« Excuse Me? Care to Provide Proof? | Main | No Time to High-Five »

Wednesday, April 27, 2005

Progressive Politics

When people are introduced to politics they don’t usually get a couple of lectures on each type of politics and asked to decide which group they would like to throw their support behind. Many people never really hear both sides of the argument in a non-biased way. This is because politics is biased by nature. If someone is interested in politics enough to tell you about politics they will tell you their side of the story. This can be done in two different ways.

The first way is to tell you all the bad things about the other group. They can go on about this for hours, because it’s always easy to find bad things about people if you look hard enough. The second way is to tell someone all the good things about your group. This is an equally valid way to present your argument, but it takes more time and it is generally nuanced with details that most people don’t care about. It is quite easy to come up with denigrating slogans that make fun of the other side, but it is more difficult to condense your view of the future under the leadership of a political party into a few meaningful words.

So, it comes down to politics is like religion. Someone tells you about a political way of thinking, but they don’t tell you the rest of the story. It could be your parents or your peers. You could even read about politics in books or watch political commentary on your favorite news channel. But, no matter where you learn about politics it’s usually biased in some way. I am no different, so I thought that I’d describe some of the positive aspects of progressive politics.

Progressive has several definitions, but they are all generally referring to the same concept. The first three are here:

1. Moving forward; advancing.
2. Proceeding in steps; continuing steadily by increments: progressive change.
3. Promoting or favoring progress toward better conditions or new policies, ideas, or methods: a progressive politician; progressive business leadership.

So, the idea is to move forward and make things better. This means that in order to move forward and make things better we must make two assumptions. We need to assume that things are currently not as good as they could be, and we must assume that there is a way to make them better.

This is opposed to conservative ideology that assumes that things are very good now, unless of course there are things that have recently changed for the worse.

So, the progressive ideology must look for the things that need to be improved and decide which are the most important things that need to be changed and prioritize the importance of changing these things. Once the most important issues are identified a plan is needed to improve the problem.

Most people usually find themselves on different sides of the fence on different issues. It would certainly be irrational to change everything because changing everything without a good plan would be irresponsible. It is equally irresponsible to refuse to change anything or change everything back to some known “good” time based on the idea that everything that the government is doing is working perfectly well or worked well at some previous time in history. In real everyday politics we know that there are only a few issues that are being debated and considered and they come down to the issues of how we should take care of the poor, working class, and the wealthy classes when it comes to economics.

When it comes to ethical laws should they be determined by religion as they were in the past, or should we create a new way of creating ethical laws based on what is best for a multicultural multi-religious society. Conservatives believe that religion has done a good job in the past and we should rely on tradition to dictate laws. Progressives believe that religious ethical ideas are arbitrary from religion to religion and a better law that encompasses many religious ideas would be better and each person is still free to observe there personal religious laws under these laws. Progressives ask the questions: “Why should one religion hold more influence than other religions in this multi-religious society. Likewise, why should one cultural perspective dictate one perspective to see the world?”
In addition to economics and ethics, the preservation of our environment has also been a crucial issue among progressives. Progressives believe that the current rates of consumption of natural resources can not be sustained. If we want to live in a clean future we need to consider how we are going to get to that future. Conservatives believe that they don’t see any problems with the current course and when they do they will be able to correct the course by economics. Progressives believe that change now is cheaper and easier than changes further down the road.

Almost any issue in today’s politics stems in some way from these three issues, the three E’s. Education, crime, drugs, guns, and war all come from these issues in one way or in more than one way. Education leads to opportunity and a way out of the economic despair that the poor regularly experience. How much money we should contribute to each of these issues falls out of the economics of the issues. The ethics of protecting our children from temptation and danger stem from the ethics issues. When we should fight wars with weapons or words also stems from the ethics of protecting our nation verses ethics or protecting the innocent citizens of other countries and the world. One could even argue that the protection of the environment and the economics of the classes are themselves actually descendent from the over arching ethics, and conservatives do argue this way. But I would say from a society point of view these issues rise to the same level ethics because society must have a “good” environment and a “good” economics in which to prosper just as we should have “good” ethics. I would also say that which industries get tax breaks are economic issues but not necessarily ethical issues.

