The casual reader may not have a firm understanding of exactly where I am coming from on my blog, politically-speaking. I am sure after five minutes anyone could tell I am what the media terms a "liberal" (I hate the connotations of that word, but oh well.) After a little more spelunking one might even discover I call myself a progressive, and that I am a Democrat. These labels hardly define me. I thought I might take a little time to spell out exactly what I think about the current state of politics in America.
I can sum up my politics with one word- Progressive.
Primarily I think of myself as a progressive, in the vein of FDR or Teddy Roosevelt. That word gets thrown around a lot nowadays, but I don't think most folks really understand what it means or where it comes from. Let me try to define it for you and explain why I believe it is the right way for America.
I like this definition- it pretty much sums up how I view the term;
Progressivism historically advocates the advancement of workers' rights and social justice. The progressives were early proponents of anti-trust laws and the regulation of large corporations and monopolies, as well as government-funded environmentalism and the creation of National Parks and Wildlife Refuges.
Viewed from a certain perspective American politics can be seen as a waxing and waning of conservatism and progressivism. I'm sure a lot of History majors out there would argue with me on that, but that's how I see it. America has a pattern of allowing the rich to get horribly rich, thus tilting policy and law in their favor; the public then steps up every few decades to even the economic playing field with progressive reforms.
Progressive, to me, means for the people. It has been clear since the outset that the Bush administration is simply an oligarchy based on powerful corporate interests and old money. They have brazenly advocated policies that have skewed our system to favor the ultra-rich elite and corporations. Indeed, this kind of power grab has happened before, actually a fewtimes. The cure for this kind of greed-based thinking is progressivism. The idea that the people are the real bosses in America, and the laws, tax code, and public policies should reflect that.
I fully repudiate the idea of laissez faire economics, also known alternately as trickle down, social darwinism, and supply-side. The basic idea in common here is lower taxes on the rich, allow them to get super wealthy, and the benefits will flow down to everyone else. This wonderful idea would work, except for one problem; the inherent greed of the wealthy. The benefits only trickle down if the corporate bigwigs and top 1% can unclench their fists and allow the money to flow. My contention has always been the greediest in society will end up at the top of the economic spectrum, and that greed will keep the wealth concentrated in a few, white-knuckled, elite hands.
As for other issues;
- I am pro-choice. I believe in the rights of all people under our Constitution, and taking a woman's right to choose away ends up mutilating women everywhere. History has shown that women without choices do actually have them- to have a baby or to choose the back-alley abortionist or the coat hanger. Religionists thinking their so-called "pro-life" morality trumps that horrible truth are delusional.
-I am against any form of torture by our government. Waterboarding, approved by Mephistophel- ahem, I mean Vice-President Cheney, was the reason we convicted American servicemen in Vietnam, for fuck's sake! If anyone thinks 9/11 changed our morality, or that being a little evil is OK because we were attacked, to me their morals, and most likely their intelligence, are suspect.
-The "War on Terror" is clearly an open-ended term invented to keep America in a constant war footing. This was calculated to give Bush the most power possible, as well as channel the maximum amount of cash to corporations, during the time when Americans' sense of civics was cloaked by the unknowable dread caused on September 11th, 2001. The real issue is the vestiges of Reagan's battle with Soviet-style communism using Arab/Muslim land as the battleground; we supported or armed most of the people who want to kill us today. Without changing our underlying policies there will be no peace- we have to find a way to support Israel and establish good relations with Muslim countries at the same time. That's tough enough, and the Iraq War is not helping. It is clear the administration is using war as a tool to enrich corporations at the expense of the American taxpayers. We need to withdraw and leave enough forces behind for counter-terror operations. The Iraqis must choose to organize and rule themselves, or not; we cannot force democracy on them. The President recently brought Vietnam into the argument after years of denying any similarities; it's funny that he should use a perfect example of how to conduct war poorly to justify continuing to poorly conduct a war.
-We endanger our civil liberties at our nation's peril; our strength has always been our freedoms, and taking them away only lessens us as a people. It certainly isn't helping the Bushittes nab any terror convictions. We should repeal the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, and the recently passed expansion of domestic wiretapping and surveillance immediately.
-The Federal government's job, in my opinion, is to do for states and the American people what they cannot do for themselves. As such we should enact some form of universal health care as soon as feasible. This would help employers as well as the average Joe. It is ridiculous that the most powerful country in the world still has citizens unable to afford simple health care.
