Robert Lafollette, Jr. and Joseph McCarthy. Russ Feingold and Scott Walker. How could one state–Wisconsin–elect politicians with such divergent views?

No state east of New York has had such a strong tradition of progressive views in both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. Despite the strength that Senator Robert Lafollette, Jr. and his father brought to the progressive wing of the Republican Party in Wisconsin, it seemed to have little staying power. In what must be one of the greatest political turnarounds in American history, Lafollette was defeated in 1946 in the Republican primary by conservative witch-hunter Joseph McCarthy. Did the people of Wisconsin fall for McCarthy’s criticism of Lafollette not joining the military in World War II, even though Lafollette was 46-years old at the time of Pearl Harbor and was a sitting U.S. senator? What caused the citizens to take a quantum leap to the right?

In Wisconsin, the state capital and the state university are both in the same town, Madison. The university has traditionally been a hotbed of progressive thinking and action, and at times that has flowed into the halls of the Capitol. This trend has continued into the current decade, but not because progressives at the university and in state government have been strengthening one another. Rather, it is students and faculty at the University, joined by thousands of state public employees demonstrating under the Rotunda in Governor Scott Walker’s office building.

Scott Walker has gone from being an embattled governor to a presidential contender. He was elected governor in 2010. The Wisconsin state legislature was also part of the red wave that covered the United States that year. Walker and the legislature collaborated in 2011 to pass the “Wisconsin budget repair bill,” which significantly changed the collective bargaining process for most public employees. The goal of the bill was to eliminate the deficit in the state budget. But the means of doing so was a punch in the gut to tens of thousands of Wisconsin citizens, who had fought to bring a healthy equilibrium to the management-worker struggle, which has been with us since the first cave person hired another to do some work.

Public employees in Wisconsin and elsewhere are among the most under-paid workers in our economy. They often have jobs that are dangerous, tedious, and in the case of teachers, require far more than 40 hours a week with no overtime pay. Nonetheless, they were the target of Walker and the legislature. The law has survived a variety of challenges, including a recall election of Governor Walker. He defeated the recall in 2012 and then won reelection in 2014. His reelection only emboldened him to try to take the once union-strong state into a “right to work [for less]” state. Removing the confusing slogans, Walker wants to weaken labor unions in Wisconsin by not requiring workers to pay union dues, even if the employees of a company are represented in bargaining by a union.

Walker’s efforts to weaken unions in the private and the public sector has now drawn the ire of the National Football League. The NFL is certainly not  a bastion of liberalism, but players in the league have been organized and protected by the NFL Players Association since 1970. Players in the NFL may be well-compensated, but their working conditions have been terrible, with their health always at risk. Only with the Players Association has their pension been protected.

The one NFL team in Wisconsin is the storied Green Bay Packers. There is no billionaire owner of the team, just a bunch of interested citizens in the town of Green Bay and elsewhere in Wisconsin. Players on the Packers have always been enthusiastic union supporters.

Moving beyond the field of football, the NFL Players Association Is now playing politics in Wisconsin.

The union released a strongly worded statement on February 25 denouncing the state’s proposed right-to-work legislation — which would prohibit businesses and unions from requiring workers to pay union dues — and reaffirming its solidarity “with the working families of Wisconsin and organized labor in their fight against current attacks against their right to stand together as a team.”

The statement, written by executive director DeMaurice Smith, pointed to the various support staff employed at the Green Bay Packers’ Lambeau Field who “will have their well being and livelihood jeopardized” by the law. It also acknowledged the “generations of skilled workers” who contribute to the state’s various industries and pointed to the law’s potentially devastating effects on wages and safety. Smith took direct shots at Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, who may be looking to boost his presidential aspirations at the expense of the state’s workers: “Governor Scott Walker may not value these vital employees, but as union members, we do.”

It would be a stretch to say that Scott Walker has been a demagogue of the ilk of Joe McCarthy. But Walker has successfully rallied Wisconsin citizens to undermine legislation that has protected them since the beginning of the progressive era in the late 19^th century. What’s happening in Wisconsin is similar to “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” in which citizens allow religiously formed social values to undermine their best economic interests. Yes, apparently this can happen too in Wisconsin, even with its strong university system and its proud progressive heritage.

This phenomenon stands as further evidence that the American body electorate is often more tuned into the politics of mythology and fear than to reason and their economic self-interest and that of their families and their neighbors. As I have said before, progressive education may be the best way to enlighten our citizenry.