Since, make progress on these issues is not guaranteed and quite often different ways of improving our life require experiment and trial and error progressives are sometimes painted as flip-floppers by the conservatives. This is because the effects of change are not always known with certainty. But, with progressives the vision is known even if the path is not known. With conservatives the path and vision have been lived before and to change it in hopes of improvement are too risky. Conservatives by definition avoid risk.

The above paragraph illustrates how progressive politics offers the traditional American vision of a great future based on taking risks. This is the spirit of the colonists and the pioneers. In my view it is quite sad that America has taken a step backward to take less risk out of the fear that risk may yield failure. In fact, many of the working class Americans that have been lured to follow the conservative ideology don’t actually realize what this means for their vision of the future. Conservatives would like to change the economy back to the times before regulations and unions. They are looking back to the 1890s or 1920s as the golden years. We should remember that these were the years where corporations exploited workers and unions rose up to fight this exploitation. The wealthy class lived in style with servants and didn’t associate with the lower classes. Prohibition was a law that effected the working class, but not the wealthy who had alcohol shipped in to private parties.

The point is that Progressive Politics offers a clear and bright future with calculated risk. Conservative politics offers more of the same, or actually turning the clock back to nostalgic times of the wealthy which offers less risk to the wealthy and ironically more risk to the working class and the poor.

Cross posted at Dr. Forbush Thinks

Posted by Dr. Forbush at 06:01 PM in Politics | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/2355490

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Progressive Politics:

Comments

Dr. Forbush,

I disagree with one small, but not insignificant part of your definition of progressive:

Promoting or favoring progress toward better conditions or new policies, ideas, or methods: a progressive politician; progressive business leadership.

The word "better" should be replaced with "new" or "different". There is no evidence that progressives always seek the objectively better policy - merely something that is subjectively better, which may be objectively far, far worse.

That change destroys the foundation of your argument - but only if I am right, of course!

Posted by: Hammertime | Apr 28, 2005 12:32:28 AM

Obviously the goal is a change for the better, otherwise what would be the point? Different for the sake of being different isn't responsible. Give me an example of this, which would help make your point and clarify your definition of better or different.

Posted by: Dr. Forbush | Apr 28, 2005 2:26:33 AM

Dr.,

"This is opposed to conservative ideology that assumes that things are very good now, unless of course there are things that have recently changed for the worse."

Perhaps a little nuance is required here. Conservatives don't necessarely assume that things are very good. Take, for example, Social Security. It was President Clinton that first declared SS a crisis...long before Bush did. Now, for some reason, Democrats are the ones who are downplaying the problem.

Do you seriously contend that Bush has eschewed risk in his desire to salvage Social Security while giving younger Americans a choice and stake in their own financial future via personal accounts? I mean talk about risk. Along side the Iraq War, whatever you think of Bush's stance on Social Security, it was one of the more contentious issues that Bush staked his re-election upon.

As long as I am talking about the Iraq war, in his attempt to free Iraqis from a cruel and oppressive regime and spread the hopefully beneficial effects of Democracy in a region that breeds hatred and extremism, along with Social Security reform, Bush hanged his re-election upon his conviction that, overall, the military action in Iraq was right.

I understand that progressives likely would couch both of these issues in different terms but you can hardly say that Bush eschewed risk in either of these issues in preference for either the status quo or a return to some ideal past.

Posted by: Craig R. Harmon | Apr 28, 2005 3:16:53 PM

Craig,

You make some important points, but you need to look at the motivation for conservative actions. When Democrats had the possibility to fix Social Security because they thought that they had nearly the number of votes to pass a new plan they may have exagerated some of the problems to win a few more votes. However, now that the conservatives have control they want to revert Social Security to the way it was in the "good old days." That would be non-existant. Of course they can't do that all at once, so instead they want to take money out of the system and gradually destroy it. The first way to do that would be to create individual accounts. Then they would increase those accounts until that's all that there is. But why would people have the government take their money and invest it for them? That doesn't make sense, so let the people just keep their money. Suddenly SS doesn't exist.

