K
Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names
Guest
Three Words Progressives Can Use to Win Elections
By Bernie Horn, Berrett-Koehler Publishing
Posted on March 27, 2008, Printed on March 27, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/79769/
This excerpt was adapted from Chapter One of Framing the Future: How
Progressive Values Can Win Elections and Influence People.
Let America be America again.
Let it be the dream it used to be.
Let it be the pioneer on the plain
Seeking a home where he himself is free.
In this poem, Langston Hughes famously evokes the spirit of the
American dream. It is our soaring common vision -- a portrait of an
America without tyranny, without injustice.
Let America be the dream the dreamers dreamed --
Let it be that great strong land of love
Where never kings connive nor tyrants scheme
That any man be crushed by one above.
The American dream is not about a society where government secures the
greatest good for the greatest number. Our dream is personal. It's
about a poor child delivering newspapers and one day ending up as the
publisher. It's about an unskilled worker attending night school and
becoming a successful manager. It's about individuals and families
practicing their religion without interference, getting ahead through
hard work, and being able to retire in security and comfort. The
American dream is a prayer, a vision, a fervent hope that every
individual may be given a fair chance to build a successful life.
The progressive-liberal-Democratic base of voters would gladly accept
a communitarian philosophy. I, too, wish that American culture were
more oriented toward altruism and community. But it isn't. A realistic
progressive philosophy is one that accepts our national culture of
individualism and -- nevertheless -- seeks to make the American dream
accessible to all. How can we envision such a philosophy?
Balance Is Justice
Imagine a balance scale -- the old-fashioned kind with two pans, one
suspended from each end of a bar. It's the kind of scale that
symbolizes equal justice under law. In a progressive world, the role
of government is to help balance the scale when powerful individuals
or organizations compete against weaker ones. Government should
function as a counterweight on the scale of justice. The greater the
disparity of power between competing interests, the greater weight the
government must provide to the weaker side.
It is not government's job to ensure that everyone wins every
competition -- that would be a logical impossibility. Instead,
government must ensure that, whenever possible, competition is both
fair and humane. In other words, justice is the purpose of government,
and in an individualistic society, balance is the means of achieving
justice.
A system in balance rewards hard work, efficiency, and innovation --
which benefit all of society, and discourages crime, corruption, and
schemes to game the system -- which rob all of society. But isn't
balance an awfully broad principle? How do we apply it? Let's break
down public policy into three situations, where: (1) government has no
proper role; (2) government acts as a referee; and (3) government acts
as a protector.
Freedom
Where government has no proper role, because public action would
violate individual rights, progressive policy should be based on
freedom. By freedom, I mean the absence of legal interference with our
fundamental rights -- freedom of speech, religion, and association;
the right to privacy; the rights of the accused; and the right of all
citizens to vote. Compared to an individual, government wields
tremendous power, so a progressive policy adds great weight -- in the
form of strong legal rights -- to the individual's side of the scale.
Freedom is the cornerstone of America's value system. For two
centuries, America has been defined by its commitment to freedom. One
poll found that Americans believe -- by a margin of 73 to 15 percent
-- that freedom is more important than equality. But because it's so
popular, freedom is the most misused of all political terms.
Neoconservatives have incessantly proclaimed to Americans that both
the war in Iraq and the "war on terror" are in defense of our freedom.
Don't believe it. Our freedom is not in jeopardy -- neither the Iraqis
nor al-Qaeda are attempting to invade America and control our
government. U.S. military and police actions might be said to protect
our security, but not our freedom. So don't use the word freedom when
discussing terrorism or Iraq -- it just provides a false justification
for war.
Similarly, conservatives equate freedom with capitalism. Don't believe
it. Our nation's market economy is not free from government control --
actually, it is dominated by government. Markets are based on a dense
web of laws enforced by multiple layers of federal, state, and local
agencies. Businesses are not free to sell diseased meat, make insider
stock trades, pollute our air and water, or discriminate on the basis
of race, gender, or ethnicity. So don't be fooled by the terms free
market, free enterprise, or free trade, because they all support right-
wing policies.
