Speak Out California! - Weblog: Progressivism

WEBLOG: Progressivism

Participating in the great conversation around defining progressivism in the 21st century.

Sisters of St. Joseph and Hospital Workers

July 29, 2008

So many of us have a hard time living up to our own values. Here is a story of one example.

The Sisters of St. Joseph have a proud history of fighting for human rights and human dignity and improvement of conditions for working people. But like so many progressives -- and people in general -- the Sisters of St. Joseph appear to be having trouble living up to these values when they apply to themselves.

A few days ago Julia Rosen wrote a Calitics post titled, Sisters of St. Josephs it's time to make peace with your workers. I urge readers here to go read that post. Julia writes,

It is a dirty little secret, but often times the more virulently anti-union employers are religious orders that run health systems. Such is the situation with the Sisters of St. Joseph who run the St. Joseph Health System. They have been resisting the efforts of their service employees to join SEIU-UHW for the past three years.

And at Huffington Post Delores Huertes has a post titled, Together We Marched in Solidarity. I also urge readers to click through and read it. She begins,

This week I'm joining St. Joseph Health System workers, Attorney General Jerry Brown, Father Eugene Boyle, actor Ed Begley Jr, and community and religious leaders to call upon the Sisters of St. Joseph of Orange to make peace with their workers.

next she makes the important point,

For decades, the Sisters of St. Joseph of Orange have fought for justice for California's workers. In the summer of 1973, they marched in solidarity with Cesar Chavez and farm workers during the brutal Grape Strike. I witnessed the Sisters putting their personal safety at risk. They walked picket lines and even went to jail with more than 3500 striking farm workers. I was inspired by the Sisters' commitment to stand with the farm workers, even in the face of violent provocation.

Yes, it appears that the Sisters of St. Joseph are ready to stand by workers, walk pickets lines, and fight for the rights of workers. But this time they are holding back when it involves their own workers. Huertes continues,

Over the last three years, workers in the St. Joseph Health System (SJHS) who care for the sick and vulnerable in our community, have been working to form a union with S.E.I.U. -- United Healthcare Workers West (UHW) so they can have a real say in the decisions that affect their patients, their families and themselves.

But the Sisters, who founded and hold majority control of the Board of SJHS, a $3.5 billion system of hospitals and clinics, sadly are using heavy-handed tactics similar to those used by other major corporations to deny workers a free choice about whether to form a union. SJHS workers have told me directly, that the SJHS management is fighting their efforts and violating federal labor law by threatening union supporters with arrest and job loss - and denying them free speech. Public records show that SJHS has hired some of the most notorious union-busting firms to fight their employees. Meanwhile, government officials have cited SJHS for violating its employees' basic labor rights, including illegally firing, spying on, and intimidating workers who want to form a union. These heavy-handed tactics leave workers feeling threatened, intimidated and disregarded.

While looking into this I came across a December, 2007 article at the Catholic News Agency, Catholic health workers’ effort to unionize could crowd out Catholics. Please read to article to learn about the subtexts of this unionization battle. From the story,

A political activist in Sacramento [. . .] said the UHW takeover would be a “done deal” if the employees’ demand for a fair election agreement were met.

If you read the story it is clear that the activist mentioned is very much against unionization and supports the Sisters' efforts to keep the workers from having a unionization vote. But if allowing a vote for a union means that a union is "a done deal" then it means the workers want a union.

Any way you look at it, it is a shame that the Sisters are trying to keep their workers from voting on whether to have a union. The Sisters need to understand that they are role models for their community. They were positive role models standing up for their values when they supported the farmworkers. They can again be positive role models by showing that even when it affects their own interests they are willing to stand by their values and support worker rights and human rights.

It is time that the Sisters of Saint Joseph allow their workers to vote on whether they want a union.

Posted by Dave Johnson - Comments (0) - TrackBack (0)

Netroots Nation Report

July 24, 2008

I thought our readers might like to get an insight into how last week's annual Netroots Nation convention went, and how it keeps the blogging world energized. Here is an inside look at the event. ('Netroots' stands for the online, networked, "bottom-up" grassroots of democracy.)

First of all, Austin is like a big, very very very very very very hot Santa Cruz. The daily high temperature was between 96 and 104 each day I was there. The convention facilities were great, and are located right downtown, surrounded by restaurants and the entertainment district. The hotel was next door to the convention center with several other hotels nearby. It's also near Austin's famous "bat bridge" from under which hundreds of thousands of bats emerge each day just after sunset.

Two thousand people attended the Thursday through Sunday event. The crowd and speakers were much more diverse than previous years. This is a gathering of all ages and demographic groups, centered around the progressive blogs.

Netroots Nation used to be called YearlyKos. This event sprang up from the large community that had grown up around the DailyKos website, but the gathering itself is a larger Netroots gathering not just associated with that particular site. Hence the change to Netroots Nation.

The first day, Thursday, was set aside for caucuses. There was a labor caucus which really wish I could have attended. There were a few state caucuses. There were caucuses like Native American and GLBTQ, and even a Geek caucus. There were caucuses for websites like MyDD and Firedoglake.

The evening Keynote on that first day was Governor Howard Dean, Chairman of the Democratic Party, introduced by General Wesley Clark.

Friday the panels and workshops started. Friday and Saturday were arranged with two panel slots before lunch and two after. Each of those slots had THIRTEEN different panels to choose from! And of course everyone wanted to attend at least tow, more likely four of those at any given time. For an idea of what one of these panels was link, here is the description of The Next President and the Law:

Fri, 07/18/2008 - 9:00am, Exhibit Hall 4

A new Democratic president will take office on January 20, 2009, facing a federal judiciary stacked with Republican appointees in 20 of the last 28 years, and a Department of Justice that has been more tied to the President’s policy interests than the impartial enforcement of law. What should the next president do with the courts? What should the priorities be for his attorney general? What legislative initiatives are needed to restore fair access to the courts?
PANELISTS: Cass Sunstein, John Dean, Adam Bonin, Michael Waldman

There were thirteen sessions like this to choose from at 9am, then thirteen more at 10:30am. Then for lunch Markos of DailyKos and former Senator Harold Ford, now head of the right-leaning DLC, had a discussion on stage. I wrote about this at my personal blog, in the post, Harold Ford at Netroots Nation on FISA:

Harold Ford and Markos held a discussion on stage at lunch here at Netroots Nation. I didn't catch all of it, but at one point Ford was talking about FISA and telecom immunity, along the lines of "If you have a company, and the government comes to you and says 'If you do this for us it will help national security' then what can you say?"

I'll tell you what you can say. You can say, "DO YOU HAVE A WARRANT?"

Then two more groups of thirteen panels at 1:30pm and 3pm, with an evening "Netroots Candidates Event" where what seemed to be fifty candidates for office around the country who the netroots are supporting were introduced. (I spotted Pete McCloskey at this event. McCloskey was a California Congressman who ran against Richard Nixon in the 1972 Republican primaries, and who co-founded Earth Day.)

And then there were the parties... Parties and parties. There were lots of parties. And there were parties.

Saturday kicked off with "Ask the Speaker". Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was on stage taking questions that had been solicited in advance from blogs all around the web, as well as live questions from people attending. Then there was a surprise. One of the questions that came over the speakers was from Al Gore! And Gore walked onto the stage to give a brief talk about climate change and the nature of our politics, and took questions as well as Speaker Pelosi.

Then more panels ... The lunch keynote was Lawrence Lessig who talked about the destructive nature of money in politics -- whenever money is involved you can't trust the results, just like with medical research funded by pharmaceutical companies. So of course you can't trust money in politics.

Then more panels. I put on a workshop titled, "Blogging and the New Green Economy," described as follows,

This workshop will discuss how bloggers can support and organize around the efforts of environmental justice activists, union leaders and city government officials to help create a new green economy.

(Last year I put on two major sessions and participated in three other panels, and the year before i was also involved with several. So just doing this one was a relief.)

Saturday wrapped up with a keynote speech by Rep. Donna Edwards. This is significant because the Netroots supported Edwards in a primary race against another Democrat who was supporting a corporate agenda. She won, and it has sent a signal to other Democrats that they can start to change their behavior. And now the SEIU and others are planning to run at least ten primary challenges in the next round of Congressional elections. This is a very important development which I wrote about in my post SEIU's Accountability Project -- Making Politicians Do The Right Thing. I wrote,

First, it finally gives politicians whose hearts are with us a reason to vote with us. Second, it tells politicians who don't agree with a progressive agenda (of reducing corporate power over our lives and restoring democracy to the people) that their time is past, that we will run candidates against them in the primaries and these candidates will have strong support.