This also works in the case of Iraq. Why did the US attack Iraq and not any of the 66 other despotic regimes that exist in the world today? Look at the conservatives motives. They want the wealthy to be in control as they once were. This idea that the world is better off when the wealthy understand the business of America and conduct that business goes way back. The British Empire had a similar idea and the Bush administration wants to reinstate it. However, your common American voter may not agree with this, so alternative explanations are needed to support this motive.

In fact, if you study those who make the decisions for the conservatives you will see that they are conservative in order to protect their wealth or power, which is certainly at risk when there are changes. Changes should only be made to go back to the tried and true protections of their youth. :-}

Posted by: Dr. Forbush | Apr 28, 2005 3:40:20 PM

Dr.,

That is clearly what you believe that the Republicans are up to, destroying it...I don't agree. Individual accounts are very popular...the younger the demographic, the more popular they are. Everybody knows that taxes are going to have to be raised, pay-outs will have to be reduced, the age of receiving pay-outs will have to be raised or some combination of the above if there is to be an ongoing Social Security. The progressives want to raise taxes in some form or another. Conservatives recognize that pay-outs, for the middle-class and wealthy will have to be reduced, at least for the younger people. Individual accounts, that are expect to get greater returns than SS, can make up for the loss of some of the pay-out. They would be optional for those who think that SS is more secure.

They attacked Iraq because they were emboldened by the swift kick in the butt they gave them back in '91. I know that Imperialism is the indictment that is all the vogue among progressives...I don't believe it. How does imperialism sound like the good old days of youth. I don't doubt that business people wish to stay in and improve their businesses. This does not mean that they don't believe in the benefits of Democracy in the Middle East.

Posted by: Craig R. Harmon | Apr 28, 2005 4:18:56 PM

Craig,

You wrote:
"Individual accounts are very popular"

Since when does popularity have anything to do with policy. Was the Iraq War popular? Among some, but certainly not the majority of Americans. Maybe that example isn't clear cut enough. What about the Vietnam War? What about limitting our liberty with the Patriot Act? What about the draft? What about income tax? What about welfare?

Social Security is very popular the way it is. The youth have nothing to loose and the marketing is telling them that they have everything to gain. If you were young wouldn't it be a slam dunk if you didn't give a damn about anyone else?

Posted by: Dr. Forbush | Apr 28, 2005 4:36:54 PM

Dr.,

How does a politician go about enacting policy without popular support? The Iraq War was popular enough that all but a handful of elected officials passed a resolution giving the President authority to use force in Iraq. Without popular support, no politicial policy get's passed, or if it does, it does not long last, nor do the politicians.

I really don't get your point.

Posted by: Craig R. Harmon | Apr 28, 2005 4:45:11 PM

In any case, your question, "Since when does popularity have anything to do with policy?" is answered. It may be that they are not popular enough at this point...which is why the President is having so much trouble instituting his policy...which only further proves what popularity has to do with policy...but it is clear that, at some point, they will be. It is also pretty clear that, people who are young now, who have absolutely no confidence in Social Security, are going to get control of their own money, regardless of whether they have any concern for their elders.

Posted by: Craig R. Harmon | Apr 28, 2005 4:56:01 PM

Politicians pass things without popular support all the time. How many people want income tax? Taxes get raised even after George HW Bush said "read my lips no new taxes." If he hadn't said that the taxes he raised would have stayed in place. People are always mislead into believing one thing, when the reality is much different. The Patriot Act is another example. The name is placed there to get people to agree with it, but the majority would disagree with many of the provisions if they knew that it said that law enforcement could search your house and then tell you about it later. Or, in some cases just search it and tell you about it in court.

You need to be Naive to think that laws don't get passed unless there is popular support. There are laws passed almost every day, but the majority are never even known by the general public. Only a small number rise to the level of media coverage. Some of these laws give tax breaks to companies that many people would think to be unfair, but since no one knows they don't get questioned.

There is the whole pork barrel issue where politicians say I won't question your gift to your contributor if you don't question mine. How does that get passed if a law needs popular support?