The post Wisconsin shows how difficult it is to hold on to progressive gains appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The usual pundits and chin-pullers are all upset now that the Democratic reform to the filibuster will upset the spirit of bipartisanship and comity between the
parties. You know, that spirit of bipartisanship and comity that the Republicans were so committed to? Nasty old Democrats!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/11/22/pundits-bemoan-end-of-filibuster/

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/22/1257589/-Let-the-filibuster-reform-pearl-clutching-nbsp-commence

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/11/nuclear-option-and-bipartisan-fantasies.html

More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/11/22/morning-plum-no-nuclear-option-will-not-make-washington-partisanship-worse/

No, nuclear option will not make Washington partisanship ‘worse.’ Worse? How could it be worse?

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/worse-how-could-it-be-worse

The Senate Really Can’t Get Much More Dysfunctional at This Point

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/11/senate-really-cant-get-much-more-dysfunctional-point
The new, aggressive Democratic Party

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/11/harry_reid_obamacare_and_filibuster_reform_democrats_want_a_new_political.html

More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-allies-weigh-nomination-strategy-under-new-senate-rules/2013/11/22/31664534-538e-11e3-9e2c-e1d01116fd98_story.html?wprss=rss_politics
The White House and its allies are formulating ways to take maximum advantage of this week’s change in the Senate’s filibuster rules to rapidly confirm more than 240 judicial and executive nominees awaiting approval. . . .

The post What winning feels like: Progressive Blog Digest appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Progressive ideas are alive in 2013—and not just as talking points. They reflect what Americans actually value and want, and nowhere is that more evident than in Minnesota and Colorado, where progressive-based laws are on the state legislative agenda. Recently, Progressive States Network posted highlights of bills either under serious consideration or already passed in those two states. Take heart, progressives: Contrary to what right-wing conservatives would like us to believe, and what they’re pushing in many state legislatures, America is not anti-union, anti-worker, anti-woman, anti-immigrant, anti-same-sex marriage, anti-education funding or anti-sensible-gun-control.

Here are some highlights from the Progressive States Network roundup:

What’s up in Minnesota?

• A bill has been introduced into the Minnesota legislature that would allow unionization of child-care and home-healthcare workers.
• Also introduced was a minimum-wage bill that would increase the rate from $6.15/hr [below the current federal rate] to $10.55 an hour by 2015.
• Both houses in Minnesota gave final approval to health exchange bills.
• Governor Dayton’s budget calls for higher taxes on the wealthy, and a recent poll shows that  54 percent of Minnesotans favor higher taxes on net incomes above $150,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples.
• An omnibus election reform bill moved forward in a state Senate committee. It would include early voting and no-excuse absentee voting.
• A bill that would increase funding for education, in an effort to equalize funding across districts.
• The leader of the Minnesota College Republicans joined a bipartisan group of legislators, members of clergy, and others who are supporting a marriage equality bill.

And in Colorado…

• The landmark ASSET tuition equity bill won final approval from the state legislature with a bipartisan vote and is now on its way to Gov. John Hickenlooper’s desk.
• State Sen. Angela Giron, Chair of PSN’s National Immigration Working Group and co-sponsor of the bill: “We are now going to be able to reward young people who have played by the rules. They are now going to be able to give back.” [Denver Post]
• Seven bills to prevent gun violence advanced in the state legislature. Gov. Hickenlooper is on record as supporting three of the bills, including universal background checks and magazine capacity limits.
•  A state House committee advanced a civil unions, one supported by 70% of Colorado voters.
• A new joint (and “joint”) committee was established to craft laws to regulate marijuana in the state, following a constitutional amendment approved last year that directed the state to authorize retail sales.

The post Minnesota and Colorado: Where the progressive agenda is alive and…progressing appeared first on Occasional Planet.

As the Republican party and “leadership” moves farther and farther out of the mainstream and deeper into the realm of extreme, irrational, anti-democracy, backward-facing, obstructional politics, the struggle to maintain the gains made by the progressive movement over the past 100 years gets more difficult every year. Still, somehow, progressive ideas and policies keep pushing their way back into our collective consciousness, and rational, common-sense and common-good ideas manage to survive—perhaps because, despite corporate-sponsored, self-serving propaganda, policies that help, rather than hurt, are what most Americans actually want.