Most astonishing, I think, is the way religious extremists use the
word freedom to mean the very opposite. They argue that freedom gives
them the right to use the power of government to impose their
religious views on the rest of us. When they pressure school boards to
mandate the teaching of intelligent design in schools, when they erect
monuments to the Ten Commandments in courthouses, when they work to
ban all abortions, when they seek to promote prayer in public schools,
right-wingers assert it's an exercise in religious freedom. Please,
don't believe it. Freedom is the absence of government intervention.
When defined too broadly, freedom becomes an empty platitude that can
be wielded as a bludgeon to pummel any side of any political argument.
My freedom to operate a monopoly tramples on your freedom to buy
cheaper products. My freedom to drive an unsafe vehicle tramples on
your freedom to travel the same roads in safety. My freedom to smoke
in a bar tramples on your freedom to breathe clean air. "Freedom
to ..." and "freedom from ..." gets us nowhere.
Besides, progressives have had plenty of opportunities in the past few
years to rally for freedom solely in defense of individual rights. To
name just a few:
When the National Security Agency conducts warrantless eavesdropping
on the phone calls and e-mails of innocent Americans, it's a violation
of our freedom.
When the FBI's TALON database shows that the government has been
spying on peaceful domestic groups, including Quakers, the Campus
Antiwar Network, and Veterans for Peace, it's a violation of our
freedom.
When the federal government arrests an American citizen, Jose Padilla,
on American soil and holds him for years without the most basic rights
afforded the accused, keeping him in almost complete isolation and
preventing him even from talking to a lawyer during his first twenty-
one months in a military prison, it's a violation of our freedom.
When, just forty-five days after the September 11 attacks, with almost
no debate, Congress approves the USA Patriot Act, broadly increasing
government power to search medical, tax, and even library records
without probable cause, and to break into homes to conduct secret
searches, it's a violation of our freedom.
After years of warrantless wiretapping, illegal imprisonments, and
torture, we should all be saying the F-word with regularity. No, no, I
mean freedom. Why do progressives seem allergic to this word?
Opportunity
Where government acts as a referee between private, unequal interests,
progressive policy should be based on opportunity. By opportunity, I
mean a level playing field in social and economic affairs -- fair
dealings between the powerful and the less powerful, the elimination
of discrimination, and a quality education for all. Competing
interests usually hold unequal power, so progressive policy adds
weight -- guarantees of specific protections -- to the weaker
interest. For example, unskilled low-wage workers have no leverage to
bargain for higher pay. That's why it is up to the government to
impose a reasonable minimum wage. Quite simply, when social and market
forces do not naturally promote equal opportunity, government must
step in.
Opportunity means, more than anything, a fair marketplace. Although
progressives tend to stress the rights of consumers and employees
against businesses, opportunity also means fairness between businesses
-- especially helping small enterprises against large ones -- and
fairness for stockholders against corporate officers. Individual
ambition, innovation, and effort -- harnessed by the market system --
are supposed to benefit society as a whole. But that can happen only
when the competition is fair.
The concept of opportunity is an easy sell to progressives. Hubert
Humphrey said, "The struggle for equal opportunity in America is the
struggle for America's soul." Amen to that.
And yet, since the Reagan years, we've been losing that struggle:
Wage inequality has grown. From 1979 to 2003, income for those in the
bottom tenth of wage earners increased less than 1 percent, and
millions actually earn less today than they did then, adjusting for
inflation. During that same period, salaries for Americans in the top
tenth increased 27 percent.
The richest have gained the most. Between 1996 and 2001, the richest 1
percent of Americans received 21.6 percent of all the gains in
national income. CEO pay, especially, has skyrocketed. Today, the
richest 10 percent of Americans own 71 percent of all the wealth --
the top 1 percent own 33 percent of all assets.
Poverty has increased. Although the number of Americans living in
poverty steadily declined from 1993 to 2000, at least five million
have fallen below the poverty line since George W. Bush took office.