Of course my example are only tax related, but what about the laws passed yesterday making it illegal to transport minors across state boundaries to get an abortion. I don't think the public has even given its opinion. But it passed. They didn't ask me.

Posted by: Dr. Forbush | Apr 28, 2005 5:04:40 PM

But, while taxes are decidedly not popular, the things that taxes buy, everything from police and military protection to social entitlements are very popular. Hence, people accept the evil (taxes) to get what they want. GHWBush raised texes because he could not keep his promise, not because he wanted to do so in spite of unpopularity. People promptly voted him out of office for it, too, hence the danger of trying to enact unpopular policy. I didn't say it wasn't done, I said that it was political suicide to do so. As for the Patriot Act, you just keep making my point. It passed because, post 9/11, protecting the nation from further attack was very popular. I would argue that the details, besides the desire not to let the bad guys know what steps could be taken by the Government in pursuit of them, were withheld because the Act would have lost popular support

Look, many people think to be unfair does not translate to unpopularity, it translates to, well, many people it is unfair, not that many other people don't think that giving breaks to Businesses is good policy. It keeps businesses in their area. It gives businesses money to pay employees. It helps businesses keep prices low so that people can afford to buy the things that they need and want.

Pork barrel politics is done because it is popular...it brings money and services back from Washington to the folks in the various states. Why do you think that the people most proficient at it are re-elected over and over again? People may deplore the practice in principle but they don't protest the beneficial results...they welcome them.

As much as you don't like the bill passed, limits upon abortion rights are very popular with most Americans, especially parents. No one wants there daughter getting pregnant and having an abortion without knowing what is going on.

In short, just because it ain't popular to you, doesn't make it unpopular enough to enact.

Posted by: Craig R. Harmon | Apr 28, 2005 5:22:26 PM

er, "...doesn't make it too unpopular to enact."

Posted by: Craig R. Harmon | Apr 28, 2005 5:34:44 PM

You continue to miss the point.

There is an ideology of the conservative movement. Those who drive the movement set this ideology in place. The basic idea is to keep things the same, or change them back to the way they were. This is the definition of conservative. The reason for this ideology is for those who have fortunes and power to keep their fortunes and power – pure and simple. The rest of it is to get enough popular support to elect people to enact or repeal laws.

However, this ideology needs popular support for it to be enacted. So, the leaders have created a complex way to present the issues to a larger portion of the population in order to get representatives elected in order to get their agenda through.

For example, the social security plan of George W Bush is just one small step in the direction of getting rid of the program. In order to get rid of a popular plan one must move slowly and deliberately. It wouldn't be popular to eliminate Social Security in one step. But, what is the point of individual accounts? This plan increases risk with the possibility of making more money. However, they don't advertise the possibility of loosing more money. Hence the politicians are not being honest with the public. Why don't they want to be honest about this simple truth? This is because they want the plan to pass. Why do they want the plan to pass if it is going to be more risky than the current plan? Social Security can be fixed easily by correcting for the effects of inflation and raising the cap on contributions to 1950 levels for example. Why doesn't the administration want to do this? This is because they want to impose individual accounts. Why do they want to impose individual accounts? They want to do this because after these accounts are in place they can make the simple argument: "Why do you want to give the government your money to invest for you? Can't an average person just take a portion of his take home pay and invest it himself?" Once they make this argument a majority may follow the piper to this tune. I am sure that they will entice people with stories of someone who invested in AT&T at the turn of the century and their kids all live in the Hamptons with their servants. This could be you don't you know?


Posted by: Dr. Forbush | Apr 28, 2005 5:55:10 PM

Dr.,

Are Conservatives ideologically motivated? Sure. Are Progressives ideologically driven? Sure. Do they all want the power to enact their policies? Of course. Why? Because each side believes that their policies are the best. Will either side lie to do it? You bet.

Each side puts their policies in the best possible light. Each side emphasizes the positive aspects of their plan and ignores the negative aspects until the other side brings them up. Then each side downplays the disadvantages of their plan. In the meantime, each side places the opposition's policies in the worst possible light and downplay the positive aspects of the opposition's policies. That's what we call politics.