-We need an Apollo project, directed by the President, to find a new path for America's energy policy. Fossil fuels are destroying our climate and fomenting war. I mean, it's 2007!! Where's the fusion reactors and robots I was promised?
http://indigentahole.blogspot.com
Mike Kuykendall is a progressive, patriotic veteran of the U.S. Air Force, fighting hard to save our democracy.
No real progressive could be a Democrat. The Democratic Party is just as much a pawn of the corporate state as the Republican Party; both push globalization. And these two factors work against workers' rights and the middle class. Both have pushed sanctioning of illegal immigration - and more special visa immigrants -- something the business sector wants for low labor costs, again not in the interest of workers!!!! Liberals and Democrats cowardly hide behind the progressive banner and insult the history of true progressives.
by
Joel S. Hirschhorn (133 articles, 37 quicklinks, 60 diaries, 533 comments)
on Thursday, September 6, 2007 at 4:39:34 PM
Some think that working from within the system, as opposed to the lunatic fringe, is the best way to move policy toward more people-friendly policies that progressives like myself favor. I will forgo responding to the implied hatefulness and derision in your comments, and instead positively point out that the Democratic party, the party of Jefferson, is a big tent; we can use your fire and passion for your beliefs. Come on in and try to do something productive to heal our wounded nation. Hate has its use, but compassion and comraderie are far better for the spirit.
Work with us or against us, the Democratic party is the only vehicle capable of delivering the US from the morass created by the Bush administration and its corporate sponsors. The electoral calendar heavily favors majorities in both houses of Congress and a clear shot at the Presidency- we'll have the right people and the right ideas to change our country for the better, just watch.
by
Mike Kuykendall (36 articles, 61 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 87 comments)
on Thursday, September 6, 2007 at 4:49:01 PM
I agree with most of what you said. However there is nothing progressive about supporting Israel. Israel is a fascist, imperialist state just like America. You say you wish to save democracy in America but America has never been a democracy. America has always been an oligarchy in the form of a Republic. I wouldn't call FDR and Teddy Roosevelt progressives.
by
Ty (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 888 comments)
on Thursday, September 6, 2007 at 5:11:05 PM
If you're the progressive you claim to be then you'll support Dennis Kucinich for president. He's the only progressive in the Democratic Party running for president.
by
Ty (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 888 comments)
on Thursday, September 6, 2007 at 5:19:12 PM
Even Bill Clinton enunciated that. When he was in Philadelphia, trying to save John Kerry's election for him, he said as much as a way of defining the difference between Democrats and Republicans. I could pick a fight with Bill Clinton on his actuating of that belief, but he had the right idea. Those who should be included are those who need a hand up, not a handout. But, in my view, the progressive is the person who determines what he needs. Look at ACORN as an example. Or during the civil rights movement you saw it. Folks wanted to vote, and literacy laws were a stumbling block. Don't wait for a college education, simply learn how to read and write and to know the law. In the days when the farmers had railroads and markets stacked against them, they learned about cooperatives and demanded REA.
In these days, commerce is globalized. Laws concerning pricing and fair labor are not. Even Rockefeller wasn't so monopolistic in the days of Standard Oil. Citizens in various walks of life rant over the inhumanity and expense of war. "Hell no, we won't go" has not become codified in the national psyche yet. The Democratic party ranges from Blue Dogs and DLC to Democrats.com. The Republicans have a religious right wanting theocracy, the ones who call themselves conservatives because they want a strong military and little other appropriations, and then those who mouth such things and spend like crazy. Reagan tops the list, unless George W Bush has outreached him. Whatever and whoever, they start each sentence with a $.
So Teddy or Franklin, some say JFK, to the present there are times when common folks get fed up and demand a change. Problem is they don't keep their eye on the ball. As an example, consider the consumerism following WW II. The Boomers had it better than their parents could have dreamed of. Half were out declaring war on the establishment, and the other half were getting upperly mobile before the hippies thought of it. And, forsook! A bunch of them are in Congress and are still arguing.
It's not all doom and gloom. When a 20-Something talks about her old dad (a 50-something) as being lucky to have it so good about finding a job, there seems to be a generational shift afoot. Now if legislatures could just keep Army recruiters out of high schools, maybe a new day is coming.
Vote for the person who says he/she is willing to change things, based upon observation. Call yourself whatever party or label seems appropriate. Keep after the ones elected, and waste gigabytes writing them, if necessary. That's where I'm coming from. And if people ask me what I am, I say a FDR Democrat. Logical for a person who observed conditions in 1932. Not so good for those who shop WalMart and wait for the latest electronic gadget.
by
Margaret Bassett (33 articles, 2030 quicklinks, 30 diaries, 1359 comments)
on Thursday, September 6, 2007 at 5:32:39 PM
First of all, there is no sliding scale or level of progressive one must have to define one's politics; I say I am progressive because, as the post fully explains, my values and progressive values are pretty much the same.
