What it means to be progressive?


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Child_laborer
The reason to be a progressive…

A while back, Mark Gray and Bob Plain were discussing the word “progressive (while discussing Sam Howard’s piece here) and neither seemed sure of how to define the term. (Since then, Andrew Tillett-Saks took a stab at defining the term here.) Bob suggested the term had something to do with supporting “bottom up” Keynesian economics and later suggested that progressives should seek to the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people. Mark seemed to indicate that the term was essentially meaningless and suggested the word “liberal” be reclaimed. As a Humanist, I found this exchange interesting, because at its core, Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life based in reason, compassion, optimism, courage and action, so the term “progressive” is at the core of my beliefs in a very basic way.

Simply put, progressives advocate for social reform. Working from the core value of compassion, progressives see the expansion of human and civil rights as important goals and work to advance the well being of all humans. Built into progressive ideals is an optimism about the necessity of human beings coming together to solve the larger issues confronting our world. When done correctly, progressivism is not Utopian fantasy, because progressives should be pragmatists, grounded in the real world.

Mark and Bob indicated in their podcast that being a pragmatic progressive is akin to being a compassionate conservative. They were riffing off statements made by House Speaker Gordon Fox and State Treasurer Gina Raimondo, who both referred to themselves as pragmatists. However, Raimondo and Fox were not talking about pragmatism as an approach to values decisions but as an approach to political realities, akin to Kissinger’s realpolitik. The statements by Fox and Raimondo indicated a willingness to abandon progressive values when politically expedient, rather than adopting a pragmatic approach towards executing progressive values.

Pragmatically executing progressive values requires science and reason, rather than cultural prejudices and tradition, as the best tools with which to better society. Science and reason are not in and of themselves the goal of progressives, they are the tools progressives use to create a better, more just and more compassionate society. Progressives are led by their compassion to enable the best possible social reform by using the best possible tools.

So what does this all mean in real world terms? Going back to Bob Plain’s idea that progressives advance the ideas of Keynesian economics, for instance, we can see that it’s not a belief in Keynesian economics that makes one a progressive, it’s a belief in compassion,  reason and science that brings one to view that Keynesian economics is currently the best contender as an economic theory around which to organize a capitalist economic system. As to whether capitalism is the best way to organize our economy, that’s a discussion for another time, but here I will note that if capitalism cannot be properly tamed by Keynesian proscriptions, it is not worth the misery it causes and should be abandoned.

Progressives value democracy. Recognizing that all human beings have inherent worth and dignity means that all human beings should have some say in how our society should be arranged. Progressives believe that democracy and universal enfranchisement, limited by a commitment to the widest possible understanding of human rights, is our best method of ensuring our fidelity to the goal of protecting and enhancing human wellbeing.

Bob and Mark felt that support of organized labor was a sticking point for some progressives. Just as all progressives should be in favor of democracy, so should all progressives be in favor of unions. Unions are simply groups of people advocating for the best deal possible in their workplace under a capitalist economic system. Unions at their best are democratically run, and work to better the well being of workers/people. The right of people to peaceably assemble and collectively bargain is as absolute and essential as any right there is.

Progressives and others would be right to take issue with the way some unions behave in the real world, just as they are right to take issue with the way some democracies behave in the real world. One can stand up for democracy and be opposed to the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo or support unions without supporting corruption. However, progressives should not be opposed to unions on philosophical grounds. If you accept that people have the right to collectively bargain, then you have to accept the right of people to unionize. If you deny that people have the right to collectively bargain, then you should hang up your “progressive” hat for good, because you are denying basic human rights, democracy and the advancement of human well being in favor of monied interests, plutocracy and economic ideology.

Education is another issue that bedevils progressives. Right now there is a concerted effort to wrest public education from government control (and in our democracy that means wresting it from the control of the citizens) and putting it under the auspices of private industry or religious institutions. Both of these options should be anathema to progressives. If there is truly something deeply wrong with the public education system in the United States (and that seems unclear to me, though I am by no means an expert in this area) then it falls to the public to correct that issue.

Turning over control of our schools to private, for-profit industry, in the hopes that business models will be more effective at finding educational solutions, treats our children as commodities, which is the very opposite of treating our children as worthy human beings. Furthermore, the idea that businesses, operating under the grinding Darwinism of the free market, will do a better job educating our children flies in the face of what business is truly about.  Businesses are not about delivering better products, businesses are about maximizing profits. Look at the world around us. Most cars are not high performance Teslas, and most cellphones are not state of the art iPhones. Education by free market will produce some exceptionally high quality educations but will mostly churn out sub-par, assembly line, cookie cutter educations designed to meet minimum standards. Again, this treats our youth as commodities.

