide open to having 95 theses nailed to their office doors.

That may be no big deal, in and of itself. But when the most transparent thing about your operations is that they're plainly based on cronyism and favoritism, the dark side of loyalty and affinity networks, you are eventually going to run afoul of someone who has the power to take their country and go home. Which is how the Roman Catholic Church lost England.

I am not calling for a separate political party. What I'm saying is that the Protestant Reformation happened precisely because the people at the top of a powerful organization decided that the most important politics were personal intrigues of the sort that plague every small, insular group yet invented. They therefore gave leniency to those they shared affinity with, and applied harsh rules to those they disliked or merely were not close to.

They became corrupt and eventually no longer stood for anything except, maybe, 'you and me against the world.' That's great for a family or similar, but is it an attitude we want to encourage in our elected representatives?

In modern parlance, MoveOn makes a mistake and gets censured, Lieberman campaigns for the opposition and gets a gavel. This matters enormously, and it says a great deal about where the border lines are drawn around the community that Obama personally feels himself to be part of.

Words vs Deeds

Chris and I let loose the snark last night, couldn't help it, on a composite of remarks that we've heard in person and read online. And I think that barryr, in the comments to that post, had a great summation of the larger argument that's been going on:

... I think there is a Words vs. Deeds schism. The pivot is about whether Obama should be given the benefit of the doubt.
On the one side, you have people who say that Obama has made this policy or that policy statement, and so he is progressive. He has not had the opportunity to implement his policies, because he hasn't even been sworn in yet. So now is not the time to criticize him.
On the other side (FD: I'm on this side), you have people saying that Obama can and should be evaluated on his actual actions. We know what he has voted for, we know who he has campaigned for, we know who he has appointed to various key positions in his imminent administration. His actual actions are valid clues as to where he intends to take the country.
For either side, it is easy to assume that the other side irrationally loves or hates Obama. ...

Verily. And the arguments over his cabinet picks have reflected about this schism.

As to the Hillary Clinton pick, what I said when the VP speculation was at its height, I think including her in an Obama administration has benefits of star power and constituency inclusion that outweigh certain negatives. Though I agreed with Todd Beeton in that, though I think she will be competent, her foreign policy portfolio is my least favorite.

A rogue cabinet officer will surely be canned. Just, there's simply no way for any one person to keep track of every decision made by every federal agency. There will be no wars started on the sly. Though will agency staff bother inspecting certain large hog farms as regularly as they'd ought? That's another matter.

With several picks, actual deeds, we've gotten people who seem more part of the problem than the solution. Though they haven't been all bad, and I don't want to dwell on those now because that isn't the point of this post. For instance, Daschle seems like he really does have a passion for good healthcare policy, Melody Barnes has drawn rave reviews for her selection to head the Domestic Policy Council.

And even though the Interior Secretary pick hasn't been announced, I was very pleased to stumble across a news item from the Native American Rights Fund, noting that their executive director, John Echohawk, is on the transition team responsible for the Interior Department. Now, that is a solidly good thing and I'm pleased to hear it. Considering the history of Interior mismanagement of the Indian Trust Funds, and the impact Interior has on the lives of Native Americans, it's good and appropriate that they have representation in the process of selecting people to staff this department.

But, and this is the point of this post, I'm pleased about that because actions, and the people you hire to carry them out, really matter. If you read more about the Cobell class action suits, and absorb the depths of mismanagement involved, there's no way anyone could look someone like Echohawk in the eye and tell him that the ideology of the person who runs Interior doesn't matter. There were treaty obligations that previous administrations didn't want to meet, and the simplest way out was to refuse to enforce them, so they didn't. Oil and gas companies ripped off tribal (and local and federal) governments for years and the federal government is now exposed to billions in liability because those officials had a very particular idea of 'what works' in government and who it should work for.

Or consider agriculture. Maybe you don't follow it much, but please take note of this, regarding the Bush administration's alleged enforcement of fair competition rules:

... [John Crabtree of the Center for Rural Affairs] said that an audit requested by Iowa's Senators, Harkin and Grassley, of the performance of the Packers & Stockyards Administration at the USDA found that out of around 1800 investigations they claimed to have carried out between 2002 and 2005, 1739 cases included no documentation indicating that there had been any action taken. There were cases where a single phone call made to the department and noted in the records had been reported as an investigation, he said. ...

See? You don't even need signing statements in order to get around the law. There's no need for a president, or their cabinet officials, to telegraph their intention to sidestep laws that they find pesky. They just have to decide that they're not going to enforce them. What are you going to do about it? Arrest them? You and what Justice Department ... oh right, the president controls that, too.