I do not deplore corporations, though I do think we should rein in their legal and political powers. Corporations exist, though- some of you probably work for one. We have to deal with reality, not some utopian pipe dream where everyone is a worker and the bourgeoisie has been eliminated.
As for Israel- I do not agree with their actions, but we are irrevocably tied to Israel as a nation. We share families, business interests, etc too numerous to completely disengage from on the world stage. As such it is inherent we use American influence to try and rein in the hawks in Tel Aviv.
This is not some contest about political strengths- Kucinich does have panache and a great message- he also, unfortunately, has no chance in hell of scoring the nomination. Neither does Gravel. Or on the flip side, poor, lonely Ron Paul (I like his position on Iraq- HATE the rest of his policies.)
As I said above we have to work with the tools available. This is the time- these are the players. These are the parties, like them or not. Things can change, but not before November 2008. SO much is riding on defeating the GOP next year that those of us with a like mind should band together as best we can and repudiate Bush foreign policy and horrid social programs once and for all.
by
Mike Kuykendall (36 articles, 61 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 87 comments)
on Thursday, September 6, 2007 at 5:42:56 PM
- I am pro-choice. I believe in the rights of all people under our Constitution,
It is interesting that anyone who would make such a statement would suggest that he/she is a republican or a democrat... ESPECIALLY since the republicans and democrats have conspired together to keep third party candidates OFF of the ballots ...
How the republican and democrat PARTIES have conspired together to put forth candidates who will respond to the oligarchy of corporate interests.. (as well as other well funded organizations) In fact, it sure seems apparent that we, in the US have an Oligarchy style of government, but we are conditioned to maintain the facade that we live in a democracy....
someone who was truly pro choice would never belong to such an oppressive organization..
Ciao, cz
by
steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 693 comments)
on Thursday, September 6, 2007 at 8:37:46 PM
is one thing. But being a leader, taking action, getting things done require MAKING choices. I'm a big advocate for equal treament of political parties and instant runoff voting or something like it. Until we get them, third parties do not have access to viable election opportunities, except in very rare circumstances.
That means we try to push the dems. It's very difficult. Many are barely different from republicans. But we must try, because that's where the greatest power is.
by
Rob Kall (869 articles, 4016 quicklinks, 345 diaries, 1847 comments)
on Thursday, September 6, 2007 at 10:38:01 PM
Teddy Roosevelt "Speak softly and carry a big stick." Do you favor blatant imperialism and using the Marines for the United Fruit Company? See Smedly Butler, "War is a Racket."
by
philip rosen (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 98 comments)
on Thursday, September 6, 2007 at 9:25:37 PM
And I do support Kucunich, just as I did four years ago, as the only cendidate who really displays any real understanding of the working class. Living in a rather backward state requires me to register with one party or lose eligibility to vote in any primaries, though we have none for the office of the presidency. I come from a Republican family but Republicanism has lost its identity since the Nixon debacle. I do not support the behavior of Israel or the cause of the illegal immigrants. We have enough work to do in restoring the rights and living conditions of American citizens without "adopting" the outcasts from our neighbor to the south.
We are supposed to have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people and it is away past time for our politicians to understand and acknowledge thoe who pay their salaries rather than those who finance their campaigns.
by
Mary Pitt (66 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 190 comments)
on Thursday, September 6, 2007 at 9:53:02 PM
I'm sorry a few of you dislike the Democratic party, I really am. I cannot help your personal grudges, nor will I debate them. The article is about forward thinking and the Democratic majority to come, and how progressivism can change things for the better. Those of you wishing to argue about who's a Tutsi and who's a Hutu really ought to find a cause and make yourself useful.
Personally I am starting to get behind John Edwards. His platform is about as progressive as you can get, with the added bonues that he eschews lobbyist money entirely. I agree that the Democrats have traditionally had some issues, but I'd like to change the party for the better.
Again I say, working within the system is the most efficient way to change things. Donate money, knock on doors, do something; but whatever you do, please don't pull another Nader so we can hand the country back to the GOP. An argument can be made that without his campaign we wouldn't be in this mess with the corporatists in power now.