Vouchers, which would give parents money allotments that would allow them to send their children to private and parochial schools, are also contrary to progressive values. The money handed out would be siphoned away from already underfunded and struggling public school systems and channeled to educational environments that may well stand in direct opposition to the values of democracy, human rights and human wellbeing. Private educational institutions are under no obligation to teach students in accordance with the values of a free and open society.

Some private schools may deny the fundamental principles of reason and science by rejecting evolutionary science education, and others may reject universal human rights by denying the existence of women’s and LGBTQ rights. More extreme schools of thought cannot be excluded from public funding through vouchers. Private schools could just as easily deny the roundness of the earth or the humanity of non-whites.

Progressives believe that our society should be under no obligation to fund, in any way whatsoever, ideas that fly in the face of compassion, reason and human rights. Though we recognize that in a pluralistic society such ideas do exist, and understand that some parents and guardians will make the decision to pull their children from public schools in order to send their children to a private institution or home school, our commitment should be to making our public schools the best they can be, using the best ideas and most recent scientific studies to ground our work in reality, not helping to fund those that would tear down our society based on religious or ideological beliefs.

The root of the word “progressive” is “progress.” Progressives need to look beyond current issues and current events and keep one eye on the future. Progressives should imagine the kind of world this could be, and work to get there. Being a progressive in the 1930s did not necessarily include being passionate about LGBTQ rights. But by the 1980s that’s exactly what it meant. Today’s seemingly minor issue could become the great civil rights battle of fifty years from now. There should be no shame in advocating today what will only seem like common sense in the future. Nor should there be shame in giving due consideration to ideas that are outside our experience or seem somewhat wacky. Many things we take for granted today would seem unbelievable to people who existed a century or even fifty years ago. If progressives remember to use compassion, tempered by reason, optimism and the council of others, we will not go too far astray.

One final note on what it means to be a progressive, particularly in Rhode Island, as regards religious and other concerns of conscience. Democracy and a concern for the value of all human beings necessitates a secular, non-religious government. This is as essential to being a progressive as anything else I’ve mentioned. Our private beliefs can be as varied and imaginative as we desire, but the space in which we must all interact, that is, the government and its institutions, needs to be free of religion and dogma, so that all people feel free to express themselves fully. Public, government sponsored religion and prayers, even if deemed ceremonial and traditional, fly in the face of inclusion. The prayer that opens a legislative session or the Christmas Tree displayed in the State House privileges and legitimizes one set of beliefs over another. In this light justice and equality seem a revokable gift of the ruling class, rather than basic and guaranteed human rights.

Being a progressive is deeply meaningful, and progressives should know that they are following a proud tradition of advancing human rights, human well being, and institutional fairness. Progressives have a history of making the world a better place, and I am proud to work in that tradition.

The faux-liberal feedback loop created by Brookings and Gina Raimondo


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Progressives don't cheer on pension cuts like this and a progressive think tank wouldn't suggest a Democrat spearhead a conservative initiative like pension cuts.
Progressives don’t cheer on pension cuts like this and a progressive think tank wouldn’t suggest a Democrat spearhead a conservative initiative like pension cuts.

A recently released Brookings Institution blueprint on how to cut public pension plans offered this advice: “having a Democrat lead the effort goes a long way towards countering the charge that reforms are merely a conservative attack on labor.”

Shortly thereafter Gina Raimondo – the living, breathing (and campaigning!) prototype for the Brown Center at Brookings’ wisdom – sent out a fundraising email bragging about the accolade. But instead of just tooting her own horn, she also slipped in a not-insignificant exaggeration about the think tank report.

“Just the other day, a progressive think-tank heralded Gina’s leadership on solving the pension crisis as a national model,” wrote her campaign manager Eric Hyers.

Brookings is not a progressive think tank. It doesn’t pretend to be, and isn’t regarded as such.

Neil Lewis, a veteran New York Times reporter, described Brookings as being “liberal-centrist.” And the progressive blog FireDogLake was :

“The Brookings Institute was once a bastion of liberal thought … Now, though, it has become the Alan Colmes of think-tanks, fake liberals who meekly accept conservative mythology on every major point, but says we should at least think of the misery we are causing.”

And the Center for Media and Democracy, the even farther left-leaning think tank that mainly goes after ALEC and other Koch brother initiatives, had a similar take on Brookings. Its wiki SourceWatch.org described Brookings history as America’s oldest think tank.