Somewhere in the middle, people, at whom all of this prevarication has been aimed, make up their minds as to which policies they support. Then they vote. The winners procede to enact the policies that they promoted during campaigning. They have the mandate of the majority of the American people as proven by the fact that they are the majority Party. That doesn't warrant the word 'impose'. They do not want to impose them. They want to enact the policy they said that they would work to enact if elected. They were elected. No imposition necessary.

Either the Republicans have sufficient support from the people to enact private accounts or they don't. If they don't, it ain't gonna happen. If by chance it does happen inspite of the unpopularity, those polititians involved will be punished for it. Of course Bush doesn't have to worry, he can't be elected again anyway but the Legislators, without whose help Bush cannot have his way, cannot afford to commit suicide.

You say, "this ideology needs popular support for it to be enacted". So why have you been arguing with me about whether popularity is important to the enacting of policy? I don't get it.

As I said, I get what your opinion is of the ultimate goal of enacting private accounts. And what if that is their goal? If it is, they will not succeed without the political support of the majority of the people. I don't see it happening now or even during Bush's term...I do think that it will happen, eventually, but if it does, it will be for the same reason that anything happens in this country, because it is the will of the people...not all of the people but enough of them.

Posted by: Craig R. Harmon | Apr 28, 2005 6:46:51 PM

I am trying, unsuccesfully I should say, to point out that people are basically influenced to vote against their best interests. This is because a group of people have one objective and they market the issue diferently than their true intent. The issue may get temporary popular support, and once the law is enacted it is difficult to change. If the issue isn't on the radar screen it won't get the attention of the public and many people will continue to hold the impressions of the marketing campaign. If people are questioned about what the law actually ended up doing it won't get popular support, but unless someone makes an effort to change a law it won't get much attention even if the result of the action was negative.

In summary, if you don't investigate the true intent of a law we may be stuck with a law that helps a small number of people which had falsely been passed with popular support. When I say falsely I mean that people voted because they were lied to or decieved. Like the current individual accounts proposal or the death tax or a large number of laws that the conservatives passed.

Posted by: Dr. Forbush | Apr 28, 2005 7:02:48 PM

You aren't being unsuccessful so much as, I'm guessing, we're talking past one another. Politicians lie in order to get popular support for their policies. Message received...a long time ago.

I don't know whether you are saying this but it seems to me that you think all of the lying is being done by the Conservatives. I don't agree. As I explained in my preceding comment, politice is basically the process of each side lying--or, if you prefer, telling some truths while omitting other truths that are inconvenient to their policies. It is up to the opposition to raise those inconvenient facts. That doesn't mean that, in doing that, the opposition isn't ignoring other facts that are inconvenient to their own opinion.

Whether some policy is, indeed, against the people's interests is a political judgement made by those who oppose the policy. Those promoting the policies, of course, would not disagree. And not all of the people who agree with policies that you consider to be against the people's interest are ignorant of the facts...we simply disagree. Take the so called 'sneak and peek' law that was actually enacted before the Patriot act. This policy has many people up in arms and I can understand why. My solution is not to keep contraband on my premises. I don't care if, in the investigation of suspected terrorist activities, the Government wanders into my home while I am out. They don't even have to tell me afterwards. Why? Because I believe that that ability is vital to detecting actual terrorist activities within our country. I would have supported the law even if I had known about it.

I know, I know, according to some that means that I deserve neither security nor privacy. I don't agree, that's all.

Believe it or not, it is possible to defend each of those things that you say people are being lied about on intellectual grounds, and they are by Conservative thinkers just as each of those things can be attacked on purely intellectual grounds. Not everything said by either side are lies...they are truth as each side sees truth.

Posted by: Craig R. Harmon | Apr 28, 2005 7:32:42 PM

Duh! in the third paragraph, the second sentence should read either "Those promoting the policies, of course, would not agree" or "Those promoting the policies, of course, would disagree".

Posted by: Craig R. Harmon | Apr 28, 2005 7:34:58 PM

Post a comment