Is Bernie Sanders channeling Teddy Roosevelt? Having recently re-watched Ken Burns’ in-depth biography, The Roosevelts, I am struck by the similarities—both in substance and in style.

I started thinking about this comparison as I watched Burns’ old-time film snippets of Teddy Roosevelt—particularly those documenting him on the campaign stump. Roosevelt, known affectionately as TR, was a fighter. In the film clips, his body language shows a man leaning into his arguments, gesticulating for emphasis, speaking forcefully and intently—all of this in a less-than-Adonis-like body.

The similarity to Bernie Sanders’ outspoken, forceful, vigorous and passionate campaign persona is uncanny.

But, of course, there’s more to this comparison than style. Teddy—the leader of the Republican party of his day, became a driving force for the Progressive Era in the US in the early 20th century—and Sanders has adopted that mantle 100 years later.

I’m not a historian [although I do occasionally binge-watch Drunk History]. So here are some of the similarities noted by people who know much more than I do:

In a 2016 article, The Observer observed:

Both [Sanders and Roosevelt] are strongly skeptical of corporate power, and live in periods in which the power, influence, and abusiveness of these institutions (in the view of the general public) is considerable and growing. Teddy’s major domestic agendas (trust busting, environmental stewardship and national parks, consumer protection) are at odds with significant corporate powers of their respective times, insofar as these interests collided with those of everyone else.

… both intended to save capitalism from self-inflicted injuries driven by greed. Teddy Roosevelt did it by busting up the big trusts of his day. Bernie is focused on the banks that are too big to fail. He wants to break them up before their reckless gambling collapses the economy again as it did in the Great Recession of 2007-2010.

…In 1912, when Roosevelt campaigned for the presidency as the leader of the Progressive [Bull Moose] Party, he laid out one of the most progressive platforms in American history. The party backed, among other policies:

• Limits on campaign contributions
• An eight-hour work day
• A commission to regulate securities markets
• A workers compensation program
• A “national health service”
• Passage of the 16th Amendment to allow for a federal income tax
• Infrastructure through “the early construction of National highways;”
• An estate tax

Roosevelt explicitly expressed his desire to increase the share the wealthy paid in taxes in his “New Nationalism” speech:

I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and in another tax which is far more easily collected and far more effective—a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate.”

Sanders’ 2020 platform–like that of 2016– is, of course focused on issues more modern than creating a national highway system–although Teddy would undoubtedly support the modern call for a vast upgrade to our crumbling infrastructure. Clearly, Sanders is continuing the Roosevelt legacy of progressive populism, and, like Teddy, he, willing to stump—tirelessly—for what he believes in, and is focused on matters of corruption and the abuse of power. You can take the Roosevelt platform and, almost point-by-point, correlate it with what Bernie Sanders is proposing 100 years later.

I see that as good news.

The bad news that, more than a century later, we are still not there on these issues. We’re still fighting for the basic tenets of a progressive, equitable society. And it’s just sad that a presidential candidate who is fighting back against democracy-killing corporate greed is regarded as out of the mainstream.

What would Teddy think?

[Note: Voice recordings of Teddy Roosevelt are rare, but here’s one that gives you a flavor of his speaking style, and of the substantive nature of his speeches.]

[Editor’s note: This post first appeared here on Occasional Planet in 2016, when Bernie Sanders emerged  as a presidential hopeful. We are republishing it because of its new relevance in the 2020 election.]

The post Is Bernie Sanders the new Teddy Roosevelt? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

I was once riding down an elevator and struck up a conversation. The gentleman told me that he was a ‘labeling specialist.’ I was a bit taken back, figuring that such a label on his occupation could take me in many directions.

I asked for more information and he went on to explain that in an era of specialization, he and his colleagues started a company with the specific mission of designing and producing labels for mass mailings. So now I know what a labeling specialist does.

Labels on envelopes or postcards don’t bother me, but when it comes to describing human beings, either individually or collectively, we label one another at considerable peril. Currently, I’m becoming concerned about the loose use of socialist. My apprehension is that the term, which is relative at best, is largely going to serve as a whipping post for Republicans against Democrats.

The term progressive, which once again became in vogue after Tea-Party types largely shamed the term liberal, seems to be quite descriptive and not as offensive to Republicans as other terms. [I know that some are offended by the notion that progressives should use as a barometer how Republicans respond to something, but when it comes to verbal wars, those on the left have come out on the short end more often than not over the past five decades or so.]

The term progressive actually became popularized in the United States during the campaigns and administration of Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican while he was president. Progressive does not carry an association with communism the way socialism does. It carries the connotation of the federal government caring for people and filling in the gaps for those in need; those who otherwise would slip through the safety net.

The linguist George Lakoff has written about how conservatives seem to be more effective in using language to describe their side of arguments. For instance, the term “right to work” is a complete distortion of the issue of whether workers should be obligated to pay their fair share of union dues, but it sounds good and can be deceitful. Those on the left should be careful to not use terms that get red-flagged by the right. Socialism is clearly one of those terms.

If the so-called new breed of Democrats like Alexandria Ocasio Cortez is to have broad-based appeal, it may be wise to stay away from labels that are inflammatory to the right. Let’s be real; there are no true and exclusive socialists any more than there are true and exclusive capitalists. All countries have mixed economies between the two extremes. It’s all a matter of where we slide our position on that continuum. Progressive does just fine and will cause is many fewer headaches. You don’t have to be a labeling specialist to know that.

