The difference between progressives and Democrats
| June 27th, 2003A recent issue of the Black Commentator put forward three “bright line” questions to pressure Illinois State Senator Barack Obama to disassociate himself from the DLC. (The Commentator’s pressure tactic was successful, by the way). I thought the questions were pretty good for highlighting the differences between centrist Democrats and progressives.
1. Do you favor the withdrawal of the United States from NAFTA? Will you in the Senate introduce or sponsor legislation toward that end?
2. Do you favor the adoption of a single payer system of universal health care to extend the availability of quality health care to all persons in this country? Will you in the Senate introduce or sponsor legislation toward that end?
3. Would you have voted against the October 10 congressional resolution allowing the president to use unilateral force against Iraq?
June 27th, 2003 at 8:05 am
Regarding question #3, there should be a follow up: “Well, now that Dumbass-in-Chief has thrown us into the Quagmire, with coalition soldiers continuing to die (not to mention Iraqi citizens), what is the best way to disengage? Can we reverse the privatization of the Iraqi social infrastructure that currently benefits US-based multinational corporations? How about that ‘democracy’ thingy? Can we made lemonade out of this?”
I’ll leave more diplomatic wording to those who feel it’s necessary.
This comment was written by Kevin Moore.Report this comment to the moderators
June 27th, 2003 at 8:25 am
I’ve never understood all the details of NAFTA.
However, “Progressives” generally seem to oppose lower tariffs. Some Progressives (not Ampersand) argue that the Democrats’ failure to push for protective tariffs is just corporate sell-out.
The issue of trade barriers has always left me very confused (as a result, I rarely vote on it). It seems like there ARE good arguments for high tariffs protecting our industry and jobs. At the same time, I think low tariffs probably do help consumers get goods at lower cost sometimes (which is a good thing). I ALSO think free trade plays a major role in improving relations between countries. The more two economies become intertwined, the less likely wars or serious conflicts will break out.
It also seems like progressives articulate different visions of “free trade”. Some seem simply protectionist, others argue that free trade should require the two nations to both gaurantee certain environmental regulations and worker rights to ensure fair competition. I would much sooner support the second than the first.
This comment was written by MDtoMN.Report this comment to the moderators
June 27th, 2003 at 8:28 am
*”…others argue that free trade should require the two nations to both gaurantee certain environmental regulations and worker rights to ensure fair competition. I would much sooner support the second than the first.”*
MD and I are in wholesale agreement.
Truly, the End Times are upon us. I’m comin’, Strommie !!! :p
This comment was written by Amy S..Report this comment to the moderators
June 27th, 2003 at 8:54 am
The Black Commentator is da bomb, ain’t it?
This comment was written by Prometheus 6.Report this comment to the moderators
June 27th, 2003 at 9:39 am
“Free trade” is yet another example of the US’s right wing saying one thing and doing another. The US gained her economic strength through enormous tariffs on foreign goods, which were in place well into the nineteenth century.
Now, she preaches that Third World nations should drop all trade barriers and tarriffs. Frankly, Third World nations should take a leaf out of America’s book and say nuh-uh.
What has this to do with NAFTA? Well, it should mean no tarriffs either way, shouldn’t it?
This comment was written by Larry Lurex.Report this comment to the moderators
June 27th, 2003 at 10:57 am
Hey, Amp, not to drift too much. But are you or bean gonna’ blog about the article on bell hooks that’s on the same page as the Obama piece ? Just wondering.
This comment was written by Amy S..Report this comment to the moderators
June 27th, 2003 at 4:47 pm
Ok, I have a minor nit…Your headline says Democrats and progressives, when you say later (and which is more accurate, at least to this progressive Democrat) centrist Democrats and progressives (Democrats, Greens, Populists, etc.).
It surely slants the message otherwise, IMO.
This is all.
This comment was written by fred.Report this comment to the moderators
June 27th, 2003 at 5:04 pm
The US gained her economic strength through enormous tariffs on foreign goods, which were in place well into the nineteenth century.
Care to back that up with anything other than waving your arms and sounding really sincere?
