Going on offense: what a REAL pro-active progressive agenda might look like

by: Paul Rosenberg

Fri Oct 08, 2010 at 09:00

First, it simply serves to show what it would look like for the Democrats to be campaigning pro-actively rather than reactively.  Of course, Mike's already written about that on a number of occassions, so this also goes significantly further on another level--it's not just about being pro-active for a single campaign cycles, it's about setting out a long-term framework for action over time.  Some parts of this 10-point agenda could be implemented in a single stroke, but the first one, which I quote in some detail below, is likely to take a decade or even more to fully establish.

Third, it lays out a comprehensive enough framework of proposals that it carries with it an implicit philosophy of governance, citizenship and--dare I say it--civilization--which has the cumulative impact of defining what it means to be a progressive to a high enough level that if we were to commit to it and run on it, that alone would have a tremendously unifying effect on the progressive movement.

So, with that in mind, I offer first a bit of  Geoghegan's opening thoughts, then an extended, but not complete, presentation of his argument on his first point, and a list of the other nine items, just to provide a feel for the range of the content he is advocating for.  Here, then, is the introduction to what he is about:

Seriously: why can't we do something for our base? It's been almost a half-century since we Democrats did something for our base, when Lyndon Johnson pushed through Medicare, i.e., "socialized medicine" for seniors. And while some may compare the new Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 to Medicare, there's a big difference. To the public, the new law seems to benefit only the uninsured: the young or the marginal, few of whom will even vote in 2010 (maybe just a third of the electorate will). So while the new law is a big help to them, it does nothing for the rest of our base, especially our smaller core base that will vote in the midterms....

By the way, FDR would be the first to tell us it's not enough to do something for our base. Here are three other little rules we should follow when we do something for our base:

1. Keep it simple. The healthcare bill not only did nothing for our base; it was hard to understand. Every initiative should be capable of being put down in a single sentence or two. "Financial reform" is fine, but the Dodd-Frank Act is too hard to sum up coherently to our base on even an index card, much less a bumper sticker.

2. Make it universal. People on the left have all sorts of ideas for programs that turn out to be available only to a select few. By contrast take FDR's big ideas, like Social Security. Not everyone is on it, but sooner or later we all are headed there. If we're not there, our parents are. Likewise, Medicare: we'll all get there. The public option, which was left out of the healthcare law, was a nice idea and all, but in the end it would have been available only for a few.

Finally, the last and most important rule:

3. Make it add up to a plan. I mean, let's go beyond "the vision thing" and let people know we have a plan. Obama will not bring back the American economy of golden memory. The deficit will be horrendous. We may have to get used to unemployment of 7 percent, a 7 percent that covers up a bigger percent of people working just three instead of five days a week. FDR did not end the Depression, either. But people were patient because they knew he had a plan. He was rebuilding the economy from the bottom up, and it paid off, not in the 1930s but in the unionized, high-benefits postwar decades after he died.
People will be patient with us and keep us in power if they think we have a plan.

I've excerpted his first point at length, in part because doing so serves to show how the thinking sketched out above translates into concrete practice:

In this spirit here are ten things the Democrats could push this fall that not only do something for our base but (1) are simple, (2) appeal to at least half or more of the country and (3) add up to a plan.
1. Raise Social Security to 50 percent of working income.
 
Let's stop saying we will "save" Social Security. Don't save it. Raise it. Let's push Social Security up to 50 percent of people's income. It's down at about 39 percent now. Of course we can't do this overnight, but we can set it as a serious goal. Here at last we would be doing something for our base. I mean, who are we for, right? Yet even on "our" side, the cognoscenti want to cut it. Even Barack Obama spoke in his 2009 State of the Union address about "strengthening" Social Security-by which he meant cutting or at least capping it....

[A]s long as we're going to take the heat to make the current system "solvent" even for people under 40, i.e., to "save" Social Security even for them, we might as well raise it, too. After all, our real base voters are more likely to get off their couches and vote for us if we burn into their brains that their worst worries about retirement are over. There are three sources of a fiscal fix, not just to save but to raise it. The Democrats should propose all three:

First, restore the estate tax that existed in the 1950s and '60s and dedicate the proceeds to the Social Security trust-as Robert Ball, former Social Security commissioner, once proposed....

Second, lift the cap on the Social Security tax (it's at $90,000 now) so it applies to all incomes. After all, Social Security is for everyone. If people above $90,000 are in it, then they should be in it all the way.

Third, cancel the huge tax deduction on the most wasteful sorts of corporate debt, especially the kind used for speculation and leveraged buyouts. Dedicate that new revenue to raising Social Security. It's a deduction we should get rid of anyway, for good and independent reasons....
"But in the long run, don't we have to raise people's taxes, especially to get above 50 percent?" Yes, I admit, we do have to raise the tax. Right now, I would not propose to go immediately to 50 percent. But there's nothing wrong with this increase if people grasp that they are spending it on themselves-that was the flaw in the Obama healthcare plan, where the higher taxes went solely to "other people."

Below are the rest of his ten proposals, with a few minimal explanations.  He provides supporting explanation and argumentation for each of them as well, so definitely check out the original.

Nate Silver's Curious Categorization of Obama's Policy Agenda

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 11:10

Wednesday, Nate Silver weighed in with what purports to be a fairly comprehensive sorting of Obama's policy initiatives into their ideological positions, showing a huge overall tilt in the progressive direction. I think Nate's categorization is somewhat questionable, but I do think that the impression he has is one that is widely shared: Obama appears quite progressive to many who have supported him, and that is a major reason why they have felt little or no need to pressure him. Digby is correct in saying that there's misperception involved, but it's just not as simple as she indicates.

First off, Nate's general point that Obama's agenda is more liberal than centrist is certainly true.  This is hardly surprising in light of Obama's record in the Senate, where he and Clinton had virtually identical records, both as moderate liberals.  Given that both are Democrats from solid blue states, there is nothing surprising about this at all.  But it's also true that America itself also tilts to the left-at least on the issues that Obama addresses.  While this diary is devoted primarily to looking more closely at Nate's analysis, the upshot is to try to push us in the direction of a more precise explanation of what netroots critics find troubling.  Nate seems to think that his analysis shows that progressive criticisms of Obama are misplaced.  I'd argue that they're not-rather, they're mis-articulated.