Educational inequality has worsened. Economic (and often racial)
segregation of schools has increased, with schools in poorer areas
having less money per student and paying less per teacher while
dealing with larger class sizes, crumbling facilities, and inadequate
equipment. Students who need more resources are given less.
Equal opportunity has taken it on the chin. The gauzy mist of the
American dream is being blown away by a gust of savage reality. That's
because the right wing opposes opportunity.
Conservatives have fought against ending discrimination, even though
equal treatment is a precondition for equal opportunity. They don't
even pretend to support equal opportunity in commerce; instead,
conservatives lobby for government favors, no-bid contracts, and
economic development giveaways. And right-wingers seek to destroy
anything that allows individuals to stand up to larger economic
forces, with labor unions, consumer protections, and antimonopoly
policies under constant attack.
Our mission is clear. It is to guarantee that all Americans are able
to realize their goals through education, hard work, and fair pay. We
must provide every person, not just the privileged few, with an equal
opportunity to pursue a better life -- equal access to the American
dream.
Security
Where government acts to protect those who cannot reasonably protect
themselves, including future generations, progressive policy should be
based on security. By security, I mean protecting Americans from
domestic criminals and foreign terrorists, of course, but also
insuring the sick and the vulnerable, safeguarding the food we eat and
products we use, and preserving our environment.
There is always a threat that larger or unexpected forces will attack
any one of us, so progressive policy adds weight, in the form of
government institutions and programs, that helps protect us from harm.
For example, society has a responsibility to protect the elderly, the
disabled, widows, and orphans and that's why an aptly named federal
program has functioned in that role for more than a half-century --
Social Security.
Progressives support the concept of security, of course. But as I've
traveled around the country giving workshops to progressives, I notice
that we usually detour around the word. To ignore security is to lose
the argument.
And this is an argument we want to have. To quote the President,
"Bring it on." Since 2001, conservatives have devastated national and
individual security:
The Bush Administration's doctrine of preemptive war, its utter
contempt for our traditional allies, its violations of the Geneva
Conventions, and its refusal to comply with important treaties have
sacrificed America's moral standing in international affairs. As a
result, our nation is now far less able to protect Americans and
American interests worldwide.
The right-wing attack on Social Security is just one small facet of a
coordinated, cold-blooded plan to dismantle New Deal and Great Society
programs that protect our health, our safety, and our environment.
The profligate spending and massive tax breaks for the wealthy enacted
by a conservative-controlled Congress greatly restrict our nation's
ability to deal with threats to our security -- from emergency
preparedness to protection of the vulnerable in our communities.
In every important way, the right wing has made our country less
secure. So let's keep the upper hand in this debate. Whether we're
talking about Iraq or drug-related crime, progressives are for
commonsense policies that will make Americans safer.
The All-American Philosophy
Now that you think about it, don't the principles of freedom,
opportunity, and security sound kind of familiar?
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness.
This famous line from the Declaration of Independence is more than a
set of high-sounding platitudes -- it is an assertion of American
political philosophy. And it's a progressive philosophy.
By "Life," Thomas Jefferson did not mean simply the right to survival,
which would suggest that being beaten almost to death is OK. He meant
a right to personal security. By "Liberty," Jefferson was referring to
the kinds of freedoms that were ultimately written into federal and
state Bills of Rights, blocking the government from infringing upon
speech, religion, the press, and trial by jury, as well as protecting
individuals from wrongful criminal prosecutions. And how do we
translate Jefferson's "pursuit of Happiness"? It cannot mean that
everyone has the God-given right to do whatever makes them happy. Read
"happiness" together with the earlier part of the same sentence, "all
men are created equal." Jefferson is not saying that people have an
unbridled right to pursue happiness; he is saying they have an equal
right to pursue happiness. In today's language, we'd call that equal
opportunity.
We progressives haven't forgotten the principles that inspired our
nation. But we have misplaced them. And worse, we've allowed right-
wing extremists to hijack our ideals and wave them like a flag,
rallying Americans to their distinctly un-American cause.
It is time to right that wrong. Let's fit our progressive policies
with a classic (and popular!) philosophical frame: freedom,
opportunity, and security for all.