Personally, I would chalk up US economic strength relative to most other countries:
1) pioneering industrialization and mass production
2) no invasion/occupation by foreign armies
3) vast natural resources
4) highest common denominator (lowest cultural content) product design and marketing
Of course, your version sounds much more green/anti-globalist progressive.
This comment was written by Anonymous.Report this comment to the moderators
June 27th, 2003 at 5:06 pm
Sorry, forgot the sig info above.
This comment was written by Marko.Report this comment to the moderators
June 28th, 2003 at 8:15 am
My answers are no, no, and yes, and by coincidence I just discussed both of those nos on my own blog.
I’m progressive in spirit and ideals, but lack faith in all progressive policies, is the short version
This comment was written by Evan.Report this comment to the moderators
June 28th, 2003 at 8:33 am
(Snort.) Yeah, cuz’ healthcare is perfect the way it is, the conquest of Iraq is a cakewalk, and NAFTA has been a positive boon to the American workforce. I mean, ideals’re nice ‘n all, but who’d want to tamper with three solid successes like that !!
D-L-C !!!
D-L-C !!!
D-L-C !!!
Whoooooooooooo !!!!
(They should come out with a line of sports pennants. I’d buy one.)
:p
This comment was written by Amy S..Report this comment to the moderators
June 28th, 2003 at 1:08 pm
Was that to me? If so, you didn’t read my blog.
Health care sucks. We need universal health care. I’m unconvinced that single-payer is the best approach–and even if I *were* convinced, I don’t think we can get it passed. So I’m willing to settle for multiple-payer health care, just as long as we get *something*. According to those “bright line” questions, though, if I don’t insist on single-payer, I’m not a progressive.
NAFTA has been a boon to some sectors of the American economy, and a horrorshow for others. It’s possible to be in favor of fair and generally-free trade, and to appreciate the existence of bodies that assist in multinational decisionmaking processes, while still being repulsed by the anti-environmental, anti-labor policies of NAFTA and the WTO as presently constituted. Being against trade treaties because of NAFTA is like wanting to abolish Congress because it’s controlled by the republicans.
As for Iraq, I already said I would have voted against the authorization to use force. I was only disagreeing with the ANSI-standard “progressive” defined above on two of the three points, not all three.
This comment was written by Evan.Report this comment to the moderators
June 28th, 2003 at 1:19 pm
You did note that the question was specifically about NAFTA, right ? Not about all aspects of international trade ?
Looks like I’m not the only person who could stand to do a tad more reading around here.
I’ll skip the single-payer argument for today. There’s plenty in the archives about it already, goodness knows.
This comment was written by Amy S..Report this comment to the moderators
June 28th, 2003 at 7:20 pm
The question was narrow and specific: Do I favor the immediate withdrawal of the United States from NAFTA? No, I do not.
Does that mean I like all aspects of NAFTA, or that I wouldn’t want to renegotiate it, with input from unions, environmental groups, human rights groups, etc? No, it bloody well does not.
So I’m not a progressive? By this working definition, clearly not. I generally think of myself as one, but I’m willing to accept the “centrist democrat” label.
Am I the *enemy* of progressives? I suppose that’s up to you. But I agree with progressives more often than I don’t. And I’m entirely sympathetic to progressive ideals–just not always to specific policies.
This comment was written by Evan.Report this comment to the moderators
June 28th, 2003 at 8:34 pm
What are “progressive ideals” apart from policies? I’m not being snarky, I’m just curious as to what you’re talking about.
Despite the yes-or-no-ness of the BC’s questions, I could see being in favor of gradualism and still being a progressive (e.g., “I favor universal health care, but I don’t think we can get it by advocating for it, so instead I advocate for slightly less horrible heath care than we currently have”). I think that that approach to policy is naive and foolish, but I appreciate that the goals are progressive, even if the means you chose don’t strike me as practical.
As for NAFTA, it’s a specific treaty, not an ongoing institution like Congress. You can oppose NAFTA while being entirely in favor of vibrant, fair international trade.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
June 29th, 2003 at 10:42 am
2/3 Progressive
This comment was written by Hellblazer.Answered the questions and came up 2 out of three. 1) No 2) Yes 3) Yes . Not that I’m running for the Senate or anything, but that’s how I wished my representatives would vote. I have mixed feelings about…
Report this comment to the moderators
June 29th, 2003 at 12:23 pm
“What are ‘progressive ideals’ apart from policies?”