Then there were parties. And more parties. Lots of parties.

And parties.

Finally, Sunday began with a multi-faith service led by "Pastor Dan" who posts at the DailyKos-associated blog Street Prophets. Following that the keynote speaker Van Jones was introduced by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom. Newsom was great but Van Jones gave a memorable talk that will be available in video online soon.

A tremendous amount of networking happens at this event. I once called it the largest gathering of people who know each other but have never met. It is events like this one and the Take Back America conference where a new progressive movement is being built. One this that was significant this year was the exhibits, where organizations involved with the Netroots have booths to show off what they are up to. There were quite a number of these this year, which shows that an ecosystem is starting to develop.

Someone caught a photo of me speaking to the California Caucus:

(That's a really bad shot of CA-46 Congressional candidate Debra Cook in the front.)

There are several blogs (here, here) and diaries at DailyKos with pictures, (here, here, here, here), and a Flickr album I located.

Posted by Dave Johnson - Comments (0) - TrackBack (0)

Failure to Support Progressive Movement Dooms Another Organization

May 19, 2008

This is a guest post by Dr. Katherine Forrest, Co-Founder of the Commonweal Institute. It originally appeared at the Commonweal Institute Blog.

The Rockridge Institute wasn't the only progressive infrastructure organization that folded this spring. Another was the Center for Policy Alternatives , which shut down in April, 2008, after having been around for 32 years. CPA provided policy ideas for state governments, published an annual collection of policy recommendations, and trained future legislators. Like Rockridge, CPA's executive director, Tim McFeeley, stated in his final e-mailed message that a main reason for CPA's demise was the lack of support for infrastructure organizations among progressives.

Dealing with the need for ongoing support for their political movement's operations is a challenge that needs to be addressed successfully, regardless of whether modern "progressives" align themselves more closely with independents or liberals or any particular political party.

I know many people who call themselves progressive, and even more whose sentiments I would consider to be progressive. But VERY few recognize that ongoing support, year after year, not just at election time, will be needed to build and sustain a political movement that works for the things they care about. Fewer still act on that recognition.

This seems to be a blind spot for progressives. They exemplify two American traits--fixation on personality and lack of patience and perspective. Progressives keep looking for a messiah candidate who can lead them out of the wilderness, pumping their dollars into candidates and campaigns, while ignoring the need for continuing work on moving public opinion and building the progressive base between election cycles. Progressive funders, notably including many in large nonprofit foundations as well as individual political donors, tend to make grants for short-term efforts (seldom exceeding 2-3 years), after which they are eager to move on to some exciting new venture, rather than supporting long-term social change efforts that reasonably will take a decade or more to achieve.

Notably, some working with disadvantaged communities are talking about how to do fundraising to "resource the social justice movement." We can only hope that movement awareness spreads to encompass other issue areas, instead of remaining limited to social justice. After all, we're all in it together--across the board, people have economic, housing, legal, environmental, educational, medical, and transportation needs--and that list just scratches the surface.

A progressive movement is what we need, and that movement needs SUPPORT. Too bad it didn't come in time to save Rockridge Institute and Center for Policy Alternatives.

Posted by Dave Johnson - Comments (0) - TrackBack (0)

Why Building Progressive Infrastructure Matters So Much

April 22, 2008

On the same day that Barack Obama raised one million dollars in one minute for his campaign George Lakoff's Rockridge Institute announced that they will be closing their doors.

In the comments at the OpenLeft blog post, The Rockridge Era Ends, Paul Rosenberg wrote,

As If We Needed Any More Proof That Democrats STILL Don't Get It!
This is really terrible news--not just because of the loss of Rockridge, as if that wasn't bad enough, but because it shows so clearly that there is NO recognition of the need to build progressive infrastructure.

Just look at how many millions have been raised by the Presidential campaigns this cycle. And just a tiny fraction of it could have not just kept Rockridge afloat, but DOUBLED it in size. ...

I want to say this about that:

Donating a dollar to a progressive infrastructure organization like Speak Out California today is like giving ten dollars to EACH progressive candidate in every local, state and nation race this November, two years later, and every election following.

Let me explain what I mean. Progressive infrastructure organizations like Speak Out California and Commonweal Institute and information outlets like California Progress Report and Calitics are working to help the public understand and appreciate what progressives are about. By explaining the benefits of a progressive approach they help build public acceptance of and demand for progressive policies and candidates -- across the board. As more people understand why progressive solutions benefit them more than conservative proposals, they develop a lasting positive identification with the progressive "brand." Then later, during the election cycle, they vote for progressive candidates -- across the board.

This is how the conservatives have been so successful. They work year-round to convince people to identify as conservatives. (You've probably complained or heard people complain that that have managed to turn "liberal" into a bad word in people's minds.) When election time comes around it's as though all that their candidates have to do is point at the opponent and shout "liberal" to win. They ride a wave of nationally-advanced propaganda convincing people to support "tort reform" or "tax relief." This has been going on for years, so at election time everything is laid out for them on a silver platter, with the public prepared and primed.

Progressive candidates, on the other hand, are generally on their own, starting from scratch for each election. Their general campaign begins in the late summer or fall, they have to decide what "issues" to run on, they have to develop a message from scratch, by themselves, and then they have to reach their voters from scratch. And they have to do all of this on their own in just a few months. No wonder conservatives, even with their awful "you're on your own" philosophy, have managed to do so well and gain so much traction.

This is why building up a national progressive advocacy infrastructure would leverage all of those campaign donations and help us build a sustainable progressive majority. A few dollars to progressive advocacy organizations on any given TODAY builds long-term support for every progressive candidate on any given TOMORROW. It provides leverage -- lowering the need for massive election-cycle funding.

The demise of Rockridge Institute demonstrates that the Democratic Party donor base hasn't yet gotten that message. Instead, masses of money have to be raised for candidates at the very last minute -- for example a million dollars in one minute, the day before the big Pennsylvania primary. And almost all of that money will just literally go up in the air to pay for TV ads that leave nothing behind to show for the money. They don't build the brand, they don't tell people about the benefits of progressive ideas, they don't help other candidates... But almost nothing for the Rockridges and Speak Out California's and Commonweal Institutes.

Please think about donating to help build a solid progressive infrastructure of organizations that will work year-round to help the public understand why progressive policies and candidate are better for them than the conservative solutions. This will help build a sustainable progressive majority in America. Please help these organizations grow. It's about building a progressive ecosystem that benefits all of us.

Posted by Dave Johnson - Comments (0) - TrackBack (0)

Take Back America - Wednesday -- Where From Here?

March 19, 2008

I am at the Take Back America conference in Washington DC. Several panelists at Take Back America have pointed out that things seem to look favorable for progressives in this election year. People are rejecting Bush, the Iraq war, the effects of conservative economics and a list of other failures of conservatism.

But this does not necessarily mean that the public is turning to progressives. Turning away from something bad is a different thing from choosing to turn toward something else. Even if we do Take Back America in this election there is no foundation yet for holding on to it.

Good things are happening. There is a lot of new energy in the developing progressive movement. New organizations are forming. Thousands upon thousands of young people are getting involved. Conferences like this are connecting progressives from around the country.

But progressives have not yet started reaching the general public to promote the benefits to them of a progressive approach to solving our country’s problems. Until this become a regular component of the progressive movement we risk losing this momentum.

Posted by Dave Johnson - Comments (0) - TrackBack (0)

Take Back America - Tuesday

March 18, 2008

I am at the Take Back America conference in Washington DC. This is an annual gathering of a couple of thousand progressives. You see lots of familiar names and faces here, people you see on TV and in magazines. Just five minutes ago I was saying "Hi" to Arianna Huffington. Earlier today I said Hi to Jesse Jackson...

I was thinking about why people do this. I don't mean the overnight flight with a three-hour layover in Atlanta. (But really, why did I do that?)

I mean, being a progressive is not a big-money gig. So I am attending these great panel sessions and the speakers are very sharp, productive people, who speak very well, and who have dedicated their lives to helping other people. Yes, some make pretty good money, but nothing at all like they could make out there in the corporate world.

Trust me, nobody does this for the money.

I was watching one particularly good speaker yesterday. She was very good, very persuasive, interesting to listen to... and I thought, "I used to do this for products." Now I can't do this for products. Something inside of me will not let me.

It is about being a citizen. In a morning session today Taylor Branch was talking about lessons from the civil rights movement. One thing he said resonated with me. He said, "Citizens in a democracy are all supposed to have an equal share in that democracy, so we ought to act like it." We all have a duty, a responsibility to be involved in bettering our country, and to work to stop the wrongs we see.