Initially centrist, the Institution took its first step rightwards during the depression, in response to the New Deal. In the 1960s, it was linked to the conservative wing of the Democratic party, backing Keynsian economics. From the mid-70s it cemented a close relationship with the Republican party. Since the 1990s it has taken steps further towards the right in parallel with the increasing influence of right-wing think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation.

Brookings, according to SourceWatch, gets major funding from conservative interests.

I asked on Twitter how people would describe Brookings, and here are some of the responses I got:

and

When I asked if anyone thought Brookings was a progressive think tank, responses ranged from:

to:

.

Why does Gina Raimondo hold such a minority opinion about Brookings? I sent an email to Hyers yesterday and he did not respond yet. So I will offer my theory:

It’s a time-tested political tradition in Rhode Island to claim to be somewhere to the left of one’s actual politics. It’s why the General Assembly is dominated by one political party but not one political ideology. It probably has something to do with why Barrington millionaire Ken Block launched his political career as a “Moderate.” And it’s probably why Justin Katz, who I think is the most unabashedly conservative voice in Rhode Island, thought to tweet this earlier this week:

I was surprised Katz wasn’t proud to claim the mantle of most conservative person in Rhode Island.

And then I remembered that Gina Raimondo rebranded herself as a progressive to run for governor. And how many conservatives in the state legislature have confessed privately that they run as Democrats because it is the easiest way to win an election.  And how often conservative pundits blame our economic problems on 60 years of Democrats in power rather than the largely right-wing agenda the current crop of ruling Democrats at the State House have implemented during the past decade (tax cuts for the rich, shrink government and austerity for social services).

And in the future, I’ll recall how the Brookings Institution is advising the world – using Rhode Island as its example – that “having a Democrat lead the effort goes a long way towards countering the charge that reforms are merely a conservative attack.” And that those are the types of organizations that Gina Raimondo would describe as being progressive.

For an actual progressives take on pension politics, read Sam Bell’s post on what Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren said about pension cuts and wealth transfers to hedge fund managers.

What is a progressive?


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

ProgressiveWordCloudRecently Mark Gray and Bob Plain were discussing the word “progressive” (while discussing Sam Howard’s piece here)  and neither seemed sure of how to define the term. Bob took a stab at it saying it had something to do with supporting “bottom up” Keynesian economics and later suggesting that progressives should seek to the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people. Mark seemed to indicate that the term was essentially meaningless and suggested the word “liberal” be reclaimed. As a Humanist, I found this exchange interesting, because at its core, Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life based in reason, compassion, optimism and action. The term “progressive” is at the core of my beliefs in a very basic way.

Reform vs. realpolitik

Simply put, progressives advocate for social reform. Working from the core value of compassion, progressives see the expansion of human and civil rights as important goals and work to advance the wellbeing of all human beings. Built into progressive ideals is an optimism about the necessity of human beings coming together to solve the larger issues confronting our world. When done correctly, progressivism is not Utopian fantasy, because progressives should optimally be pragmatists, grounded in the real world.

Mark and Bob indicated in their podcast that being a pragmatic progressive is akin to being a compassionate conservative. They were riffing off statements made by House Speaker Gordon Fox and General Treasurer Gina Raimondo, who both referred to themselves as pragmatists. However, Raimondo and Fox were not talking about pragmatism as an approach to values decisions but as an approach to political realities, akin to Kissinger’s realpolitik. The statements by the two politicians indicated a willingness to abandon progressive values when politically expedient, rather than adopting a pragmatic approach towards executing progressive values.

Pragmatically executing progressive values requires science and reason, rather than cultural prejudices and tradition, as the best tools with which to better society. Science and reason are not in and of themselves the goal of progressives, they are the tools progressives use to create a better, more just and more compassionate society. Progressives are led by their compassion to enable the best possible social reform by accessing the best possible tools, which as of now are science and reason.

So what does this all mean in real world terms? Going back to Bob Plain’s idea that progressives advance the ideas of Keynesian economics, for instance, we can see that it’s not a belief in Keynesian economics that makes one a progressive, it’s a belief in compassion,  reason and science that brings one to view that Keynesian economics is currently the best possible theory around which to organize a capitalist economic system. As to whether capitalism is the best way to organize our economy, that’s a discussion for another time.

Progressives value democracy. Recognizing that all human beings have inherent worth and dignity means that all human beings should have some say in how our society should be arranged. Democracy and universal enfranchisement, limited by a commitment to the widest possible understanding of human rights, is right now our best method of ensuring our fidelity to the goal of protecting and enhancing human wellbeing.