So, while we can’t stop being vigilant, and while lots of hand-wringing and worry are justified, it’s important to take a deep breath and reflect on the progressive successes of the past year.

Think Progress recently offered a list of the most important progressive victories of 2012. Here’s a summary that should make us feel just a tad better about the state of the union. Read the full explanation at Think Progress.

Historic progress to end the war on drugs

New fuel efficiency standards

Young undocumented immigrants received deportation relief

Anti-LGBT Senate candidates lost, in large numbers

Voters rejected anti-tax hysteria

President Obama endorsed marriage equality

Voters rejected anti-choice candidates

Voter suppression lost

The Supreme Court upheld Obamacare

Many of these gains, it should be noted, came about because voters made them happen. Others were the result of courageous leadership, pressure from the left,  and/or pragmatic politics. Whatever the terms and the motivations, they’re reason to feel hopeful, encouraged, and motivated to stick to our progressive principles and to continue the fight.

The post Progressive victories in 2012 appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The biggest difference between today’s super-rich capitalists and the robber barons [a much more descriptive term] of a hundred years ago appears to be style. Handlebar mustaches, wool suits, top hats and protruding bellies are out of fashion, but today’s plutocrats share the same values of the captains of industry of the early 20^th century. In fact, they openly long for that so-called Golden Age, when capitalism was unfettered by pesky consumer protections, labor rights, bank regulations, income taxes and safety nets. We’ve seen it all before.

We’ve also seen how the Progressive Movement of the early 20^th century figured out how to reign in the excesses and help create a thriving middle class. The trouble is that, today, many of the accomplishments and lessons learned in earlier days of progressivism have fallen by the wayside—whether through corporate-influenced legislation and/or regulation, by complacency or by a failure of memory. But the lessons and ideas are still out there, and progressives need to reinvigorate them.

That’s what veteran labor journalist Sam Pizzigatti writes about in his new book, The Rich Don’t Always Win: The Forgotten Triumph over Plutocracy that Created the American Middle Class. In a post at Inequality.org, Pizzigatti suggests five public policies—all of which were on the table during the Great Depression—that could put the U.S. back on what he calls “the plutocracy-busting track.”

One: Income disclosure

Require the rich to annually disclose the income they’re reporting to the IRS and how much of that income they actually pay in taxes.

Pizzigatti notes that, in the 1930s, progressives proposed just such a measure, contending that disclosure would make it harder for the wealthy to play games with taxes. It would also make it easier to see which loopholes need to be plugged.

But, in an intriguing historical footnote, Pizzigatti points out that:

In 1934, progressives actually added a disclosure provision to the tax code.  But the super rich counterattacked with a media blitz that tied disclosure to the infamous Lindbergh baby kidnapping. If all rich Americans had to disclose their incomes, the argument went, kidnappers would gain a wider pool of targets.

The 1930s obsession with the Lindbergh baby kidnapping proved to be a powerful detour, and the provision was scrapped. But the basic premise behind income disclosure remains a solid idea, says Pizzigatti. And today we’ve got the the technology to make it happen.

Two: Leverage the power of the public purse against excessive corporate executive pay

Pizzigatti knows that government can’t set specific limits on what private corporations pay their executives. But Congress could impose limits indirectly by denying federal government contracts and subsidies to corporations that lavish rewards on top executives.

This is not a new idea, either, notes Pizzigatti. But it’s one to build on:

In 1933, then-senator and later Supreme Court justice Hugo Black won congressional approval for legislation that denied federal air- and ocean-mail contracts to companies that paid their execs over $17,500, about $300,000 in today’s dollars. But the New Deal never fully embraced the Hugo Black perspective.

Pizzigatti suggests that we could actually do that today, “by denying federal contracts and tax breaks to any companies that pay their CEOs over 25 times what their workers are making.”

Three: Give Americans a safe alternative to private banks.

There’s precedent for this idea, too, says Pizzigatt:

For Louis Brandeis, a reform giant who also became a Supreme Court justice, prohibiting financial institutions from speculating with the savings of average Americans always remained a top priority.

In the early 1930s, Brandeis advocated the expansion of postal savings banks, a system — in effect since 1911 — that paid 2 percent interest on modest savings accounts maintained with the post office. That expansion never took place, and postal savings banks withered away. They deserve a second shot.

Four: Tax undistributed corporate profits.

America’s biggest corporations are currently sitting on stashes of cash that have hit mega-billion levels, says Pizzigatti.