That's why.

Posted by Dave Johnson - Comments (0) - TrackBack (0)

Political Suicide II

February 14, 2008

Earlier this week I wrote about how "conventional wisdom" says that politicians acknowledging reality and offering solutions that could actually fix the state's problems is considered "political suicide."

Here is something else that is considered political suicide: Acknowledging that undocumented residents live and work here and are members of our communities. But it is a fact. A lot of people have come across the country's borders and settled in California, especially across the southern border.

Economic conditions have forced people to come here to try to find work. This is something that each of us would do if the situation were reversed. Heck, if the financial crisis that we are reading about in the news continues we might be doing just that very soon.

It is especially dangerous for a candidate to acknowledge that undocumented residents drive on the state's roads and suggest that while we work out solutions to the documentation problem, we test and license them so they can be insured. And so instead there are lots of unlicensed and therefore untrained, untested and uninsured people driving. This endangers all of us. But woe to the politician who actually tries to suggest realistic and workable ways to fix this.

Second to this on the political suicide scale is acknowledging that these undocumented residents are human beings, just like the rest of us.

The challenge here is to find solutions that fit our progressive value system. As progressives, we recognize and celebrate the humanity of every person. We don't ignore reality and we don't condone lawbreaking. We must look for practical, humane, innovative, equitable and democratic approaches to resolving these difficulties. We must always look for progress.

Posted by Dave Johnson - Comments (1) - TrackBack (1)

The Public Interest

January 29, 2008

Whatever happened to the concept of "the public interest?" What about "the common good?"

In 1961 John F. Kennedy said in his inaugural speech, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." This statement inspired an entire generation to dedicate themselves to public service or other pursuits that helped the public-at-large ahead of narrower, selfish interests. And they thought that was a good thing to do with their lives, not a foolish waste of their time.

Many today would scoff at that notion. In the decades since JFK's call to public service the idea of government as a force for good has been severely denigrated. For so many years conservatives and business interests have been getting their message out, trying to convince us that people should be selfish -- that they shouldn't care about others because it is up to each person to take care of themselves. They say that we are not our brother or sister's keeper, that each person should be responsible only for themselves.

But there are some basic facts and realities that get in the way of conservative philosophy.

A Budget Shock Attack

January 15, 2008

California is said to be having a budget "crisis." Last week the Governor signed an emergency proclamation forcing the legislature to meet and act on the budget within forty-five days.

"Crisis" and "emergency" are serious words, and the public is upset about hearing them. This is, of course, the intent of those using the words -- to get the public upset and demanding action. When people are shocked and worried they will accept solutions that might not be what they would accept if they had time to think, consider all reasonable alternatives and weigh all the consequences. In an "emergency" the public just wants the problem solved. (This is a "Shock Doctrine" approach.)

So having created a crisis atmosphere the Governor is asking for "across the board" cuts in state government spending. This is a tactic that let's him avoid specifying any particular cuts. The reason the Governor does not want to specify any particular spending cuts is because people will realize that such cuts are not a good idea.

Asking for cuts "across the board" sounds so fair. But not specifying also means not prioritizing. By setting no priorities for spending cuts the Governor is saying that one area of spending matters to him no more than another.

Let's be clear about what the Governor is doing. He is cutting police and other law enforcement and public safety. He is cutting schools -- when California already is 43rd in spending per pupil. He is letting prisoners out onto the streets. He is cutting disaster assistance. He is letting roads and bridges deteriorate. That is what government spending is -- and we are who it is for.

Will California's leader lead in 2008?

January 01, 2008

As the post-mortems continue to characterize the year just past and prognosticators speculate on what will be the year to come, it is clear that California is in for a bumpy ride over the next several months, if not years. With a projected $14 Billion short-fall (with many estimating the number may reach much higher), there is no question that the times call for some courageous leadership. But in today's political world, where cynics and superficial pundits abound, it is difficult for real leadership to emerge and be given the space to articulate and implement that necessary vision, courage and know-how to make the necessary changes we desperately seek and need.

Commentators proclaim that little was accomplished in the year past---no major health care reform, no real water policy emerged to deal with our state's chronic but moving toward acute problem, little real movement to develop a massive but necessary investment in transportation infrastructure, including our roads, bridges, ports or public transit, sewer systems, schools, etc. The bottom line is: we haven't seriously or effectively addressed these needs. Our massive prison system is crumbling under its own weight, while federal judges determine whether we are complying with basic legal and human rights while we warehouse more and more people and spend greater and more scarce resources in doing so.

There are many who study our state's political institutions and systems and declare the state ungovernable, observing that we are too dependent on special interests who fund campaigns; suffer from public initiatives generated from out-of-state business or ideological interests who are using our state as a guinea-pig; a tax system that is arcane and heavily-weighted in one direction or another. Also factored in is simply the massiveness of our state, with one out of every eight Americans living within our borders. So where is the leadership to deal with all this?

And A Progressive New Year!

December 23, 2007

This is the final Speak Out California post for 2007. We're taking the rest of the year off to celebrate all that we have to be thankful for. And we wish everyone a healthy, prosperous and progressive year ahead!

2007 has been an ... uh, interesting ... year for progressives. There was...progress (sorry - a little progressive humor for the holidays,) and there was disappointment. At the very least I think we all have a better understanding of the effort that will be required to restore our vision of progressive, citizen-oriented policies in the state and country. While recent elections have shown clearly what the people want, overcoming the corporate-backed conservative stranglehold on our political process is an ongoing struggle.

In the coming year progressives can expect a tough election season. Progressives have the people, the right ideas and policies, along with truth, justice and the American Way on their side.

Yes, but how do they do it with a straight face?

December 20, 2007

The fact that the U.S. EPA refused to grant California a waiver so we can initiate our own air emissions standards is really no surprise to anyone who has watched this administration ignore science, our legal system, common sense and the Constitution. Whether waterboarding, abstinence only education, refusing to fund "No Child Left Behind", illegally issuing wire taps without court order, or refusing to honor validly issued subpoena from Congress (to name only a very few of this administration's scofflaw attitude), it is the audacity and mendacity that is so astonishing. It makes one wonder whether the right-wing extremist P.R. firms have a class in how to lie with a straight face, perhaps calling it something like "How stupid do we think the American people really are?"

The chutzpah is endless---with the President today in his own press conference exemplifying it with astonishing ease. But the lack of embarassment or apology is what really takes the cake. And when EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson claimed that the reason for the waiver denials is that and I quote here: "The Bush administration is moving forward with a clear national solution, not a confusing patchwork of state rules." , that really takes the cake.
A clear national solution??? Nothing clear about said solution. Nothing national about it. And in fact, no solution identified either. Besides which, Bush doesn't even believe in global warming. Is it a "national solution" of denial or just plain old deception that this administration is trying to foist on a not-so-unsuspecting public?

IS Greed Good?

October 23, 2007

"Greed is good." That line from the 1987 film Wall Street shocked the country with its blatant articulation of the 1980s-era Reagan philosophy of greed. Twenty years ago it was still a shock to civilized people to hear such a vulgar statement promoting self-interest over community. From the movie,

The point is, ladies and gentlemen, that: Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right; greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms, greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge - has marked the upward surge of mankind and greed, you mark my words - will not only save Teldar Paper but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA.

Greed used to be considered one of the "seven deadly sins." Religions warn against its harmful effects on people and the greater community. Buddhism warns that greed is one of the three poisons. W.Jay Wood wrote in Christianity Today,

Greed is an inappropriate attitude toward things of value, built on the mistaken judgment that my well-being is tied to the sum of my possessions....Greed alienates us from God, from our neighbor, and from our true self.

But twenty years after being shocked by the promotion of a "Greed is good" philosophy much of the public instead buys into the consumer culture of greed and self-interest over public-interest. How has this change come about?

Things Change When We Realize WE Are the Government

October 11, 2007

Have you ever heard the song that goes, "This land is your land, this land is my land, this land was made for you and me"? The lyrics to this song make the point that the United States belongs to you, and that you are the government.

The Constitution of the United States and of the State of California begin with the words, "We, the People..." because here the people are the government. And it is time we all realized it.

Last week I wrote about the way we think about our government.

Ronald Reagan liked to say "Government is the problem, not the solution" and, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help.' " ... [But] the Constitutions of the United States of America and of the state of California both begin with the words, "We the people." So "we, the people" are the government. ...When you think about it this way, it makes the things Ronald Reagan said sound contradictory. How can we, the people be the problem? How can it be scary that we, the people are here to help each other?