Labor unions

Bob and Mark felt that support of organized labor was a sticking point for some progressives. Just as all progressives should be in favor of democracy, so should all progressives be in favor of unions. Unions are simply groups of people advocating for the best deal possible in their workplace. Unions are democratically run, and work to better the wellbeing of people. The right of people to peaceably assemble and collectively bargain is as absolute as any right there is.

Progressives and others would be right to take issue with the way some unions behave in the real world, just as they are right to take issue with the way some democracies behave in the real world. One can stand up for democracy and be opposed to the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo or support unions without supporting corruption. However, progressives should not be opposed to unions on philosophical grounds. If you accept that people have the right to collectively bargain, then you have to accept the right of people to unionize. If you deny that people have the right to collectively bargain, then you should hang up your “progressive” hat for good, because you are denying basic human rights, democracy and the advancement of human wellbeing in favor of monied interests, plutocracy and economic ideology. (See: Gina Raimondo above.)

Education

Education is another issue that bedevils progressives. Right now there is a concerted effort to wrest public education from government control (and in our democracy that means wresting it from the control of the citizens) and putting it under the auspices of private industry or religious institutions. Both of these options should be anathema to progressives. If there is truly something deeply wrong with the public education system in the United States (and that seems unclear to me, though I am by no means an expert in this area) then it falls to the public to correct that issue.

Turning over control of our schools to private, for-profit industry, in the hopes that business models will be more effective at finding educational solutions, treats our children as commodities, which is the very opposite of treating our children as worthy human beings. Furthermore, the idea that businesses, operating under the grinding Darwinism of the free market will do a better job educating our children flies in the face of what business is truly about.  Businesses are not about delivering better products, businesses are about maximizing profits. Look at the world around us. Most cars are not high performance Audis, and most cellphones are not state of the art iPhones. Education by free market will produce some exceptionally high quality educations but will mostly churn out assembly line cookie cutter educations designed to meet minimum standards. Again, kids as commodities. For-profit businesses seek maximum profits, and indeed, for most corporations, that’s all they can do.

Vouchers, which would give parents money allotments that would allow them to send their children to private and parochial schools, are also contrary to progressive values. Money would be siphoned away from already underfunded and struggling public school systems and channeled to educational environments that may well stand in direct opposition to the values of democracy, human rights and human wellbeing. Private educational institutions are under no obligation to teach our students in accordance with the values of a free and open society.

Some private schools may deny the fundamental principles of reason and science by rejecting evolutionary science education, and others may reject universal human rights by denying the existence of women’s and LGBTQ rights. More extreme schools of thought cannot be excluded from public funding through vouchers. Private schools could just as easily deny the roundness of the earth or the humanity of non-whites.

Progressives believe that our society should be under no obligation to fund, in any way whatsoever, ideas that fly in the face of compassion, reason and human rights. Though we recognize that in a pluralistic society such ideas do exist, and understand that some parents and guardians will make the decision to pull their children from public schools in order to send their children to a private institution or home school, our commitment should be to making our public schools the best they can be, using the best ideas and most recent studies to ground our work, not helping to fund those that would tear down our society based on religious or ideological beliefs.

Progress

The root of the word “progressive” is “progress.” Progressives need to look beyond current issues and current events and keep one eye on the future. Progressives should imagine the kind of world this could be, and work to get there. Being a progressive in the 1930s did not necessarily include being passionate about LGBTQ rights. But by the 1980s that’s exactly what it meant. Today’s seemingly minor issue could become the great civil rights battle of fifty years from now. There should be no shame in advocating today what will only seem like common sense in the future. Nor should there be shame in giving due consideration to ideas that are outside our experience or seem somewhat wacky. Many things we take for granted today would seem unbelievable to people who existed a century or even fifty years ago. Remember to use compassion, tempered by reason, optimism and the council of others, and you will not go too far astray.

One final note on what it means to be a progressive, particularly in Rhode Island, as regards religious and other concerns of conscience. Democracy and a concern for the value of all human beings necessitates a secular, non-religious government. This is as essential to being a progressive as anything. Our private beliefs can be as varied and imaginative as we desire, but the space in which we all must interact, that is the government and its institutions, needs to be free of religion and dogma, so that all people feel free to express themselves fully. Public, government sponsored religion and prayers, even if deemed ceremonial and traditional, fly in the face of inclusion. The prayer that opens a legislative session or the Christmas Tree displayed in the State House privileges and legitimizes one set of beliefs over another. Justice and equality seem a revokable gift of the ruling class, rather than a basic and guaranteed human right.