Money that could be invested in creating jobs sits instead in income-generating financial assets that only sweeten corporate bottom lines and executive paychecks.

A similar problem plagued the nation back during the Great Depression, and progressives pushed for a stiff tax on these “retained earnings.” In 1936, Congress passed a watered-down version of this tax that didn’t last and didn’t make much of an impact.

A stronger tax today just might.

Five: Cap income at America’s economic summit.

In a world in which Congressional Republicans refuse to even talk about raising taxes on top earners by even 3 percent, this is probably Pizzigatti’s most pie-in-the-sky idea. But if we want a rational discussion of revenue, it’s worth talking about.

First, the historical context:

In 1942, in the midst of a war-time fiscal squeeze, President Franklin Roosevelt proposed a 100 percent tax on all individual income over $25,000, the equivalent of about $355,000 today.

Congress didn’t go along. But lawmakers did set the top tax rate at 94 percent on income over $200,000, and federal income tax top rates hovered around 90 percent for most of the next two decades, years of unprecedented prosperity.

America’s rich fought relentlessly to curb those rates. They saw no other way to hang on to more of their income.

So, what is Pizzigatti proposing? A restructured top tax rate that would give the rich what he calls “a new incentive.”.

We could, for instance, set the entry threshold for a new 90 percent top rate as a multiple of our nation’s minimum wage. The higher the minimum wage, the higher the threshold, the softer the total tax bite out of the nation’s highest incomes.

Our nation’s wealthiest and most powerful, under this approach, would suddenly have a vested interest in enhancing the well-being of our poorest and weakest.

Pizzigatti concludes his fascinating history lesson this way:

Years ago, progressives yearned to create an America that encouraged just that sort of social solidarity. They couldn’t finish the job. We still can.

The post 5 plutocracy-busting ideas from America’s progressive history appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Robert Reich has been a contrarian about most of the Obama economic policies, but that does not necessarily make him a negative person.  In fact he is as jocular as a short skinny man can be, focusing his biting wit first on himself; then on others. He deserves a lot of slack when he critiques policies because at heart he is an optimist and when there are reasons to cheer, he’ll be among the first.

How can you tell when someone is a “doomsayer” or someone with a clear vision in contrast to conventional wisdom?

When it comes to advocating trickle-down economics, he’ll say that a Democrat who advocates it is someone who is most likely abandoning the traditional constituents of the party.  This means that Democrats are walking away from almost everyone except the very wealthy and the extreme social conservatives.  This is not your father’s Democrat; certainly not your grandfather’s, which included embracing FDR’s New Deal.

Recently, the Obama administration has been justifiably touting some positive economic numbers.  Corporate profits are up; the stock-market has soared since the Obama inauguration, companies such as General Motors that were bailed out are now profiting and repaying their loans from the government with interest.

And now we hear what we have long awaited, unemployment is down and jobsare up.  In his March 4 post, Reich says:

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports 192,000 new jobs in February (220,000 new jobs in the private sector and a drop in government employment), and a drop in the overall unemployment rate from 9 to 8.9 percent.

But to get to the most important trend you have to dig under the job numbers and look at what kind of new jobs are being created. That’s where the big problem lies.

The National Employment Law Project did just that. Its new data brief shows that most of the new job

 

s created since February 2010 (about 1.26 million) pay significantly lower wages than the jobs lost (8.4 million) between January 2008 and February 2010.

He illustrates this with these chilling statistics:

While the biggest losses were higher-wage jobs paying an average of $19.05 to $31.40 an hour, the biggest gains have been lower-wage jobs paying an average of $9.03 to $12.91 an hour.

In other words, the big news is not jobs as some would want us to believe. It’s wages.  We work for basically two reasons: (a) a way of gaining personal fulfillment, and (b) accruing income that allows us to purchase necessities, and if possible, some discretionary items.  Whether an individual makes the federal minimum wage of $7.25 / hour or $5,000 / hour as some hedge fund managers do, he or she is still counted as employed.

The Economic Policy Institute maintains a dynamic web site on “The State of Working America” with hundreds of graphs and charts.  The graph below illustrates how since 1973 wages for the wealthy have grown rapidly while those of the poor have declined.  This is not news to anyone, but it is a fact that is rarely pointed out when monthly employment figures are released

Structural changes make the situation worse.  Reich points out, “Millions of private-sector workers have been fired and then re-hired as contract workers to do almost exactly what they were doing before, but without any benefits or job security.”  When combined with the outsourcing that has taken place since 1973, it’s no small wonder that the American worker’s worries do not end with whether or not they are employed, but at what wage.