Our government is US working together to take care of each other. This is a monumental shift in the way many of us have come to think about our relationship with our government. Government is not some "them" out there, like the conservatives want you to think - government is you, and me, and all of us in this together, for each other.

Do Taxes 'Hurt'? Is Government Bad?

October 04, 2007

As I read my Monday morning (Oct. 1, 2007) San Jose Mercury News a headline jumped out at me: "Cigarette tax would hurt poor".

How often do we hear that taxes "hurt" or "punish" one group or another? How often do we hear that taxes are a "burden on the economy" or "cost jobs?" How many politicians talk about providing "tax relief?"

George Lakoff, of the Rockridge Institute writes that this language "frames" taxes as an affliction:

For there to be "relief" there must be an affliction, an afflicted party harmed by the affliction, and a reliever who takes the affliction away and is therefore a hero. And if anybody tries to stop the reliever, he's a villain wanting the suffering to go on. Add "tax" to the mix and you have a metaphorical frame: Taxation as an affliction, the taxpayer as the afflicted party, the president as the hero, and [people who believe in government] as the villains.

This anti-tax rhetoric results from an anti-government worldview that is pushed by conservatives, in which they portray our government as some kind of enemy of the public. Ronald Reagan is famous for sayings like, "Government is the problem, not the solution" and, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.' " The constant use of negative framing like this to describe government and taxes leads regular people to think about their government as a negative, malevolent force. We have been hearing this drumbeat for so long, and with so little pushback to counter these ideas, that many people just accept that this is the way it is.

But are taxes really an affliction? Is government really a negative force in society? Let's step back from the affliction frame for a second and take a different look at the idea of taxes and government.

If I had a hammer---nostalgia with the great PP&M

September 18, 2007

For those of us who remember the 60's (and yes, there are some of us who lived through them and still remember), it was a night to wax nostalgic and hopeful. Last evening, I had the pleasure of listening to Peter and Paul (two-thirds of the great Peter, Paul & Mary trio) talk and sing about what it has meant for them and still means for them, to sing about justice, freedom and a love between their brothers and sisters all over the land. They were in Santa Barbara, my home town, to receive the prestigious Nuclear Age Peace Foundation's Distinguished Peace Leadership Award.

The award is presented annually to individuals who have "demonstrated courageous leadership in the cause of peace." To put this award in context, some of its prior recipients include: Dr. Helen Caldicott, Dr. Carl Sagan, His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Walter Cronkite, Anne and Paul Ehrilich and Daniel Elsberg (among others). Obviously, a pretty impressive group.

While Mary was, unfortunately, back home in Connecticut recovering from back surgery (having won her battle against a virulent form of leukemia as well ), Peter and Paul sang gallantly (clearly missing that magnificent Mary Travers sound). They talked of their life-long commitment to peace, social justice and community well-being.

In addition to those of us who remember them with full heads of hair, there were 120 young people in the audience---primarily college students, but some high school students who were selected as the next best hope to restore a sense of commitment to the principles that moved so many of us during our college years back when the Vietnam War and Civil Rights battles were raging in this country.

In that earlier era,we sang and danced to the Movement for political and social justice, peace in our time, brotherly and sisterly love and respect. We hoped for a better world that was comprised of these things, not material things. We dreamed about justice and goodness and love and kindness. The notion of dreaming for Versace, BMW's, 10,000 square foot mansions and diamonds were nowhere on our radar-screens or desires. We wanted peace, and a more just world for ourselves and all humankind.

It brought tears to the eyes of many of us as Peter Yarrow implored the youngsters in the audience to pursue these goals as our next generation of leaders. He and Paul (actually Noel Paul Stookey) spoke eloquently about these causes and their hopes that we can, yet again, regain our footing by pursuing a kinder, more peaceful planet.

Although partially immersed in the music and nostalgia, I couldn't help asking: "What has happened in our nation that we see our youngsters dancing to gangsta rap and other 'music' that glorifies killing and objectification of women? Why are our youngster's heroes packing heat along with their ostentatious gold and diamond jewelry? How is it that the nation's heroes today do not call for social justice or self-sacrifice or human kindness? Rather, they are admired and even worshiped for the number of cars, or girl-friends or houses they own.

Where are the young people crying out for social justice or marching against this illegal and hopelessly failed war? Why are we and they not calling for accountability by a White House that believes it is above the law? Why are we not challenging Bush and Chaney for their corrupt and destructive management of our environment, their criminal indifference to the poor who are living on the streets or in gang-infested communities where neither they nor their children are safe from violence? Where is the public outcry against corporate greed and irresponsibility in the pursuit of greater and greater wealth, to the detriment to our own workers?

Where are we on all this, Peter and Paul ask? We of the so-called "peace generation' demanding social justice, peace and the freedom to think and be who we are and want to become. We HAVE the hammer, we ARE the hammer....of justice, of freedom of love between our brothers and our sisters.......... We are at a cross-roads in our nation's history and in our own sense of purpose. There should be little doubt: It's time to bring that hammer back.

Posted by Hannah-Beth Jackson - Comments (1)

What Happened to the California Dream?

July 08, 2007

What Happened to the California Dream?- By Dave Johnson

How long have people been making fun of us left-coast tree-hugging, frisbee-tossing, granola-crunching, animal-loving, tofu-eating, yoga-practicing, peacenik eco-nuts?

The thing is, people are starting to realize that all of these ridiculed things are good for us-- and for the country and the planet. They are the right choices.

Sure, everyone had a good laugh. But it's a few years later now and the consequences of years of bad choices are catching up. People who mocked tofu-eaters and Frisbee-tossers are realizing they don't want to be fat and out of shape--some are even dying of heart attacks and diabetes. Granola and tofu are good for you, especially compared to the fast food, meat and white breat that were being eaten in their stead.

And what about the eco-nuts? They aren't looking all that nutty today, are they? The people who laughed about tree-hugging econ-nuts are spending $60 to fill their gas tanks and worryng about their coastal property values declining as the water rises. Meanwhile Californians are driving hybrids in proportions greater than the rest of the country. Who is laughing now?

Empowering California's Youth

June 26, 2007

From The Courage Campaign

Last week, I met a young woman, a high school student, at a Progressive Democrats of Santa Barbara event about "Empowering California's Youth." She was there because she'd just gotten a postcard from the army -- one that detailed all the benefits of enlisting in the army after graduating from high school. "Don't they know I'm college bound?!" she said, concerned that the army recruiters were working her high school too hard. "There's recruiters everywhere at school," she told me. She was so upset after getting that postcard that she decided to attend the Progressive Democrats event to hear about ways she could fight back against the military's recruitment machine.

She wasn't disappointed.

Take Back America coming up

May 30, 2007

Of all the emerging progressive infrastructure groups, the Campaign for America's Future has been on a tear lately. As we wrote about a few weeks back, they landed the brilliant Rick Perlstein, author of the mind-blowing history of Barry Goldwater at the dawn of movement conservatism, to cover conservative failures. (he's a busy, busy guy)

They've continued this trend of snapping up brilliant progressive writers by getting Bill Scher (of LiberalOasis and "Wait! Don't Move to Canada: A Stay-And-Fight Strategy to Win Back America") to take point on blogging for their upcoming conference.

The show is from June 18th to 20th and it is an incredible deal; in an age of ever-climbing conference fees they've managed to hold it down to $190 for three entire days of brain-melting progressive action. And it's in Washington DC - not the most affordable place for a junket, but far from the worst, too. New features this year include a bunch of self-organized, "unconference"-like sessions, which have proven to be some of the most interesting sessions at the last couple of events I've attended. I'm hoping to present some of the philosophical foundations work I've been hammering out at one of these.

Bill's blog is here and the main Take Back America conference site is here. If you can make it, this one's a good 'un.

Posted by Dan Ancona - Comments (0)

Will we learn to fund progressive infrastructure?

May 07, 2007

With Spring in full-bloom, I decided to do some spring cleaning this weekend and clean out the way-too-many saved emails I've been holding onto for some inexplicable reason and delete old internet "bookmarks" I haven't looked at for months (beats cleaning out closets). In doing so, I came across a number of wonderful and informative places that have actually closed up shop for lack of funding. Sadly, but not surprisingly, many of them are progressive sites which simply ran out of money. It's not that they were lacking for a solid readership. But readership alone doesn't keep a site going. It takes money and commitment by progressive groups and individuals to keep internet activism alive in California. Infrastructure is never cheap, although the internet is probably the best dollar-for-result-invested that political activism has seen so far.