I have no evidence that Obama means to broadly refuse to enforce the law, although now that I mention it, he did vote to exempt an entire industry from constitutional requirements that searches require court-issued warrants. My point is that the president and his cabinet departments have broad latitude over how a law is applied in practice based simply on the allocation of oversight and enforcement resources.

All it takes is a sin of omission.

So yes, the people the president picks matter. Their ideas and life stories matter. The president depends on them for advice, relies on them as filters for information in specialties that no one person can keep up on all the reading for, sends them out as intermediaries to negotiate with others and bring back people that they think he should meet.

Faith

When it comes to people I don't personally know, and that includes all these political figures, it's hard to say how much faith to have in them.

I lean towards very little. After all, I don't know them.

And considering that we're talking about an extension of power over a multitude of agencies with lots of moving parts, and the authority to interact on equal footing with whole Congress, which also has lots of moving parts, even less. When you add the firehose of information and metric ton of charm that will be unloaded on Obama and staff every time they move, even less faith than that.

It's hard to get people's attention with an email request when you're far away and someone with an expensive suit and exquisite manners is showing them a glossy, carefully edited report. You have to hope they have something to stand on, maybe ideology or principle. Perhaps the certain knowledge that if they cave they will have some angry constituency clogging the phone lines at all hours and keeping them from getting that call about a lunch appointment they were keen on. Anything greater than a sense that it's more important to have cordial relationships with the people who are in your face than it is to address the interests of people you'll never meet.

No one is so good that they can't be cracked, presuming they were of a mind to resist pressure in the first place. That's why you need an alternate source of pressure, preferably matched with their own internal sense of how things should be done.

So I have faith that politicians and their staff will do a mix of what they want, what they think they can get away with, and what they get the impression that other people want. I have faith that that you can't get what you don't ask for. I have faith that people who know they're being scrutinized are harder to tempt into misbehavior. But that's about it.

Also, and it's been a long time since I went to church, but I remember there was a bit that started, "Put not your faith in princes ..."

How Not to Blow It

The Opportunity Agenda — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 21:00:18 GMT

It's hard to overstate the transformative moment that we're in as a nation and, particularly, as progressives. In just a few years, we've gone from the high point of conservative power to a stunning rejection of conservative federal leadership and the historic election of a progressive African-American president.

But the electoral sea change is just part of the extraordinary national moment. The financial meltdown and slide toward deep recession have crystallized Americans' anger over deteriorating economic security, stagnant mobility, growing inequality, and policies of isolation instead of connection. Americans are ready for a new social compact and a transformed relationship between the people and our government. They are calling for a new era of big ideas and different values than we've seen over most of the past three decades.

The electorate has shown an unprecedented willingness to overcome racial and ethnic barriers to take on daunting shared challenges. Young people, people of color, and low-income people turned out to register and vote in unprecedented numbers that bode well for a far more participatory and egalitarian democracy going forward.

Even before this year's remarkable events, opinion research showed a historic, progressive shift in Americans' views on issues that (not coincidentally) were barely mentioned in the election. Perhaps most striking is the shift on criminal justice and problems of addiction, where the U.S. public has moved broadly to support rehabilitation and treatment over incarceration and retribution, as well as assistance and integration for people emerging from prison.

But an unprecedented opportunity for progressive values and ideas is not the same as victory for a progressive social and policy vision. The stark challenges of rising inequality, faltering security, and broken systems of health care, immigration, and criminal justice are the same on November 5 as they were on November 4. What's changed is only the chance for transformative change.

History shows that progressives could easily blow this opportunity, just as conservatives blew their transformative moments after the 1994 elections and the attacks of September 11, 2001. A few principles can help progressives move from opportunity to realization in ways that profoundly benefit our country.

Remember the Values that Got You Here
The headlines of Barack Obama's story this year were, of course, Change and the Hope it brings for a better day. But two important values gave substance to that message. They were Community--the idea that we're all in it together and have a common responsibility to uphold the common good--and Opportunity--the profoundly American idea that we all deserve a fair chance to achieve our full potential.

Obama and other progressive candidates returned to those values again and again, including with the Democratic Convention's theme of "Fulfilling America's Promise." But long before either party had chosen its nominee, progressive groups around the country were elevating those values as the ones that would usher in a new political era.