Current American capitalism means that we have high unemployment with low wages which forces more and more consumers to shop at the likes of the Dollar Store.  If we had lower unemployment with high wages, consumers could more readily afford Target, Macy’s, or even more expensive stores such as Needless Mark-up (or something like that).

In his blog, Reich repeatedly points out that the most secure jobs are those in the public sector.  They cannot be outsourced and wages at least keep up with inflation.  At least that’s the way it was before Scott Walker’s Wisconsin and the vision that he any most Republicans have of the American economy.

As we give kudos to the Obama administration for beginning to reverse declining employment trends, we need to keep the pressure on to ensure that the jobs that are created are ones that pay decent wages.  As is so often the case, when this administration gets to an intersection, it tends to look right before crossing.  We need to do more to ensure that it looks both ways.

The post Good news on jobs means good wages appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Don’t believe ‘em when they say the progressive agenda is unloved by American citizens. Much has been accomplished in the first two years of the Obama administration, and ordinary people are benefiting. Of course, some progressives feel disappointed that the administration hasn’t pushed hard enough, that its policies are too centrist, and/or that it has failed to communicate its accomplishments. And there’s justification for some of that disappointment.  But, just to be sure that we don’t forget who’s behind the policies that address the common good, here’s first in a series of reminders about what has been done, and how it helps.

In  August 2010, the final provisions of the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure Act [CARD] of 2009 took effect.  Designed to hold credit-card companies accountable and to eliminate deceptive practices, the CARD act addresses the interests of the “nearly 80 percent of American families who have a credit card, and the 44 percent of families who carry a balance on their credit cards.” Here are some of the provisions of the 2009 CARD Act, as listed by International Business Times.

• Requires creditors to give consumers clear disclosures of account terms before consumers open an account, and clear statements of the activity on consumers’ accounts afterwards;
• Requires issuers to make contracts available on the Internet in a usable format;
• Bans retroactive rate increases;
• Requires contract terms be stable for the entirety of the first year;
• Requires institutions give card holders a reasonable time to pay the monthly bill – at least 21 calendar days from time of mailing – and it ends late fee traps such as weekend deadlines, due dates that change each month, and deadlines that fall in the middle of the day;
• Requires companies to apply excess payments to the highest interest balance first;
• Ends the confusing and unfair practice by which issuers use the balance in a previous month to calculate interest charges on the current month, so called “double-cycle” billing;
• Restricts fees on subprime, low-limit credit cards;
• Requires institutions to obtain a consumer’s permission to process transactions that would place the account over the limit;
• Requires issuers to display on periodic statements how long it would take to pay off the existing balance – and the total interest cost – if the consumer paid only the minimum due; and also to display the payment amount and total interest cost to pay off the existing balance in 36 months;
• Requires regulators to report annually to Congress on their enforcement of credit card protections;
• Holds regulators accountable to keep protections current;
• Increases penalties for card issuers that violate these new restrictions;
• Increases protections for college students and young adults.

The last pieces of the act took effect over the summer. They require credit-card companies to honor gift-cards for five years, and prohibit them from reducing the amount of gift cards that are not used quickly. Also, credit card issuers will no longer be allowed to charge a late fee larger than your minimum payment, or charge you more than one penalty fee for a single violation of your agreement, or charge a fee for not using or terminating your account. Credit card companies, since 2009, have been required to  give 45 days notice of a rate hike. Now, the company must also say why it’s raising rates, and it must re-evaluate the hike every six months.

Certainly, it’s not a perfect law. But there’s a lot to love there. So–pun intended–let’s give credit for this where it’s due.

The post Thanks, President Obama: Credit-card holders get a better deal appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The map above (blue = Democratic and red = Republican) shows voting shifts from 2004 to 2008. According to corporate-owned-media pundits, America is a “center-right” nation. We hear this repeated so often by talking heads on both the right and left, it’s easy to assume it’s true. Yet, for years, polls have shown that Americans, if anything, are solidly progressive in their policy attitudes. This collection of poll results is from Barack Obama and the Future of American Politics by Paul Street (Boulder, CO: Paradigm, 2008). Street in turn, summarized them from a chapter in The New Feminized Majority by Katherine Adams and Charles Derber (Boulder, CO: Paradigm, 2008).