We know that one of the right-wing's strategies has been to burn up progressive's financial resources by depleting our dollars while we try to fund safety-net programs that the government no longer supports. We're asked to contribute to so many worthy causes; to right injustice, to help the needy, protect the environment from corporate onslaught, etc. etc. The list goes on and on. And then there's trying to keep the progressive message and its critical infrastructure alive. Poltical internet sites know this only too well. Most of California's progressive sites continue pretty much on love and commitment to what we're doing.

This isn't a fundraising pitch for Speak Out California (although if it does move you to contribute to our site, we'd welcome it---all you have to do is click onto the header captioned "Donate " at the top of our home page.) We're not alone in our neverending need for support. Every day I get a request to donate to progressive sites like,Truthout, which serves as a sort of on-line clearinghouse for daily news and opinion of interest to the progressive community.

I know from talking with other California progressive websites that generate dialogue and information to California's ever-growing progressive community that they, too, are struggling to stay alive; that they are able to continue by dipping into their personal savings or doing other work in addition to maintaining their websites. They've tried advertising and fundraising on line. Not enough comes in to pay the bills and provide them with a living wage for their efforts.

Organizations that create internet sites as a secondary aspect to their mission -for example to provide information on their own activities are often able to fund their sites, but the goal of internet infrastructure is to provide independent information seen through a broader "progressive" lense. While different groups are doing important work, they tend to have a single or specific agenda- for example, Eco-Vote. This well-designed site is intended to provide information on the work and programs of the CLCV (California League of Conservation Voters) whereas the goal of progressive infrastructure is to articulate over-arching and fundamental values that extend to a broad range of issues and topics.

On the other side of the spectrum, the right-wing propaganda machines are functioning quite successfully. Why? Simply because wealthy right-wingers and big corporations understand and appreciate the importance of developing strong informational and opinion infrastructure on the internet. They're willing to put the money in to get their pro-business, anti-government message out wide and far. Their on-line networks get "advertising" at above-market rates or get large contributions from right-wing companies and individuals to keep going, broaden their networks and plug their agenda.

If we want to keep educating and informing progressives in California on the state's important comings-and-goings, continue a strong and pro-active voice for positive change, and combat the right-wing propaganda machines, we've got to see a greater commitment to funding these efforts.

The right-wing has always understood that love alone, will not win the day. It's about time the good guys realized that as well or our work and message will be just a faint whisper in California's internet political discourse.

Posted by Hannah-Beth Jackson - Comments (0)

Freedom smackdown part II: Andrew Sullivan edition

April 06, 2007

Maybe it's too mind bending to contemplate responding to Andrew Sullivan (a reasonably clear headed conservative) responding to David Brooks (a nearly completely muddle-headed one, at least most of the time), but this is a clear illustration of the rhetorical corner that both conservatives and some progressives have painted themselves into at this point.

There's two big problems here. Problem the first:

Ideas and consequences: the case for interdependence

March 20, 2007

Over at StreetProphets, PastorDan asks "Who is My Neighbor?" in relation to the ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) raids that have been happening all over the country - including many in California. Latina Lista broke some great coverage of the "privatized detention facilities" (maybe the three scariest words in the American lexicon right now) that families broken up by the raids are being placed in.

PastorDan's post includes a treatment of how birthright citizenship challenges the authoritarian familial structures favored by conservatives - and why they want that law changed. The whole article, and a lot of the pieces linked from it, are very much worth a read. But where it really gets interesting is this:

Seriousness

February 26, 2007

In Sunday's SF Chron, clever seeming anti-urbanist critic Joel Kotkin tells an increasingly familiar story about the tarnished reputation of the Golden State:

Our magnificent state may still be the home to Silicon Valley, Hollywood, the nation's largest port complex and the world's richest agricultural valleys, but by many critical measurements the state is slipping.

What are the problems, and how can we move forward through them? Is Mr Kotkin or anyone else in the state proposing serious solutions?

Obama and narrative

February 21, 2007

[Cross-posted at dailykos.]

Barack Obama's announcement speech was terrific. It had some genuinely spine-tingling moments; moments we haven't had in far too long, like where he stands tall against right wing scapegoating of immigrants and gay people. But about two thirds of the way through, he gets into the "Let us" section. There are 20 uses of the construction "let us..." packed into the next six paragraphs. This was the weakest part of the speech. It felt like an ordinary laundry list, like he stepped out of telling an otherwise compelling story for those few paragraphs.

Education, health care, support for unions, ending of poverty, energy independence - these are all great goals, these are my goals as a progressive. So why did this part feel so flat?

Engaging the Powers, Part I: Five Worldviews

January 28, 2007

[Cross-posted over at Street Prophets]

In his recent widely-discussed Call to Renewal speech, Senator Barack Obama dropped a throwaway reference to "powers and principalities"...

I believed and still believe in the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change, a power made real by some of the leaders here today. Because of its past, the black church understands in an intimate way the Biblical call to feed the hungry and cloth the naked and challenge powers and principalities.

This phrase may be unfamiliar, but it was deeply resonant for me because of a book that had a huge impact on both my own personal spirituality and my understanding of this historic-political moment, Walter Wink's 1992 Engaging the Powers. This is one of those books that you come across that just seems like it needs to be out there more. I've recommended it countless times, even bought copies of it for folks, but it is a heavy, serious read, grand in scope and meticulous in its details. There are 77 pages of footnotes and 9 single-spaced, 3 columned pages of biblical citations alone.

Because of this - and because I believe this book offers a progressive historical narrative that our movement is starving for...

Sallow Depressives on the march

January 11, 2007

Bob Salladay gets charming with the party activists yesterday:

For both parties, the honor of delegate status normally attracts sallow depressives who enjoy debating meaningless bylaws more than, say, interacting with human beings. In politically manic places such as San Francisco, people actually campaign and spend money to get the awful job.

Mr Salladay writes here as a spectator. It's fine to poke fun and god knows a lot of bloggers (including me, I'm sure) need it, but it's important to get the story right, too. And in this case, Mr Salladay (uncharacteristically) misses it. The degree of new energy being aimed at the party in this state over the past few weeks is unprecedented, even while it's a clear and linear continuation of processes that have been happening for at least four years now...

RootsCamp this weekend in SF

November 09, 2006

If you're in the Bay Area, this weekend from 10am on on both Saturday and Sunday, there's going to be a fun event for grassroots activists, RootsCamp...

Click on the logo for more details, but this is an "unconference," an ad-hoc, open schedule meeting where people get together and talk about whatever is on their minds, usually around a certain topic. The focus this time is going to be on grassroots activism. This one will be at the New Progressive Coalition offices in SOMA. I haven't had a day off in two months but I'll probably be there on Saturday at least. Click on the link for details and I hope to see you there!

Posted by Dan Ancona - Comments (0)

The Work We Have To Do

Cross-posted on Governor Phil

Tuesday's election results were not what we wanted. And electing Arnold Schwarzenegger over Phil Angelides will not move this state forward as a leader for the nation. This we know. What is less clear, and what we must sort through now, is why we got the results we did.

There will be a lot of theories as to what caused Phil's loss. Certainly there were a variety of factors, not the least of which is going up against a celebrity incumbent Governor who can summon an admiring gaggle of print and tv journalists with the snap of his fingers. But we also must confront the brutal facts of our own weaknesses, and the weaknesses of this campaign, if we want to learn anything from this experience and prepare for the fights ahead on the road to 2010.

At the top of the list for California progressives is figuring out the language and the narrative around taxes. We tried to push this on Governor Phil, but Phil's own website still invoked conservative frames of "tax relief" when discussing his economic plans. As this race showed, relentless anti-tax attacks are about the only thing left for Schwarzenegger-style Republicans to beat us on. It is very easy for them to steal all of our other progressive issues and win over Democrats (minimum wage, environment, education.) We can expect the next moderate Republican candidate, who I predict will be newly elected Insurance Commissioner Poizner, to follow this formula in the future.

It's the philosophy

October 08, 2006

Great article in the SF Chron today about the Republican party civil war that's just getting under way. The only thing it's missing is an identification of why exactly it is that their revolution is falling apart, which is that their governing philosophy never made any sense and still doesn't. Libertarian-anarchist extremist and conservative movement darling Grover Norquist's thoughts, charming as ever:

"I'm more radical than these idiots who are whining that we haven't gotten there fast enough," Norquist said. "I work every day trying to move the party and the government toward the more-freedom and lower-tax position. I know why things aren't moving faster -- because it's difficult."