Being a progressive is deeply meaningful, and progressives should know that they are following a proud tradition of advancing human rights, human wellbeing, and institutional fairness.

Of course, this is only my opinion, and I am willing to discuss it further.

Progressive dissatisfaction and the Democratic primary


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Clay, Angel or Gina: who will be the best for the progressive movement in RI?
Clay, Angel or Gina: who will be the best for the progressive movement in RI?

In the last few years the General Assembly has passed legislation that slashed pensions, cut taxes on the wealthiest Rhode Islanders, recklessly combined the State’s boards of education, and instituted a discriminatory and unnecessary Voter ID law. And, of course, all while under the auspices of the Democratic Party.

It’s no secret then, that progressives are dissatisfied with the status quo of Rhode Island. There have been victories; notably marriage equality. But marriage equality only arrived after a compromise of civil unions riled up enough people that there was a large-scale campaign to gain true equality before the law. Full progressive change in Rhode Island happens when there is a confluence of outrage and money.

What has tided progressives over is a series of compromise: the most progressive change possible, the most progressive candidate possible. U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, U.S. Rep. David Cicilline, and Gov. Lincoln Chafee are all beneficiaries of this. While some of them have not been the most progressive candidate in their races, they have been the most progressive candidate possible.

But recent events in New York City and Boston have empowered progressives across the country, and Rhode Island progressives especially have taken note (sandwiched, as they are, between those two regional poles). Candidates with explicitly progressive campaigns have won mayoral races in those cities in off-election years. The New York City example of Bill de Blasio is especially hopeful. NYC has a population of somewhere around 7 times larger than the entirety of Rhode Island, which despite a Democratic majority has been ruled by non-Democrats since 1994, the last full year in which there was a Democratic governor in Rhode Island.

If it can happen in New York and Boston, then it can happen here, the reasoning goes. As Rhode Island progressives eye the governor’s race, they may start drawing parallels with New York City. This may explain the hoopla over Clay Pell, the untested scion of Rhode Island’s greatest political legacy.

There are a few factors to consider. First, progressives may believe they are the Democratic Party, but that’s ultimately false. Many of Rhode Island’s Democrats are more accurately described as “Christian democrats” generally socially conservative but supportive of social justice and welfare. These are the elder type of Democrats, part of the party before the progressives split from the Republicans. The reality is that Rhode Island’s Democratic Party incorporates three general sections; the progressives, the Christian democrats, and the neoliberals. There are also some genuine conservatives.

However, of these three wings, the progressives are by far the most politically dangerous and important. Time and time again they’ve proven they can break or make Democratic candidates. Therefore, it’s not surprising to see all Democratic candidates in the gubernatorial primary proclaim themselves progressives.

Progressives have a pastime of DINO-hunting, which generally means weeding out the Christian democrats or neoliberals. But as the gubernatorial race approaches, they may find themselves hunting progressives-in-name-only instead. I doubt I’m wrong in thinking that progressives believe that if the first elected Democratic governor is coming in 2014 they’ll allow that governor to be anything short of a true-blue progressive.

Providence Mayor Angel Taveras is especially vulnerable to the whims of progressive fervor. He’s managed to position himself somewhere between the neoliberal position and the progressive position. Meanwhile, General Treasurer Gina Raimondo has been firmly defined as part of the neoliberals; the “Wall St. Democrats.” But that line-walking is not playing as well as it should. On a recent appearance on WPRI’s Newsmakers, when pressed by Ted Nesi, Taveras was unable to draw a distinction between himself and Raimondo in terms of actual policy, suggesting that it’ll come out in the campaign.

On one hand, that’s correct; and politically it’s unnecessary to draw a distinction this early when Rhode Islanders won’t be paying attention for another year or so. But on the other, those contrasts should be clear already, especially as activists begin examining the candidates closely and building enthusiasm for campaign season.

Taveras’ vulnerability is clear in Clay Pell, as ill-defined a candidate as ever there was. We know virtually nothing about him beyond the name, a brief biographical sketch, and that his wife is Olympian Michelle Kwan. Yet Pell is bending progressives towards his center of gravity, and that should be worrying this early. His grandfather was also a relative unknown who defeated two former Governors for his U.S. Senate seat.