Find a candidate you can believe in, but one that has some kind of chance to win. 2008 is too important; we MUST take the White House and start to set things right as soon as possible.
by
Mike Kuykendall (36 articles, 61 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 87 comments)
on Friday, September 7, 2007 at 6:13:47 AM
working within the system is the most efficient way to chang
ran out of characters.. Well you know what you said... do you TRULY believe that? we have evidence of MORE OF THE SAME, no matter who is in the white house.. Some of you loved Bill Clinton, but then I hear you complain about how he signed NAFTA to make the Republicans happy.. He signed Welfare Reform to make Republicans happy...
That is all CRAP!... He signed those bills because the corporate interests that put him in the white house TOLD HIM TO... And he did so because he wanted to be re-elected/well thought of...
do you really thing the republicans truly wanted to find evidence of high crimes or misdemeanors? Even better example... How many investigations have the Dems initiated against the current regime? Does no one think that they could find something if they really wanted to?
THEY AREN'T LOOKING! They just want to make it LOOK like they are looking.. Oh that Bush, who can't speak in complete sentences, has outsmarted us again! He MADE us vote for the War in Iraq.. (and every war funding bill ever since..) Really he is too smart for us!
Seriously, can anyone believe the politicians as they say that stuff?
Ciao, CZ
by
steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 693 comments)
on Tuesday, September 11, 2007 at 7:30:13 AM
Progressive thinkers........unite! Fight being labeled as a liberal (even if you are).
The label of "liberal" seems to light a fire in the belly of the people which we are trying to influence.
Progressive political minds believe that the government has several legitimate roles in the lives of citizens (ranging from defense, to a clean environment, to regulating run-away business, to safe infrastructure, to effective public schools).
Progressives further advocate personal and collective freedom for the citizens. Less overt government intrusion into personal matters and more government support in areas of great societal concern.
Progressive thinkers must resist being lumped into the liberal herd; which considers the expansive control of government to be the solution to all the nation's problems.
Progressive thinkers are nearly constitutional fundamentalists....a careful reading of the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution makes this pretty clear.
If the Progressives of this country want to influence true change we must insist that we are different than the current two-party political establishment.
Progressives need their own political party....and platform.....this website is an ideal location and opportunity to construct just such a movement.
Freedom, Privacy, Justice , Mercy, and Hope.....5 planks in a platform.
Thanks for your attention......Mr. Brian Mathes
by
Brian Mathes (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 41 comments)
on Friday, September 7, 2007 at 6:44:06 AM
Your so right, we do need to stand together and create another political party. Because you cant say what the goverment parties have going now is working. every day we lose more freedoms. The people are the only thing that can and will save them. We must send some message that we are not going to take this any longer. Just talking about it wont change a thing. Thank you. Naturegirl
by
naturegirl (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments)
on Wednesday, September 12, 2007 at 7:43:32 AM
Ummmm, wasn't Nancy Pelosi once called a "progressive"?
Certainly not all Democrats are.
I don't understand why the need to blindly support dems no matter what amount of corporate or conservative collusion takes place.
But then I don't believe in a two party system either. To me that is not a democracy. If the dems wind up with a Clinton 2008 ticket.... I won't support that. I might support what I was ardently against in previous elections ...a Nader ticket....or preferably a Kucinich/Nader Green party ticket. I'm getting a bit tired of people telling me that the only alternative to GOP corporate fascism are the Democrats and then to see them vote overwhelming to fund the war and extend domestic wiretapping. Atleast in european parliamentary politics you have political parties dilineated by political philosophies but for the sake of power sharing they form coalitions. In this manner you're atleast still able to call a spade a spade. The Greens remain Greens and if they disagree with coalition partners then they can threaten to pull out of the gov't.
Because clearly some of the dems are about as far from progressive as you can get.
by
chariotdrvr14 (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 136 comments)
on Friday, September 7, 2007 at 11:43:57 AM
You are right, some Democrats aren't progressive- as I said above it is a big tent.
In rebuttal I would ask if you truly thought your country was in jeopardy, truly thought someone had to wrest control and steer us all away from some horrible future, would you then holster your "two party" problem and make your vote count?
It would be lovely to live in a parliamentary system. We don't, but it is a good idea.
Again I say, the best way to change the system is from within. If you truly think Dennis Kucinich or Ralph Nader have a chance in hell of being elected you might as well not vote. It would truly be a waste. There is a time to change the system, but not with America's credibility in tatters and a looming multinational conflict in the Middle East on the horizon.
Think about it- do you think Nader would be the right guy to run the diplomacy and military strategies needed to get us safely out of Iraq? Can you really see him meeting heads of state as our President? I can't.
by
Mike Kuykendall (36 articles, 61 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 87 comments)
on Friday, September 7, 2007 at 12:15:37 PM
I really don't trust Hillary though on matters of foreign policy she's yet to adequately address her pro war vote.