The polls cited are a few years old and were taken during the Bush administration. In the meantime, we have elected a Democratic President and given Democratic majorities to both Houses, suggesting that the progressive trend continues. The map shows a blue country, not a red country. And these polls show why the country shifted blue in 2008.

69 percent of U.S. voters agree that, “government should care for those who cannot care for themselves.” (Pew Research, 2007)

54 percent of voters agree that, “government should help the needy even if it means greater debt.” (Pew Research, 2007)

58 percent of Americans believe the U.S. government should be doing more for its citizens, not less. (National Elections Survey, 2004)

64 percent of Americans would pay higher taxes to guarantee health care for all U.S. citizens (CNN Opinion Research Poll, May 2007)

69 percent of Americans think it is the responsibility of the federal government to provide health coverage to all U. S. citizens. (Gallup Poll, 2006)

80 percent of Americans support a government mandated increase in the minimum wage. (Associated Press/AOL Poll, December 2006)

86 percent of Americans want Congress to pass legislation to raise the federal minimum wage (CNN, August 2006)

71 percent of Americans think that taxes on corporations are too low. (Gallup Poll, April 2007)

66 percent of Americans think taxes on upper-income people are too low. (Gallup Poll, 2006)

52 percent of Americans generally side with unions in labor disputes. Just 34 percent side with management. (Gallup Poll, 2006)

57 percent of Americans want to keep abortion legal in all or most cases. (Washington Post/ABC News 2007)

78 percent of Americans think “women should have an equal role with men in running business, industry, and government.” (National Elections Survey, 2004)

57 percent of Americans support programs which “give special preference to qualified women and minorities in hiring. (Pew Poll, 2003)

A majority of American voters think that the United States’ “most urgent moral question” is either “greed or materialism” (33 percent) or “poverty and economic injustice” (31 percent). Just 16 percent identify abortion and 12 percent pick gay marriage as the nation’s “most urgent moral question.” (Zogby, 2004.) Thus, nearly two-thirds (64 percent) of the population think that injustice and inequality are the nation’s leading “moral issues.”

67 percent of Americans think the U.S. should emphasize diplomatic and economic means over military methods in combating terrorism. (Public Agenda and Foreign Affairs, 2007)

Just 15 percent of Americans think the U.S. should play “the leading role in the world” (Gallup Poll, February 2007)—a remarkable rejection of U.S. global hegemony and empire.

58 percent of Americans think the U.S. should play “a major role but not the leading role in the world” (Gallup Poll. February 2007)

62 percent of Americans in September of 2007 thought the invasion of Iraq was “a mistake.” (CBS News, September 2007)

A majority of Americans want a firm deadline for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. (Washington Post/ABC News, February, 2007)

70 percent of Americans want a multilateral nuclear disarmament treaty (Pew Poll, November 2005)

The post America is not a center-right nation appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The Obama administration’s new 2010 National Security Strategy—unveiled on May 27—is getting good reviews, plus some caveats, from progressive organizations. “The plan is grounded in core progressive foreign policy principles that stand in sharp contrast to mainstream conservative doctrine,” wrote Brian Katulis, of the Center for American Progress.

Leaders of the National Security Network (NSN) agree. “Rather than addressing…challenges through radical doctrines or ideologies, the President’s pillars rest on a return to the best and most sustainable tradition of post-World War II American foreign policy,” says the group on its website. “While there remains work to be done, the administration has made concrete and meaningful progress towards addressing the security challenges of the 21^st century.”

At The Nation, columnist Robert Dreyfus notes that, “The best thing about Obama’s new strategy is that the president recognizes that national security starts at home, and he stresses the importance of a strong economy, education, technological innovation, and the search for clean energy as key to American power in the new century.”

Dreyfus goes on to wonder whether the new strategy, which sounds good on paper, is “real or rhetoric.” He notes, too, that some already-in-play tactics—such as expanding the war in Afghanistan, falling short on withdrawal from Iraq, and authorizing more covert operations around Iran—may be de facto contradictions to the high-minded policy announced on May 27.  For its part, the National Security Network, looking at the newly formalized policy in the context of actual accomplishments to date, cites a number of areas in which progress has already taken place.  Overall, progressive commentators seem hopeful, and at least grateful to see, in writing, policies that are distinctly different from those of the Bush administration.