Despite their strengths, one shouldn’t think of the progressives as a wholly deciding factor though. For one thing, the movement is, like most things in Rhode Island, fractious and full of personalities. With the disbanding of Ocean State Action, the main meeting table and organizing presence for progressive groups has been removed. For another, what gets defined as truly “progressive” is open to debate. And finally, while the gubernatorial race will gain the most attention, the real power lies in the General Assembly, where progressives will have to focus on electing more friendly candidates as well as protecting those they already have.

2014 will be a serious test for progressives in Rhode Island. Can they elect a governor who represents their values? Can they take a controlling majority in the Assembly? And should they manage that, will they be able to produce results and right Rhode Island after years of neoliberal failure?

Vote For an Independent, Spoilers Are a Myth


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

“It’s hard to spoil something that is already spoiled”

Abel Collins uttered these words on a recent edition of RIPR’s Political Roundtable, and they ring truer today than at any other time in our history.

The “spoiler” argument by the lever-voting Democrats in Rhode Island is patently false, and this is an attempt to disabuse my Democrat friends of this notion. Maybe, if the entrenched Democrats in office actually served their constituents effectively, they would have no such worries about a “spoiler.” In any case, there don’t seem to be enough staunch Republicans in District 2 to make Mike Riley competitive, and he hasn’t really courted the Independent vote in any significant way.

Most point to the candidacy of Ralph Nader for the Green Party in 2000 as proof-positive that a third-party candidate can “steal” enough votes from the Democrats, thereby catapulting a Republican — George W. Bush in Nader’s case, and Mike Riley in Abel Collins’ case — into office.

Let’s look at the “Nader put George Bush into office” misconception.

In 2000 — on the heels of eight of the most prosperous years in modern history under Bill Clinton — it would have seemed that Al Gore was a shoe-in for the White House. After all, who could argue with a continuation of the Clinton policies that precipitated such a boom in prosperity?

The Republicans, as they have been known to do, nominated one of their own to run against this record of prosperity on a purely ideological platform. George W. Bush ran on a platform of “compassionate conservatism” and frankly, this platform — which, in Bush’s first month in office, was exposed as a dirty conglomeration of skewed facts and outright lies — effectively cut Gore’s legs out from under him, especially during the debates in which I can remember Mr. Gore more than a few times uttering the words, “I agree with Mr. Bush.” Gore failed repeatedly in the 2000 Presidential race to differentiate himself from the “compassionate conservative.”

Now, Gore may be a smart fellow, and even an effective legislator, but his personality — or lack thereof — was a big part of why he lost the election. Clearly, few people found his laconic, lispy Tennessee drawl charming enough to generate any enthusiasm around the candidate. Bush took full advantage of this, and played up his affable frat-boy “Guy you want to have a beer with” image. As a friend of mine put it, “Al Gore couldn’t campaign his way out of a wet paper bag.” Nowhere was this more evident than in Gore’s home state of Tennessee, which he lost. No presidential candidate has ever taken the White House while losing his home state.

Remember the charges of ballot tampering in swing states like Ohio and Florida? This tampering — though never officially substantiated — arguably gave more votes to Dubya than Nader “stole” from Gore. The dirty trickster Karl Rove engineered this tampering and the subsequent contesting of ballots in these states by well-placed Republican operatives, including Florida’s then Secretary of State, Katherine Harris.

Let’s not forget the Supreme Court decision that shutdown a manual recount of ballots in some of Florida’s most hotly contested precincts. The recount, and subsequent Supreme Court decision, vaulted the term “hanging chads” into the American lexicon and spawned the heavy metal band of the same name.

The controversy over the awarding of Florida’s 25 electoral votes, the subsequent recount process in that state, and the unusual event of the winning candidate having received fewer popular votes than the runner-up, marked only the fourth election in U.S. History in which the eventual winner failed to win a plurality of the popular vote. Later research showed that by the standards requested by the Gore campaign in their contest brief or by the partial statewide recount set by the Florida Supreme Court, Bush would have likely won the recount anyway. However, the same research indicates that had the statewide recount included all uncounted votes — overvotes and undervotes— as seems probable based on later statements by the judge overseeing the recount and supported by faxes made public in November, 2001, Gore would have won the election.

Let’s also not forget that despite Nader’s “stolen” votes and poll tampering by right wing operatives,  Al Gore actually won the popular vote by just under a half million votes, which should give any American pause— Republican or Democrat — concerning the Electoral College and how we elect the leader of the free world.

Given this, the 2.74 percent of the popular vote that went to Ralph Nader is a moot point. A 2002 study by the Progressive Review found no correlation in pre-election polling numbers for Nader when compared to those for Gore. In other words, most of the changes in pre-election polling reflect movement between Bush and Gore rather than Gore and Nader, and they concluded from this that Nader was not responsible for Gore’s loss.