That work included the Campaign for Community Values, which sponsored the Heartland Presidential Forum in Iowa ahead of the caucuses and coordinated thousands of community organizers throughout the country around a shared, non-partisan Community message. That effort, in turn, connected with a movement elevating Opportunity as a unifying and much-needed theme in our political and policy discourse. The Center for Community Change, The Opportunity Agenda, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, and other leaders of these efforts connected with large numbers of state and local groups, engaging millions of Americans to tell a new story.

The values of Community and Opportunity, and the movements behind them, have concrete policy implications. They stand for guaranteed, affordable health care for every person in our nation, as well as knocking down barriers to quality care in low-income neighborhoods and communities of color. Community and Opportunity mean combining a pathway to citizenship for the nation's 13 million undocumented immigrants with living wage jobs and workplace protections for native-born and immigrant workers alike. They mean education for a 21st Century world and economy, from quality public schools to expanded college access, to job retraining, to a new commitment to equal educational opportunity.

Progressives will need to continue promoting the values of Community and Opportunity in our political discourse while insisting on policies that uphold those values.

Don't Confuse Party with Progress
A significant number of progressives will take up residence this January in Congress and the White House. But it would be a grave mistake to confuse the large Democratic majority with a progressive majority. The expanded Democratic majority includes conservatives and centrists as well as progressives, with differences that will surface quickly after inauguration day.

Obama himself has progressive instincts, but has surrounded himself with a fairly centrist crowd of advisors, particularly on economic issues, since gaining the nomination. Instead of declaring victory, progressives will have to press the new administration and Congress to fulfill an agenda that lives up to today's moment and challenges.

That includes reminding the leadership at every turn that it was progressive values, issues and constituencies that forced the change in Washington: Latinos appalled by anti-immigrant fervor; African-Americans stung by the Hurricane Katrina fiasco and an abandonment of civil rights and social justice policy; an active anti-war movement; Hillary health care voters; and a rising tide of young people demanding a fair shot at the American Dream. Even non-ideological "bread and butter" voters in Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Ohio favored a progressive message of Opportunity and Community over warmed-over conservative fear and culture-war tactics disguised as William Ayers, Reverend Wright, tax-baiting, and Socialism.

Just as important, this is a time to nurture a new crop of progressive Republicans--younger pols who are Republican because of upbringing or geography, but who hold center-left views and values, particularly on the environment, poverty, health care, immigration, living wages, and criminal justice. Younger evangelicals are a growing part of this group. A progressive movement that engages with, but remains independent of, the Democratic party can build a powerful new coalition.

Listen
The difference between delivering on a mandate and fatally overreaching is remembering to listen to the people. That's less a matter of adhering rigidly to polls than of engaging the public and understanding their hopes and dreams, as well as their concerns. There's plenty of room for taking courageous, even unpopular positions. But that requires leadership in tune with the public. As with Johnson and Civil Rights, FDR and the New Deal, some steps forward require educating the public and connecting progress to the good of the nation.

Progressive community organizers and networks like the Gamaliel Foundation and the Center for Community Change are crucial to that listening and empowerment process. As a former organizer himself, the new President understands that role, but may need to be reminded of its continued importance to his success.

Think Big but Practical
For more than a decade, progressives have resigned themselves to defensive battles and incremental victories at the federal level. It's a new day, but the old tunnel vision may be hard to shake. Now is the time to promote big solutions to the daunting problems facing the country. Certainly, guaranteed affordable health care for all and immigration reform are crucial, but the times also demand broad investment in job creation and training, clean energy, transportation infrastructure, education, and in shoring up faltering homeownership. Initiatives like the Apollo Alliance show that integrating those investments can further enhance shared prosperity.

Tackle the Tough Issues
Obama has shown a talent for talking about tough issues, from race to guns to abortion. During the election, however, he largely argued that we can agree to disagree on those issues while focusing on common ground. As president, he will need to pursue specific, often controversial solutions.

Many will say that, having elected an African-American president, the U.S. has overcome its race problem. As he has in the past, Obama will correctly say that it's not that simple; that while his election marks an incredible milestone in the progress we've made as a nation, we still have miles to go. But he must go beyond those words, and pursue a human rights agenda for the 21st Century; one that expands opportunity for everyone while addressing contemporary bias and knocking down persistent racial barriers to equal opportunity.

The progressive advocacy community will have a corresponding responsibility to acknowledge the progress and changes we've seen, and to pursue efforts that foster equal opportunity while expanding opportunity for all Americans. Ideas like "targeted universalism" and "democratic merit" touted by john powell and Lani Guinier will be important to tomorrow's Community and Opportunity policies.