By Bernie Horn, Berrett-Koehler Publishing
Posted on March 27, 2008, Printed on March 27, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/79769/
This excerpt was adapted from Chapter One of Framing the Future: How
Progressive Values Can Win Elections and Influence People.
Let America be America again.
Let it be the dream it used to be.
Let it be the pioneer on the plain
Seeking a home where he himself is free.
In this poem, Langston Hughes famously evokes the spirit of the
American dream. It is our soaring common vision -- a portrait of an
America without tyranny, without injustice.
Let America be the dream the dreamers dreamed --
Let it be that great strong land of love
Where never kings connive nor tyrants scheme
That any man be crushed by one above.
The American dream is not about a society where government secures the
greatest good for the greatest number. Our dream is personal. It's
about a poor child delivering newspapers and one day ending up as the
publisher. It's about an unskilled worker attending night school and
becoming a successful manager. It's about individuals and families
practicing their religion without interference, getting ahead through
hard work, and being able to retire in security and comfort. The
American dream is a prayer, a vision, a fervent hope that every
individual may be given a fair chance to build a successful life.
The progressive-liberal-Democratic base of voters would gladly accept
a communitarian philosophy. I, too, wish that American culture were
more oriented toward altruism and community. But it isn't. A realistic
progressive philosophy is one that accepts our national culture of
individualism and -- nevertheless -- seeks to make the American dream
accessible to all. How can we envision such a philosophy?
Balance Is Justice
Imagine a balance scale -- the old-fashioned kind with two pans, one
suspended from each end of a bar. It's the kind of scale that
symbolizes equal justice under law. In a progressive world, the role
of government is to help balance the scale when powerful individuals
or organizations compete against weaker ones. Government should
function as a counterweight on the scale of justice. The greater the
disparity of power between competing interests, the greater weight the
government must provide to the weaker side.
It is not government's job to ensure that everyone wins every
competition -- that would be a logical impossibility. Instead,
government must ensure that, whenever possible, competition is both
fair and humane. In other words, justice is the purpose of government,
and in an individualistic society, balance is the means of achieving
justice.
A system in balance rewards hard work, efficiency, and innovation --
which benefit all of society, and discourages crime, corruption, and
schemes to game the system -- which rob all of society. But isn't
balance an awfully broad principle? How do we apply it? Let's break
down public policy into three situations, where: (1) government has no
proper role; (2) government acts as a referee; and (3) government acts
as a protector.
Freedom
Where government has no proper role, because public action would
violate individual rights, progressive policy should be based on
freedom. By freedom, I mean the absence of legal interference with our
fundamental rights -- freedom of speech, religion, and association;
the right to privacy; the rights of the accused; and the right of all
citizens to vote. Compared to an individual, government wields
tremendous power, so a progressive policy adds great weight -- in the
form of strong legal rights -- to the individual's side of the scale.
Freedom is the cornerstone of America's value system. For two
centuries, America has been defined by its commitment to freedom. One
poll found that Americans believe -- by a margin of 73 to 15 percent
-- that freedom is more important than equality. But because it's so
popular, freedom is the most misused of all political terms.
Neoconservatives have incessantly proclaimed to Americans that both
the war in Iraq and the "war on terror" are in defense of our freedom.
Don't believe it. Our freedom is not in jeopardy -- neither the Iraqis
nor al-Qaeda are attempting to invade America and control our
government. U.S. military and police actions might be said to protect
our security, but not our freedom. So don't use the word freedom when
discussing terrorism or Iraq -- it just provides a false justification
for war.
Similarly, conservatives equate freedom with capitalism. Don't believe
it. Our nation's market economy is not free from government control --
actually, it is dominated by government. Markets are based on a dense
web of laws enforced by multiple layers of federal, state, and local
agencies. Businesses are not free to sell diseased meat, make insider
stock trades, pollute our air and water, or discriminate on the basis
of race, gender, or ethnicity. So don't be fooled by the terms free
market, free enterprise, or free trade, because they all support right-
wing policies.