Furthermore, after attempting to lay the blame for Gore’s loss at the feet of the Greens and Ralph Nader, did the Democrats alter their platform and positions in an attempt to garner the votes that Nader “stole”? No, they didn’t, and they paid for it again in the 2004 Presidential election which — by hook or by crook — George W. Bush won handily over John Kerry, without the presence of a “spoiler” from a third party in the race.

Those of you who have made my acquaintance know that I am no cock-eyed optimist. Most would say I’m a skeptic, bordering on cynic. I have seen the slow decline of this state and country accelerate under the “leadership” of Republicans and Democrats alike.

Healthcare and education have become unaffordable to most of us. The rate at which our climate is changing has surpassed even the worst-case scenario predictions. Our food supply is being tinkered with through genetic modification. Fewer families move from poverty into the middle-class, more wealth is concentrated in the 1 percent, and none of it “trickles down” to those in need. The so-called “job creators” continue to sit on their wealth, rather than reinvest in their businesses, and take advantage of tax breaks, loopholes, and subsidies that weaken the economy of the country that afforded them the opportunity to rise to economic prominence in the first place.

I have often said that the only difference between Republicans and Democrats in the national arena is that Republicans want to drive the bus toward Armageddon with the gas pedal on the floor; Democrats are willing to obey the speed limit. No matter which party controls our government, the fact remains, the bus is headed in the wrong direction.

The only regret that I have in taking on the management of Abel Collins’ campaign for the last 6 weeks of the election cycle is this: I cannot vote for him. I live in District 1, but rest assured that the Independent candidate for the House seat in my district, David Vogel, will be getting at least one vote from the city of Woonsocket.

The question that Democrats in both of Rhode Island’s Congressional Districts face is not, “Do we vote for a Democrat who offers lip service to his constituents, then votes solely on party lines, strictly out of fear of a Republican taking the seat?”; Democrats who, in the case of Jim Langevin, are pro-life, pro-war, pro-censorship, pro-Tar sands oil, and pro-invasion of privacy.

The real question is this: “Do we vote for an Independent candidate that more accurately represents our party’s and country’s ideals even though he doesn’t have a capital D next to his name?”

I urge all self-defined Democrats statewide — especially those who are registered to vote, but haven’t in the last few elections due to disgust, disillusionment, or disenfranchisement — to consider this question and go to the polls on Tuesday, not out of fear, but out of hope and confidence that the only wasted vote is the vote cast for a candidate that you don’t believe has your best interests and the best interests of Rhode Island at heart.

In short, do we, as Democrats, vote for Democrats or democracy?

If you need to be convinced of Abel Collins’ passion, compassion, and understanding of the problems this country faces please view the video that is embedded on the home page of RI Future.

15 Days Left: Volunteer for Progressive Wins for RI


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

With just 15 days left until election day we need your help!

Whether you care about tax justice, marriage equality, women’s health, our environment, or all of the above one thing is certain – we need more progressive champions fighting for us up at Smith Hill. So step away from your laptop, and join Ocean State Action PAC and our coalition partners at area phonebanks 5 nights a week! (Details below.)

Races are won and lost on the ground – so roll up your sleeves and pitch in! Sign up today!

Monday Nights:

Planned Parenthood Votes RI:
5-8PM 111 Point St Providence
Sign Up Here http://bit.ly/ppvotesri 

Tuesday Nights:

Fight Back RI:
6-9PM 236 Hope St, Providence
RSVPs to Margret Margret@fightbackri.com

Clean Water Action: 
5:30-8:30PM 741 Westminster St, Providence
Sign Up Here

Wednesday Nights

Action PAC
5-8PM 99 Bald Hill Rd, Cranston
RSVP to Kate Kate@oceanstateaction.org

Planned Parenthood Votes:

5-8PM 111 Point St Providence
Sign Up Here http://bit.ly/ppvotesri 

Thursday Nights:

Action PAC
5-8PM 99 Bald Hill Rd, Cranston
RSVP to Kate Kate@oceanstateaction.org

Fight Back RI:
6-9PM 236 Hope St, Providence
RSVPs to Margret Margret@fightbackri.com

Clean Water Action:
5:30-8:30PM 741 Westminster St, Providence
Sign Up Here

Sunday Afternoon:

Clean Water Action:
12-4PM 741 Westminster St
Sign Up Here

We’ll provide the snacks, scripts and training! Just bring your dialing finger and your will to win!!