No, you're right this isn't a parliamentary system. But what are you saying that this is all we have so 'like it or lump it'? After 6 years of the Bush administration and even longer of a GOP dominated legislative branch we desparately need a significant fundamental and lasting change in how this country is run. We won't get that with a party that's disunited on intent and one that has one faction that can't trust the other half. People need to know what they're voting for. Just like last Nov.... they voted for a party they thought would pull us out of Iraq and impeach Bush/Cheney... what did they get.... the Bluedogs thwarting every manouvre.
Throwing away a vote or voting with my conscience. Some of us will refuse to be parties to another sham. The alternative? I dunno..... how about the DLC listening to its base of supporters instead of its corporate sponsors.
by
chariotdrvr14 (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 136 comments)
on Friday, September 7, 2007 at 3:30:24 PM
In some ways youre right, but still, poop or get off the pot
If you think you can fundamentally change America's two-party system prior to November 2008 then you need to re-take Civics, or whatever they call it nowadays.
The DLC is a piece of crap, why you are trying to influence a relic of Clintonian Democrats is beyond me. Aside from Harold Ford Jr they don't have much to go on (and even he is too damned centrist to do any good.) Did you notice none of the Dem presidential candidates bothered to show up to their debates?
by
Mike Kuykendall (36 articles, 61 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 87 comments)
on Saturday, September 8, 2007 at 12:01:49 PM
Both of the current political parties are corrupt, non-representatives.
With the closely divided control in the senate and the house of non-representatives....this is the very best time to put a few people into the mix who are independent of the two party circus which is ruining our nation.
Just having three or four (non-party suck-ups) would cause our government to seek inter-party collaboration....or it would block/stall "politics as usual"
A parlimentary style government could evolve from this as various segments of society began to form their own parties. (The Current 2 party system sure isn't representing millions of disenfranchised Americans).
Americans are angry, and are increasingly anti-incumbent, the last election was proof to them that simply changing the party in charge doesn't change anything. They are hungry for the leadership of non-politicians. They are dismayed by officials who beg for the job of leadership....and then run away from responsibility and accountability for the decisions they make.
What we essentially have in this country is communism disguised as free choice between two faces of the same operation.
Progressive thinkers would be best served by getting everyone around them "mad as hell" about the way that "we the people" are being jerked around by the non-representatives in DC. Then take that anger and channel it for productive use/pressure in the next election.
If not us.....then who?......If not now....then when?
It's time for America's Government to put Americans first and worry about the rest of the worlds problems after we address our own.
Thanks for your attention........Mr. Brian Mathes
by
Brian Mathes (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 41 comments)
on Friday, September 7, 2007 at 2:07:48 PM
You seriously expect some independent candidate, or god help us Mr Green Party himself Nader, has any chance of even getting on the ballot at this point? You should have started your mission a little earlier to net any gains prior to the elections.
Here's a counter plan- spend the next 8 years putting GOP holdouts out of their misery, ending the party forever just like the Whigs or the Federalists.
Then you "yearn for change" naysaying cynics can run off and start your third party to challenge Dems.
That's my plan, but for now, as I have said repeatedly in this thread, you have to work from within the system to affect any reasonable change.
by
Mike Kuykendall (36 articles, 61 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 87 comments)
on Saturday, September 8, 2007 at 12:06:03 PM
Like Mary Pitt, I supported Kucinich four years ago, I support him now and will probably support him in 2012. One commenter remarked awhile back that my support for Kucinich was akin to believing in the tooth fairy, as both parties are corrupt and operate within a system that by it's nature is inherently corrupt, and although he may be the true progressive, and the honest choice, as an underfunded non-corporate candidate Kucinich will never rise above the status of congressperson.
Although the system is fixed to a large degree, it isn't completely inert. Inroads have been made gradually that advance progressive ideals and as long as a faction of voters continue to embrace, support, and insist on candidates that address in particular what are the needs of an increasingly alienated working people in meaningful ways, progressive ideas will be in time considered comprehensiveness and just egalitarian common sense, essential to a true democracy.
In time, the candidate who answers the call of an electorate who has just had enough may not be Kucinich, but a Kucinich. He is paving the way, he's a model, and I believe a symbol of the future.
As a democrat, probably as liberal as you can get, my political views are not completely reflected in the nominee when election time comes, but with each passing presidential election, that democratic candidate, I think, comes a little closer to responding to the values and solutions I support.
by
CD Rodgers (6 articles, 1 quicklinks, 15 diaries, 88 comments)
on Saturday, September 8, 2007 at 10:54:52 AM