(Emphasis added.) "More-feedom and lower-tax:" that is the essence of the problem. The American people simply do not agree with the relentless conservative obsession with the sole kind of freedom they care about, the freedom that comes from owning property. The vast majority of us like the freedom that comes from having education and opportunity available to everyone. We like the freedom that comes from security, whether it's related to retirement or the availability of high paying jobs or (we wish!) health care. Those freedoms are utterly incompatible with a relentless program of tax cuts and attempts to starve "the beast."

The Republicans have run into the problems they have not just because they're corrupt, which at this point they have carried beyond anyone's wildest imagining, but because it turns out that the people they represent really don't mind the beast. They don't think of it as a beast at all. The Republican revolution has failed because of the weakness of the underlying philosophy. The coming progressive revolution will no doubt find new and interesting ways to fail and falter, but it won't be because of the underlying philosophy.

People like Tony Blankley, Gingrich's former press secretary and now the editorial page director of the conservative Washington Times, are in denial:

"As much as I wish the Republican majority had controlled spending better, I don't have the slightest doubt that if the Democrats were in, particularly if they had a Democratic president, the spending would increase and the deficit would increase. So you're not going to gain anything."

What, like under Clinton? Look at the numbers, Mr Blankley. As Phil stated unequivocally in last night's debate: Bill Clinton showed us the way to run an economy and starving the "beast" has nothing to do with it. Lowering taxes and protecting the wealthy doesn't give anyone more freedom, it just turns our economy into a kleptocracy. It's time for this philosophy and its adherents to find new lines of work.

Posted by Dan Ancona - Comments (0)

Do more than vote

August 02, 2006

Congratulations to the Cosmopolity Do More Than Vote crew for throwing a kickin' event last night at 111 Minna in San Francisco. Nothing like a (packed!) room full of young people who care connecting with organizations and campaigns that need help to renew your faith in humanity. There is a whole lot of energy floating around for this cycle; the question now is whether we can convert it into effective tactics. (Stylish footwear courtesy of DMTV organizer Kelly Lange)

Posted by Dan Ancona - Comments (0)

How about the politics of passion, instead?

July 31, 2006

In today's NYT:

SANTA BARBARA, Calif. - Headed for what she called "conservative boot camp," Christina Pajak grabbed the essentials: dress sandals, her Bible and "The Politics of Prudence" by Russell Kirk, the celebrated writer who a half-century ago gave the conservative movement its name.

Reminder, there's a full progressive response to Kirk here and more on this topic in the progressivism topic on dkosopedia.

Posted by Dan Ancona - Comments (0)

Flashreport freedom smackdown

July 17, 2006

I'm in the process of reading George Lakoff's latest, Whose Freedom? The Battle Over America's Most Important Idea. It's great, and obviously something I've been thinking about a lot too. I'm only about a third of the way through, but so far Lakoff is taking a much different approach to understanding the conservative notion of freedom than I have. He's either being more charitable or more nuanced, or he's just flat out wrong.

My take on conservative freedom is that it all pretty much boils down to property rights, and Russell Kirk had it about right when he put it seventh out of ten and after a bunch of stuff about defending the moral order. This is what is behind the endless bellyaching about taxes we get from the conservative punditry: It's becauase they're just not really into any kind of freedom beyond that, whether you describe it as substantial freedom or FDR's four freedoms or cognitive liberty or whatever. And the reason the current occupant of the White House talks about it so much is pure Orwell: it's a pretty word and it sounds nice in speeches and hopefully no one will notice what a shallow mockery they're making of the concept in their actual policies...

More on the importance of labor

June 20, 2006

[As part of our ongoing coverage of labor issues, please consider this crosspost from UAW member and UC-Santa Barbara grad student Daraka-Larimore Hall, author of hoverbike. This can be a tough issue for some progressives, especially those of us that are new to the movement and that grew up under Reagan. But it's incredibly critical, not just for the success of our movement but for the day to day existence of so many Americans. Give it some thought. -da]

Let's get a few things straight. Labor is not a special interest. Unions are not anachronisms. The modern economy has not made worker's organizations obsolete. One would think that these would be uncontestable principles among progressives in the United States. Unfortunately, waning union strength, years of effective conservative propaganda, and the predominance of middle-class professionals in Democratic circles have conspired to make us somewhat forgetful of these basic truths.

Unions 101

June 13, 2006

There's an interesting, thoughtful and deeply researched post over at dkos today. It's a must read. The anti-union sentiment in the comments is a little disturbing, although it does seem to be mostly just kvetching. The simple fact is that there is no way to build a global economy that works for everyone without unions.

The left hasn't done such a great job of telling our economic story over the past few decades, but unionism is a natural and maybe even inevitable consequence of the rights to free speech and free assembly. It is a huge part of the story of the American economy. The legal and cultural barriers we have placed on forming unions in this country deeply impact those two substantial freedoms.

If you need an illustration of how this plays out in workers' day to day existence, read about the Wal-Mart workers that are practically forbidden from even talking to each other in Barbara Ehrenreich's Nickel and Dimed. Are there unions that need their gates crashed? Sure, but the solution to fixing any democratic institution that needs help is never to just walk away and give up. Individual organizations are different - sometimes those need to be given up on and rebuilt from scratch. But democratic institutions like parties and unions need to be treated with a greater level of respect.

This comment in the thread, with the usual poorly-reasoned anti-union litany of excuses certainly sounded familiar. I heard all of these and more (they forgot "whining about coercion") while trying to organize UC tech workers for UPTE. I think the eventual route to organizing techies may be more along the lines of a workplace democracy kind of movement, which a lot of workplaces are moving towards anyway since the limitations of the worker/management model are constantly getting more obvious.

While on the subject of thoughtful dkos posts, the last two foundations diaries of mine got picked up in the front page "diary rescues" like this one, which resulted in some interesting discussion, especially for the response to Russel Kirk one. Commenters there asked both for a more summarized form as well as elaboration, and I'll be trying to provide both very soon.

Posted by Dan Ancona - Comments (0)

Foundations III: Ten progressive principles, a response to Russel Kirk

June 08, 2006

With the roots of the philosophy of progressivism - interdependence and expanding substantial freedom - covered now in slightly more detail, here's a first take on a full progressive response to Russell Kirk's Ten Conservative Principles that dates originally back to 1957, the hazy dawn of movement conservativism.

Being neither a religion nor an ideology, the body of opinion termed conservatism possesses no Holy Writ and no Das Kapital to provide dogmata. So far as it is possible to determine what conservatives believe, the first principles of the conservative persuasion are derived from what leading conservative writers and public men have professed during the past two centuries.

The ideology dodge here is a little bit of a funny tactic. Kirk protesteth a bit too much and he returns to it again and again. Don't look behind the curtain, there's no idelogy here! But there's more:

WineCamp wrap

May 30, 2006

A quick break from directly campaign related news...

Jen and I went to a campout event, WineCamp Calaveras, this past weekend. This was a lightly structured "unconference" that you can read more about here, but the basic gist is that you get a group of people together for a weekend, feed them, and let them make up their own agenda for what they want to talk about. In this case, an enormous quantity of really spectacular wine was involved, too. There are tons of pictures tagged on flickr. Click for more...

Foundations II: substantial freedom

May 20, 2006

"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every from of tyranny over the mind of man."
-Thomas Jefferson

One of the most destructive legacies of the conservative movement is the diminishing they have inflicted on the concept of freedom. This seems counterintuitive, perhaps, but all the relentless yammering that emanates from conservatives about freedom is perhaps a signal of their weakness on this issue, one of fundamental and historical importance to the American project.

Since the beginning of the conservative movement, the conservative conception of freedom has been intimately and intrinsically tied up with property rights, almost to the point of excluding anything else. This goes back all the way to Russell Kirk: "...conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked" is one of his ten principles, and the only mention of freedom throughout his ten conservatives principles.

One of the obvious attributes of the idea of freedom that this misses is its incredible breadth. True freedom goes far, far beyond just the connection to property, or stuff. The connection between stuff and true freedom is even tenuous since we don't just own our stuff, our stuff owns us as well. Who is more free: the apostle who owns nothing and lives in an intentional community, or the typical American, surrounded by the amazing output of our consumer economy, but saddled with levels of debt not seen since feudal Europe?

There may be no answer to this question, but conservative thought would have us believe the answer is definitely the latter...

What would you do?

May 07, 2006

Some of the more substantive of the points brought up in the discussion in the comments recently is this issue of legality. It's an important issue so I'm going to address it up here and try to keep the conversation going.