Most astonishing, I think, is the way religious extremists use the
word freedom to mean the very opposite. They argue that freedom gives
them the right to use the power of government to impose their
religious views on the rest of us. When they pressure school boards to
mandate the teaching of intelligent design in schools, when they erect
monuments to the Ten Commandments in courthouses, when they work to
ban all abortions, when they seek to promote prayer in public schools,
right-wingers assert it's an exercise in religious freedom. Please,
don't believe it. Freedom is the absence of government intervention.
When defined too broadly, freedom becomes an empty platitude that can
be wielded as a bludgeon to pummel any side of any political argument.
My freedom to operate a monopoly tramples on your freedom to buy
cheaper products. My freedom to drive an unsafe vehicle tramples on
your freedom to travel the same roads in safety. My freedom to smoke
in a bar tramples on your freedom to breathe clean air. "Freedom
to ..." and "freedom from ..." gets us nowhere.
Besides, progressives have had plenty of opportunities in the past few
years to rally for freedom solely in defense of individual rights. To
name just a few:
When the National Security Agency conducts warrantless eavesdropping
on the phone calls and e-mails of innocent Americans, it's a violation
of our freedom.
When the FBI's TALON database shows that the government has been
spying on peaceful domestic groups, including Quakers, the Campus
Antiwar Network, and Veterans for Peace, it's a violation of our
freedom.
When the federal government arrests an American citizen, Jose Padilla,
on American soil and holds him for years without the most basic rights
afforded the accused, keeping him in almost complete isolation and
preventing him even from talking to a lawyer during his first twenty-
one months in a military prison, it's a violation of our freedom.
When, just forty-five days after the September 11 attacks, with almost
no debate, Congress approves the USA Patriot Act, broadly increasing
government power to search medical, tax, and even library records
without probable cause, and to break into homes to conduct secret
searches, it's a violation of our freedom.
After years of warrantless wiretapping, illegal imprisonments, and
torture, we should all be saying the F-word with regularity. No, no, I
mean freedom. Why do progressives seem allergic to this word?
Opportunity
Where government acts as a referee between private, unequal interests,
progressive policy should be based on opportunity. By opportunity, I
mean a level playing field in social and economic affairs -- fair
dealings between the powerful and the less powerful, the elimination
of discrimination, and a quality education for all. Competing
interests usually hold unequal power, so progressive policy adds
weight -- guarantees of specific protections -- to the weaker
interest. For example, unskilled low-wage workers have no leverage to
bargain for higher pay. That's why it is up to the government to
impose a reasonable minimum wage. Quite simply, when social and market
forces do not naturally promote equal opportunity, government must
step in.
Opportunity means, more than anything, a fair marketplace. Although
progressives tend to stress the rights of consumers and employees
against businesses, opportunity also means fairness between businesses
-- especially helping small enterprises against large ones -- and
fairness for stockholders against corporate officers. Individual
ambition, innovation, and effort -- harnessed by the market system --
are supposed to benefit society as a whole. But that can happen only
when the competition is fair.
The concept of opportunity is an easy sell to progressives. Hubert
Humphrey said, "The struggle for equal opportunity in America is the
struggle for America's soul." Amen to that.
And yet, since the Reagan years, we've been losing that struggle:
Wage inequality has grown. From 1979 to 2003, income for those in the
bottom tenth of wage earners increased less than 1 percent, and
millions actually earn less today than they did then, adjusting for
inflation. During that same period, salaries for Americans in the top
tenth increased 27 percent.
The richest have gained the most. Between 1996 and 2001, the richest 1
percent of Americans received 21.6 percent of all the gains in
national income. CEO pay, especially, has skyrocketed. Today, the
richest 10 percent of Americans own 71 percent of all the wealth --
the top 1 percent own 33 percent of all assets.
Poverty has increased. Although the number of Americans living in
poverty steadily declined from 1993 to 2000, at least five million
have fallen below the poverty line since George W. Bush took office.