Good question. I’m not being snarky either; it’s a really good question.
For me, progressivism is about striving to eliminate elites. A good, long, healthy, happy, well-educated, free, empowered, creative and successful life should be available to everyone no matter who they are, what color, what religion, what sex or orientation, and whether they’ve got money or not. I don’t particularly care about afflicting the comfortable, my priority is to comfort the afflicted.
But I don’t think we can get from here to there in one fell swoop, and if we tried, the results would probably be catastrophic (c.f. stalinism, for an example of well-intentioned utopian extremism gone awry). I prefer a systems approach, changing the whole system for the better in steps that are incremental and reversible if they turn out to be counterproductive.
This comment was written by Evan.Report this comment to the moderators
June 29th, 2003 at 1:39 pm
Perhaps then, in the case of health care, you’d like to explain how a plan that requires virtually nothing from Pharma, HMOs, or big insurance in the way of compromise or sacrifice, can be anything but a weak salve to a national disaster.
Honestly, all the supposed “compromises,” such as Dean’s plan, tiptoe around the very institutions that have perpetrated these horrors on us. And these institutions will not stop squeezing us no matter how much they’re tiptoed around and placated. Compromise where, time and time again, the weakest people in the equation compromise and the most powerful institutions in the equation simply grind down harder and harder, is really a sad, pathetic definition of what compromise should be. In fact, it’s more like surrender than compromise.
But, yeah, single-payer would probably kill millions, just like Stalinism. And the system we have now couldn’t possibly have been responsible for a single death, much less for mass deaths.
Right.
Sure.
And I’m Jennifer Lopez. :p
This comment was written by Amy S..Report this comment to the moderators
June 29th, 2003 at 10:41 pm
I was against NAFTA when it was first voted apon. Since it is now in place, rather than trying to get the US to withdraw, I would insist on its renegotiation. I think that a renogotiated NAFTA would be better than no treaty at all; specifically, if done right, it could force the improvement of labor and environmental conditions in Mexico. I like the idea of taking the NAFTA-WTO notions of common rules for trade, and fixing the common rules so that they serve the public and not the corporations. So, no (or rather, I’d use the threat of withdrawal to get improvements).
On single-payer, yes, I want single-payer, but I would also support any other gradualist steps to get more people covered in the short term, not as a final solution but to make peoples’ lives better in the meantime. So, given current conditions, yes to 2a (do I favor …), no to 2b (would I introduce a single-payer bill now: it would lose today, reducing the chances that we would eventually get it).
On the October Iraq vote, I was and am strongly against it and am disgusted at those Dems who supported it. So, yes.
Given these positions, it should be easy to see why I have no problems at all supporting Howard Dean even though I am to the left of him (at least for those of you who know where Dean stands, as opposed to where some folks have claimed that he stands). And I insist that I am a progressive, regardless of what the author of this test claims.
This comment was written by Joe Buck.Report this comment to the moderators
June 30th, 2003 at 6:37 am
Joe: if NAFTA changed in the way you suggest, It wouldn’t be the NAFTA we all know and loathe. Might even hafta change its name.
You’re still progressive. Wear it with pride.
This comment was written by Prometheus 6.Report this comment to the moderators
July 2nd, 2003 at 4:22 am
Answering the person who doesn’t know their history http://www.landandfreedom.org/ushistory/us7.htm
Tells us about the US Tariff act of 1824.
Also, point 1) is untrue. The UK pioneered manufacturing and mass production. Or weren’t you paying attention in history class?
Point 2) is probably true, and also accounts for Sweden and Switzerland’s wealth.
Point 3) is obviously true but it is interesting that other countries with natural resources are not equally rich
Point 4) 4) highest common denominator (lowest cultural content) product design and marketing
is, I’m afraid to say probably untrue. I think the Japanese have the edge there. US products tend to be very *American*, even if they are adopted into the mainstream of other cultures.
Getting back to NAFTA, I would hope that it becomes more like the EU - economic progress in harmony with social progress as an ideal. I guess it probably isn’t formulated that way.
This comment was written by Larry Lurex.Report this comment to the moderators