The first thing to keep in mind is the difference between morality and legality. I have a hunch that those who posted probably have a love for law and order that only extends so far, and maybe wouldn't include issues with a President who has decided to ignore 750 someodd laws over the past six years. There is an imperfect overlap between what is moral and what is legal. Take the civil disobedience during the first civil rights movement: illegal acts, but not immoral ones, although there were certainly those who disagreed with their morality at the time.

But beyond that, there's a simple but important question that has to be considered in thinking about this issue...

Foundations: interdependence

May 03, 2006

[Crossposted on dailykos]

About a year ago, I came across a couple of references to conservative thinker Russell Kirk. His ten conservative principles, first published in 1957 and last updated in 1993, was reportedly a great influence on the thinking of Barry Goldwater and others at the dawn of movement conservativism.

Apparently, no one on our side ever wrote a response. I'd like to be proven wrong, but if someone did, it isn't showing up on google.

I've drafted the first part of such a response, a ten progressive principles approach that answers Kirk point by point. But I want to start with just one principle...

Infighting? Not now!

April 26, 2006

Local San Francisco politics is just a fat, juicy target; to paraphrase Steve Lopez, this state is a target rich environment for those engaging in political commentary, and SF is no different. I've been trying to avoid writing too much on it to stay focused on statewide issues.

But this week's Tim Redmond column in the Guardian is stupid for so many reasons I just can't help it. Hopefully there is an instructive lesson on how we either are or are not going to connect the progressive movement with the political system in this country or not in here somewhere.

Mr Redmond suggests that local Green Matt Gonazalez run for Congress, against Rep Nancy Pelosi. Somehow Mr Redmond seems to not get that Representative Pelosi is the Minority Party Leader of the United States Congress, i.e. she is the head of all the Democrats in the entire Congress. Suppose that in some display of collective insanity by the voters of this district, Matt Gonzalez did happen to get past her. How much power would he have? And would we really want to take our chances with whoever would succeed as minority leader in such a case? It certainly wouldn't be Gonzales, even if he switched to Democratic after getting elected - not ever, not in a million years.

Mr Redmond's little one sided list of things she's done wrong, like the (limited) privatization of the Presidio (which has actually turned out pretty well, from a land use perspective), seems pretty trivial compared to the overall picture. I share Mr Redmond's disagreement with the Congresswoman on Iraq (the one nontrivial issue), but at the same time, she was lied to by the Bush administration with more even more intensity and frequency than we were. I'd like to think I'd have been able to fight back more vigorously against the onslaught of propaganda they were hurling at people, but without walking a mile in her shoes, who really knows.

As to the charges of her venality, it's a bit of a cheap shot, but I think we're all all too familiar with what happens when the cheap shots don't get volleyed. Perhaps Mr Redmond could give the Lord of the Rings trilogy another read or viewing. Power is difficult, and the closer you are to Mt. Doom, the heavier the ring gets. Rep Pelosi has done an admirable job keeping the caucus together in the face of overwhelming odds. It's not the kind of work that gets her in the paper that often, but she should be respected for it anway, and Mr Redmond should know better.

My advice to Mr Redmond and Mr Gonzalez: take every second of time and every penny you were thinking of investing in fighting a woman who is one of your most powerful allies, and focus it somewhere it is really needed. It isn't like we're hurting for actual enemies. This election cycle is going to be another epic battle. For either Mr Redmond or Mr Gonzalez to be even considering infighting now is criminally asinine. Some day the conversation in this country might be between Greens and Democrats, but we're never going to get there if we don't stay focused. Now is the time to do everything we can to make Representative Pelosi the Majority leader, not waste our time and scarce resources with ridiculous infighting.

Posted by Dan Ancona - Comments (2)

Immigration and "something d-o-o" economics

April 04, 2006

A bedrock fact to keep in mind during the immigration debate is where the public is at on this issue, and that it isn't where the far right would have you think it is. A truly astonishing percentage of American voters support progressive immigration policies when they're compared with conservative ones. 79% favor earned paths to citizenship for people who come to this country to work. The National Immigration Forum has aggregated a bunch of data on this.

This data seems almost shocking because, as usual, the tone of the debate is being set by a few hard-right sources with incredible amount of media reach and impact. But in this case, the distance between the bloviating ideologues and both the mainstream of American opinion and the leadership of their party is a lot farther to travel than usual. The RNC and President Bush both did amazing outreach to Latinos in the 2004 and they appear absolutely serious about delivering the goods to this group of voters.

One topic that has been almost completely missing from this debate - Jimmy Smits character on the West Wing was the closest thing to a politician to mention this in public - is what the root economic causes of immigration are, and how we can address those. Remember back in the 90s, when one of the original selling points of NAFTA was that it would decrease immigration pressure? Obviously that hasn't worked out. The questions now are why, and what we can do to fix it.

More on Battle Cry

March 29, 2006

David Batstone, in this issue of Sojourner's Sojourner email newsletter (which incidentally I think is probably the best email newsletter out there) covers some of the same territory I did in talking about Battle Cry. But he falls right into the trap of moralizing about content that I was trying to avoid...

The emerging progressive landscape

March 25, 2006

There have been some notable recent organizational additions to the parts of the blogosphere's California neighborhood. This is exciting stuff for a lot of reasons, but two are that it's finally starting to feel like a movement, and that these sites are of outrageously high quality. Here's a quick wrap up of three of them:

Caliitics is a community weblog site built using the same website software (called scoop) as dailykos. Getting this software up and keeping it running is a nontrivial technical task, and they just got a seriously hot redesign.
PLAN For decades, the right has used a shadowy corporate funded organization called ALEC to move a conservative, market fundamentalist agenda at a statewide level. ALEC is one of those quietly poweful organizations with enormous influence that has run ciricles around progressives by getting corporations to write "model" legislation and then moving it through conservative state assemblymembers and senators. PLAN, the Progressive Legislative Action Network, is our answer to that. They have a terrific site and a great blog for keeping up with what's going on at the statewide level across the country.
California Progess Report A news site for progressives, this is our side's an answer to the conservative, CA focused flashreport. Outstanding design (much nicer than flashreport's overly busy site, that seems to rudely open a new window with every click) and site editor Frank Russo has a terrific editorial voice. He's a clear writer and is coming at his practice from a "what are we going to do about this?" approach, as he ended a recent story.

These are all in addition to the two statewide multi-issue progressive groups, us here at Speak Out California and the team at Courage Campaign, and the hundreds of smaller individual and small group sites on the various blogrolls. All of the sudden it seems like there is a whole lot of democracy going on.

The way we're going to win is by first matching the infrastructure the conservatives have already built or obtained, and then using our natural strengths to out-innovate them. Weblogs with comments are a perfect example of this; there was a recent story about how one of the conservative websites had to take down their comments section because someone called social security private accounts, well, exactly that, rather than the Karl Rove approved "personal accounts" or whatever flimflam language they're supposed to use.

Progressives don't have that problem. Our ideas are better and have been tested in reality, so we don't have the need for the relentless spinning and tightly bolting down the language control. Even on the internet, or maybe especially on the internet, the truth just sounds different.

Even so, we all have a lot of work to do in building out this concept of progressive identity. Think about how well formed the idea of being a conservative is in the minds of voters - what that means to people, what the expect a politician to say and do if they're conservative. We're still only having that debate in a few pockets and we have a long way to go in broadly establishing progressive identity. These recent additions to the neighborhood will surely help. Mountains of thanks to all of you who are participating in these excellent projects. You are about to rock, and we salute you!

Posted by Dan Ancona - Comments (3)

The eye of the beholder

March 15, 2006

Kevin Drum says that Sen. Feingold's vote to censure is just a bit of political theater, and not very good stuff at that...

Conversely, it's not clear what Feingold hopes to accomplish with his censure motion. Bush's shortcomings are already getting plenty of attention, so he's not galvanizing any new media attention.

I vigorously disagree. This is most certainly not about theater: it's about doing something, anything we can, about a President who is getting away with wholesale shredding of the Constitution with the full faith and backing of the majority party in the Senate and the Congress. It's not theater, it's honest resistance to the extent allowed by law, and apparently a quarter of a million someodd MoveOn members (as of this afternoon) and who knows how many folks through democrats.org agree with the Senator and I. I don't care if he didn't line up his ducks in a row before doing it. Sign up to get the Senator's back, if you haven't already. I probably wouldn't have except for Senator Allard's quote (click the link, I won't reproduce it here). When did failing civics 101 become some kind of prerequisite for running for higher office as a Republican?