Educational inequality has worsened. Economic (and often racial)
segregation of schools has increased, with schools in poorer areas
having less money per student and paying less per teacher while
dealing with larger class sizes, crumbling facilities, and inadequate
equipment. Students who need more resources are given less.
Equal opportunity has taken it on the chin. The gauzy mist of the
American dream is being blown away by a gust of savage reality. That's
because the right wing opposes opportunity.
Conservatives have fought against ending discrimination, even though
equal treatment is a precondition for equal opportunity. They don't
even pretend to support equal opportunity in commerce; instead,
conservatives lobby for government favors, no-bid contracts, and
economic development giveaways. And right-wingers seek to destroy
anything that allows individuals to stand up to larger economic
forces, with labor unions, consumer protections, and antimonopoly
policies under constant attack.
Our mission is clear. It is to guarantee that all Americans are able
to realize their goals through education, hard work, and fair pay. We
must provide every person, not just the privileged few, with an equal
opportunity to pursue a better life -- equal access to the American
dream.
Security
Where government acts to protect those who cannot reasonably protect
themselves, including future generations, progressive policy should be
based on security. By security, I mean protecting Americans from
domestic criminals and foreign terrorists, of course, but also
insuring the sick and the vulnerable, safeguarding the food we eat and
products we use, and preserving our environment.
There is always a threat that larger or unexpected forces will attack
any one of us, so progressive policy adds weight, in the form of
government institutions and programs, that helps protect us from harm.
For example, society has a responsibility to protect the elderly, the
disabled, widows, and orphans and that's why an aptly named federal
program has functioned in that role for more than a half-century --
Social Security.
Progressives support the concept of security, of course. But as I've
traveled around the country giving workshops to progressives, I notice
that we usually detour around the word. To ignore security is to lose
the argument.
And this is an argument we want to have. To quote the President,
"Bring it on." Since 2001, conservatives have devastated national and
individual security:
The Bush Administration's doctrine of preemptive war, its utter
contempt for our traditional allies, its violations of the Geneva
Conventions, and its refusal to comply with important treaties have
sacrificed America's moral standing in international affairs. As a
result, our nation is now far less able to protect Americans and
American interests worldwide.
The right-wing attack on Social Security is just one small facet of a
coordinated, cold-blooded plan to dismantle New Deal and Great Society
programs that protect our health, our safety, and our environment.
The profligate spending and massive tax breaks for the wealthy enacted
by a conservative-controlled Congress greatly restrict our nation's
ability to deal with threats to our security -- from emergency
preparedness to protection of the vulnerable in our communities.
In every important way, the right wing has made our country less
secure. So let's keep the upper hand in this debate. Whether we're
talking about Iraq or drug-related crime, progressives are for
commonsense policies that will make Americans safer.
The All-American Philosophy
Now that you think about it, don't the principles of freedom,
opportunity, and security sound kind of familiar?
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness.
This famous line from the Declaration of Independence is more than a
set of high-sounding platitudes -- it is an assertion of American
political philosophy. And it's a progressive philosophy.
By "Life," Thomas Jefferson did not mean simply the right to survival,
which would suggest that being beaten almost to death is OK. He meant
a right to personal security. By "Liberty," Jefferson was referring to
the kinds of freedoms that were ultimately written into federal and
state Bills of Rights, blocking the government from infringing upon
speech, religion, the press, and trial by jury, as well as protecting
individuals from wrongful criminal prosecutions. And how do we
translate Jefferson's "pursuit of Happiness"? It cannot mean that
everyone has the God-given right to do whatever makes them happy. Read
"happiness" together with the earlier part of the same sentence, "all
men are created equal." Jefferson is not saying that people have an
unbridled right to pursue happiness; he is saying they have an equal
right to pursue happiness. In today's language, we'd call that equal
opportunity.
We progressives haven't forgotten the principles that inspired our
nation. But we have misplaced them. And worse, we've allowed right-
wing extremists to hijack our ideals and wave them like a flag,
rallying Americans to their distinctly un-American cause.
It is time to right that wrong. Let's fit our progressive policies
with a classic (and popular!) philosophical frame: freedom,
opportunity, and security for all.