 

Progressives May Still Push for Tax Equity in Budget


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
State House Dome from North Main Street
State House Dome from North Main Street
The State House dome from North Main Street. (Photo by Bob Plain)

Progressives had mixed reactions to the budget bill passed by the House Judiciary Committee late Thursday night, expressing disappointment with the lack of focus on the revenue side of the ledger. While there are few new cuts in this year’s spending proposal, and a few restorations, it didn’t include tax-the-rich revenue enhancers that organized labor and community activists lobbied for all session long.

“If this budget is passed as is, the wealthiest Rhode Islanders will skate by again while lower and middle-income Rhode Islanders get stuck with the bill,” said George Nee, president of the AFL-CIO who took an active role with Working RI, a group that led the charge for taxing the rich.

While legislative leadership and the local media widely predicted income tax equity reform wouldn’t pass this year, the fight isn’t over yet.  Progressive lawmakers are expected to offer an income tax amendment to the budget bill when it hits the House floor next week. Rep. Maria Cimini, a progressive Democrat from the Elmhust area of Providence, led the charge in the House this year, could be the one to offer the amendment. She’s a rising star to the liberal left and an increasing thorn-in-the-side of the more moderate House leadership.

Her bill would have raised the income tax rate on those who make more than $250,000 from 5.99 percent to 9.99 percent, what the rate was before former Gov. Don Carcieri cut taxes to the rich. It also included a job creator incentive that would have lowered the proposed increase by 1 percent for every 1 percent the state’ unemployment rate dropped.

But Rep. Larry Valencia, a progressive Democrat from Richmond, also could offer the amendment. He sponsored a similar bill for the second consecutive year that doesn’t include the job creator incentive, which he said would make the budget more volatile.

“You can tell by the kinds of bills I’ve introduced that I would have preferred some changes to a more progressive tax code,” Valencia said, right after voting for the bill Thursday night. While he was hoping for income tax reform, he said he was happy it included some new sales taxes and glad it didn’t increase the meals and hotel tax – which would have hurt the the local tourism economy, one of the state’s strongest sectors.

Rep. Scott Guthrie, a populist Democrat from Coventry, has sponsored several income tax reform bills during the past two sessions also could offer an amendment.

House leadership has communicated to progressive legislators that it doesn’t want an amendment to come up on the floor. Income tax reform is expected to be used as a campaign issue this summer and fall, as voters seem to support it more than politicians. A Flemming Associates poll showed that 68 percent of Rhode Islanders support a more progressive income tax code, and many conservative legislators don’t want to be put on the record as supporting tax breaks for the wealthy.

Projo Uses ‘Scare Quotes’ To Smear Progressives


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Projo State House beat reporter Phil Marcelo is one of the best journalists in the state, and so I have to assume this is something that happened in the editing process of his piece today titled “Democrats poised to unwrap own spending proposal.” I’ve sent my friend Phil an email and am waiting to hear back from him. (Update: in keeping with Projo policy, Marcelo declined to comment)

In any case, in the 13th graph, the story reads:

House Speaker Gordon D. Fox, D-Providence, and Senate President M. Teresa Paiva Weed, D-Newport, are both firmly opposed to such proposals, but “progressive ” Democratic lawmakers have used the budget process to make their case in previous years.

Why is the word progressive in quotes? Who is saying that? Who is being quoted?

No one, of course. It’s well understood that when otherwise out-of-place quotation marks appear around a word of phrase without any indication that someone said something, they are being used to convey either suspicion or irony. They are commonly called scare quotes, and Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines the term as, “quotation marks used to express especially skepticism or derision concerning the use of the enclosed word or phrase.”

Scare quotes are not forbidden in journalism. In fact, according to the AP Stylebook, in the section under quotation marks it says:

IRONY: Put quotation marks around a word or words used in an ironical sense: The “debate” turned into a free-for-all.

Okay … so what’s ironic about progressive Democrats? Is the Projo insinuating that those who have used the budget process in recent years to make their case about tax reform are, in fact, not progressive?

To me, it smacks of media bias. Does anyone think the Providence Journal would ever put the word conservative in scare quotes to describe far-right Republicans? The local paper of record might be more inclined to capitalize the word rather than do that.

Like I said, Phil Marcelo is a great reporter and when I’ve questioned his reporting in the past he’s always been able to back it up. I’d love to hear either from him or an editor, though I understand the Journal has a longstanding policy not to comment on its journalism.  If you’d like to do so, please use the comment section below.

UPDATE: Marcelo declined to comment.