Posted by Dan Ancona - Comments (1)

Pragmatic progressivism, illustrated

March 09, 2006

This week's Bay Guardian provides a textbook definition of the difference between pragmatic progressives and old-line liberals. Here's SFBG editor Bruce Brugman's approach to solving the local housing crunch...

"Only rent control - strong rent control - can keep apartments affordable in this market."

As useless as conservative market-fundamentalist based arugments against rent control are, there are other arguments that do make some degree of sense. Rent control does tend to deflect the market in some unpleasant ways, such as biasing the market strongly against new and young residents (Mr Brugman would see this as a benefit, unfortunately), discouraging improvements to properties and focusing landlord's energies on exactly the people who need the most protection.

San Francisco Planning and Urban Research association ED Gabriel Metcalf gives the perfect, thoughtful response. Mr Brugman sidestepped responding to Mr Metcalf's primary solution, which is increasing strengthening the currently feeble inclusionary housing ordinance. I'm tempted to excerpt a huge chunk of it here, but the whole thing is good, so go read it. A moratorium would make things worse and inclusionary housing works because it aligns the power with the market with answering a very real need. SFBG: old school liberal. SPUR: pragmatic progressive.

Mr Brugman mentions but skips right over the interesting part, which is that demand for San Francisco property is basically infinite. That's an awfully interesting observation if you think about it! The reason why it's true is that our society hasn't generated built environments that support the kind of neighborhoods and sense of community available in San Francisco since World War II. Pragmatic progressivism is about curing these difficult, root problems, not applying band-aids and quick fixes.

Mr Brugman's thinking is a good example of how trying to dice an environmental problem into little pieces to solve it is a failed strategy. The idea of "preserving" San Francisco under a bell jar without looking at the broader, statewide issues and the real effect these efforts have on people just doesn't make sense. Apparently I'm going to have to quote John Muir on here until I'm blue in the face: "When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe." The only real, long-term solution is that we have to build more cities.

Posted by Dan Ancona - Comments (0)

Friday Cat Blogging!

March 03, 2006

For the first time, a picture of Speak Out California's extremely hard working Director of Feline Outreach, Oscar Hefner Fernandez Ragland Ganesh Ancona...

Happy Friday!

Posted by Dan Ancona - Comments (3)

Blue dawn

March 02, 2006

"We should throw this in," I said, brandishing our just-arrived copy of Crashing the Gates. "Who knows, maybe Markos will be here!"

Jen looked at me dubiously. "OK, but it's going in your bag."

We'd just arrived at an early-stage meeting of the New Politics Institute out in the Presidio after driving down a crazily steep and long hill that we'd biked up (due to my at the time rusty SF navigational skills) a few months ago, right after we'd moved here. Tonight, the sun was setting over the golden gate and the somewhat out of place and striking pastoral beauty and quiet of the base-turned-park was all around us.

Seconds later we walked up to the venue, early, and - pardon the shameless namedropping that is about to occur - the man himself was sitting on the front stoop of the building. Actually the men, as he was sitting and chatting with Simon Rosenberg. Mr Moulitsas kindly signed our copy, so apparently we're among the first of very many to have an autographed copy of it. Hopefully news of this fact won't get my bag stolen on muni.

The event was mostly great. There were a couple of times during Mr Rosenberg's schpiel that I thought were chair standingly, fist pumpingly good (I avoided doing so). I feel like they've really got the right read on the current situation and are working hard to bring new energy into the movement.

The mostly part is that it still seems like we're at the bottom of a hill as long as the one we rode our bikes up. One of the things Mr Rosenberg is asking folks to do is to set aside their ideological differences - for now - to collaborate on strategy and building infrastructure. Judging from a lot of the questions, this and getting folks motivated in the first place are going to be two mighty tall orders.

But it seems like they've got a good shot at hacking it. They're smart folks and they know a lot of smart folks, many of whom are on a very rapid learning curve with politics. But it's going to take more than smarts. What Jen and I have both found from the couple of gates that we've already tried crashing is that it takes pretty much every ounce of your being, it takes whatever soul force (to use MLK & Gandhi's term) you can muster. Humility, flexibility, nonattachment, inspiration, love - all of it.

It is, to borrow a favorite line of the President's, a lot of hard work. It takes a long time. But this is the journey of democracy. Maybe the best question of the night was about all the people who think they are doing end-runs by trying to solve problems by spending their own money and bypassing government. Jen pointed out that the hard question these people have to be asking themselves is how that's really working out for them. What's the point of protecting thousands of acres of land with fantastic quantities of private money, for example, when with the stroke of a pen, a corrupt Congress can increase the pressure on thousands of endangered species overnight by even further deregulating the pesticide industry?

It's the strong and slow boring of hard boards, all over again. But one of our jobs is to make it move faster. We can create a system of governance that utilizes 21st century technologies to respond to 21st century problems and opportunities. This is the project of a lifetime, the mother of all technology gigs. That's the core of the New Politics Institute's vision. Now all it needs is traction.

Posted by Dan Ancona - Comments (0)

Strapped

February 22, 2006

I just heard about Strapped: Why America's 20- and 30-somethings Can't Get Ahead, via the Oregon Bus Project's dandyslick email list. My response to most of the reviews I've seen and the quick facts on the site were "Oh good, I'm not completely insane." The author says this is happening to 60% of people my age, which jives well with what I've observed. Among my group of friends maybe it's a little less, as I would expect given the number of techies.

But this terrible, knee-jerk, straw-man review from Slate sums up a broad alternative response pretty neatly in it's subhead: "Twentysomethings who can't stop whining about how the economy is screwing them." How bad is it, really? Click for the extended entry...

Posted by Dan Ancona - Comments (0)

a project of the Institute for the Renewal of the California Dream

WEBLOG: Progressivism

July 29, 2008

Posted by Dave Johnson - Comments (0) - TrackBack (0)

July 24, 2008

Posted by Dave Johnson - Comments (0) - TrackBack (0)

May 19, 2008

Posted by Dave Johnson - Comments (0) - TrackBack (0)

April 22, 2008

Posted by Dave Johnson - Comments (0) - TrackBack (0)

March 19, 2008

Posted by Dave Johnson - Comments (0) - TrackBack (0)

March 18, 2008

Posted by Dave Johnson - Comments (0) - TrackBack (0)

February 14, 2008

Posted by Dave Johnson - Comments (1) - TrackBack (1)

January 29, 2008

Posted by Dave Johnson - Comments (0) - TrackBack (0)

January 15, 2008

Posted by Dave Johnson - Comments (1) - TrackBack (2)

January 01, 2008

Posted by Hannah-Beth Jackson - Comments (0)

December 23, 2007

Posted by Dave Johnson - Comments (0)

December 20, 2007

Posted by Hannah-Beth Jackson - Comments (1)

October 23, 2007

Posted by Dave Johnson - Comments (0)

October 11, 2007

Posted by Dave Johnson - Comments (0)

October 04, 2007

Posted by Dave Johnson - Comments (1)

September 18, 2007

Posted by Hannah-Beth Jackson - Comments (1)

July 08, 2007

Posted by Hannah-Beth Jackson - Comments (1)

June 26, 2007

Posted by Erik Love - Comments (1)

May 30, 2007

Posted by Dan Ancona - Comments (0)

May 07, 2007

Posted by Hannah-Beth Jackson - Comments (0)

April 06, 2007

Posted by Dan Ancona - Comments (0)

March 20, 2007

Posted by Dan Ancona - Comments (0)

February 26, 2007

Posted by Dan Ancona - Comments (0)

February 21, 2007

Posted by Dan Ancona - Comments (0)

January 28, 2007

Posted by Dan Ancona - Comments (0)

January 11, 2007

Posted by Dan Ancona - Comments (0)

November 09, 2006

Posted by Dan Ancona - Comments (0)

Posted by Jenifer Fernandez Ancona - Comments (0)

October 08, 2006

Posted by Dan Ancona - Comments (0)

August 02, 2006

Posted by Dan Ancona - Comments (0)

July 31, 2006

Posted by Dan Ancona - Comments (0)

July 17, 2006

Posted by Dan Ancona - Comments (5)

June 20, 2006

Posted by Dan Ancona - Comments (0)

June 13, 2006

Posted by Dan Ancona - Comments (0)

June 08, 2006

Posted by Dan Ancona - Comments (1)

May 30, 2006

Posted by Dan Ancona - Comments (0)

May 20, 2006

Posted by Dan Ancona - Comments (3)

May 07, 2006

Posted by Dan Ancona - Comments (1)

May 03, 2006

Posted by Dan Ancona - Comments (1)

April 26, 2006

Posted by Dan Ancona - Comments (2)