Significantly, the 2010 NSS breaks with the Bush administration’s policy of pre-emptive war. In addition, the strategy breaks new ground by including “homegrown” terrorism as an emerging threat not included in the official strategies of previous administrations.

So, specifically, what’s in this brave new strategy that makes it appealing to progressives? Here’s a look at some key sections, as reported and interpreted by NSN. [Some quotes are from President Obama’s introduction to the new policy at his commencement address at West Point.] You decide:

What the 2010 National Security Strategy says about security:

“This Administration has no greater responsibility than protecting the American people. Furthermore, we embrace America’s unique responsibility to promote international security-a responsibility that flows from our commitments to allies, our leading role in supporting a just and sustainable international order, and our unmatched military capabilities.”

In practical terms, says the National Security Network, this policy means:

• Broadening our understanding of security
• Anticipating 21^st Century threats
• Disrupting, dismantling and defeating Al Qaeda and its violent extremist affiliates
• Reducing the threat of nuclear weapons
• Increasing cooperation with international partners
• Building strong partners
• Correcting course in the wars

What the 2010 National Security Strategy says about prosperity

“Our strength and influence abroad begins with the steps we take at home… Simply put, American innovation must be a foundation of American power.  Because at no time in human history has a nation of diminished economic vitality maintained its military and political primacy.”

“The foundation of American leadership must be a prosperous American economy. And a growing and open global economy serves as a source of opportunity for the American people and a source of strength for the United States.”

The challenges presented by this aspect of the National Security Strategy, by National Security Network:

• To project influence abroad, the U.S. must tend to the sources of American strength at home.\
• Leading the way out of the global financial crisis
• Investing in a clean energy economy
• Strengthening America’s infrastructural backbone
• Preparing for tomorrow’s world through investment in education and innovation
• Securing the well-being of Americans through comprehensive health-care reform

2010 National Security Strategy on international order

“[W]e  have to shape an international order that can meet the challenges of our generation. We will be steadfast in strengthening those old alliances that have served us so well, including those who will serve by [our] side in Afghanistan and around the globe.  As influence extends to more countries and capitals, we also have to build new partnerships, and shape stronger international standards and institutions.  This engagement is not an end in itself.  The international order we seek is one that can resolve the challenges of our times…”

“Even though many defining trends of the 21st century affect all nations and peoples, too often, the mutual interests of nations and peoples are ignored in favor of suspicion and self-defeating competition.  What is needed, therefore, is a realignment of national actions and international institutions, with shared interests.”

Interpretation, by National Security Network:

• America must shape the 21st century, not resist it
• Rebalancing and reviving global economic governance
• Redefining diplomacy on the nuclear agenda
• Re-engaging the United Nations
• Engaging through regional organizations

2010 National Security Strategy on values:

“A fundamental part of our strategy is America’s support for those universal rights that formed the creed of our founding.  We will promote these values above all by living them -through our fidelity to the rule of law and our Constitution, even when it’s hard.

“The United States believes certain values are universal and will work to promote them worldwide… The United States was founded upon a belief in these values. At home, fidelity to these values has extended the promise of America ever more fully, to ever more people.  Abroad, these values have been claimed by people of every race, region, and religion… And nations that embrace these values for their citizens are ultimately more successful – and friendly to the United States – than those that do not.”

Translation, by National Security Network

• America’s strength and resilience is based on living in accordance with the values we were founded upon.
• Combating terrorism by bringing terrorists to justice
• Limiting executive privilege and increasing transparency
• Recognizing Congress as a co-equal branch of government
• Reestablishing America’s commitment to human rights

2010 National Security Strategy on broadening of capabilities

“As we build these sources of strength, the second thing we must do is build and integrate the capabilities that can advance our interests, and the common interests of human beings.  We will need the renewed engagement of our diplomats, from grand capitals to dangerous outposts; and development experts who can support Afghan agriculture and help Africans build the capacity to feed themselves.”

“To succeed, we must update, balance and integrate all of the tools of American power and work with our allies and partners to do the same.”

What this means, by National Security Network:

• Advancing American interests depends on all elements of national power, not just military
• Restoring the neglected instruments of American power: Diplomacy and development
• Adopting a 21^st century approach to resourcing the military
• Improving the safety and resilience of the homeland

As with all broad policy statements issued by presidents, it will take time and close observation to determine if lofty ideals match real-world activities.

The post National security strategy with a progressive twist appeared first on Occasional Planet.