The post The Perils of Labels appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Fortunately, Bernie Sanders has been getting a lot of air time recently. For the most part, the peripheral vision of the media has ranged from about 85^o right (about as far out as the “Freedom Caucus” can go) to around 45^o right (about as far to the left as so-called moderate Republicans go.

An observer of the way in which the recent health care debate has been covered might think that Obamacare came from sinister heartless characters called Democrats. Much of the media presents the story as if the only good ideas on what to do about health care is in the domain of the Republicans. The range of options lie between the “mainstream” Trump-Ryan “coalition” and the so-called “Freedom Caucus.” While we congratulate the media for openly talking about the fake governing by the Trump Administration, the media is still falling short in explaining our real options with health care.

One of the reasons why Obamacare has been such a punching bag is that it is a 2,000-page bill made of compromises, designed to offer something to almost every Democrats and quite a few Republicans. The people who like Obamacare still don’t love it. The law is amorphous, undefinable and bulky. But to its credit, it has provided health care coverage to tens of millions of Americans who otherwise wouldn’t have it. Additionally, and we know this drill well, it has allowed children to stay on their parents’ policies until they are twenty-six, it has outlawed insurance companies from rejecting coverage due to pre-existing conditions, it has eliminated life-time limits, and it has provided hope to many where little existed.

What America needs to hear now is that Obamacare can be so much better, and essentially none of the ideas suggested by Republicans bring any help to anyone who is either sick or not a millionaire. To a compassionate person, there is hardly a dime’s worth of difference between the Trump-Ryan proposal and that of the “Freedom Caucus.” The discussion must move away from “repeal and replace” and focus on “reform and repair.” And where can that be done?

Within the Democratic Party. And where within the Democratic Party?

With progressives, who know the wisdom of Medicare-for-all / a Single-Payer system as designed in H.R. 676, introduced years ago by Dennis Kucinich, John Conyers and other logical visionaries.

And who among the progressives can be our leaders? Well that’s obvious. Bernie Sanders has staked out that position for nearly eighteen months. He is both unapologetic and modest. He is reasonable and empathetic. He is virtually everything, except being young.

Elizabeth Warren has been carrying a lot of the water lately Former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm has been precise with her calls for compassion and efficiency in her role as a commentator on CNN. She accurately renamed the “Freedom Caucus” the Callous Caucus. She poignantly stated that when we discuss health care, we need to drop the tax breaks for the wealthy and instead provide affordable universal care through Medicare-for-All.

The GOP plans have been designed to keep the parasitic health care industry profitable. Many of the six hundred thousand or so people who work in the industry may be fine people, but that is no reason for the industry to continue to exist, any more than we need horse-drawn carriages.

We need to address what to do about the 600,000 people in the health care industry as we do with what to do about the 174,000 coal miners in America. In both cases, we need to recognize the structural changes that have occurred in the American economy. We need to help people move to jobs that are growing and are necessary; not those that are dying and increasingly irrelevant.

Both the media and the Democratic Party need to know that the most important voices on the left to hear are those of progressives. This requires both the media and the Party to be looking for progressives, but more importantly for progressives to make themselves more visible.

Bernie has paved the path. Now the rest of us can do justice to both his work and his vision.

The post Come on Dems; now is the time that Bernie needs your support appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The first question that Anderson Cooper asked Bernie Sanders was, “A Gallup poll says half the country would not put a socialist in the White House. You call yourself a democratic socialist. How can any kind of socialist win a general election in the United States?” Sanders responded in part by saying, “Democrats at the White House on down will win, when there is excitement and a large voter turnout, and that is what this campaign is doing.”

The point was that in prime time (the beginning of the debate), Cooper gave Sanders an opportunity to explain what it is to be a democratic socialist and why he thinks that he can win. The fact that Cooper questioned Sanders about his progressive ideas, not just once, but throughout the debate, shows how far we have come in eight years.

In 2008, there was one true progressive among the Democratic candidates for president. He was Dennis Kucinich, the former mayor of Cleveland and then Congressman from Ohio. For years, he had championed a single-payer health care system in H.R. 676. Throughout the debates in late 2007 and into early 2008, debate questioners raised questions about the various candidates’ plans to improve America’s health care system, but not a word was said about H.R. 676.

In retrospect, the questioning was very myopic and somewhat meaningless. Questioners kept asking Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama about their views on an individual mandate. Initially Clinton was for it and Obama was against it, but as might be expected, once elected, Obama incorporated Clinton’s idea into his plan for the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).

Most people would say that America’s health care system in 2015 is superior to what it had in 2008. But even with the improvement, millions of Americans do not have health care coverage, insurance companies are making out like bandits, and consumers and providers must both work their way through a more than two-thousand-page labyrinth known as the ACA.

H.R. 676 which Dennis Kucinich proposed well before 2008 called for the establishment of a single-payer system or Medicare for All. All people would be covered, the insurance companies would be by-passed in the system, and the law was simple enough that it consisted of one six-page document.

As good as this was, it never got off the ground. The problem was not that Dennis Kucinich, or most members of the Congressional Black Caucus who favored it, were not articulate presenters. The problem was that the John King’s (CNN) of the world simply did not think that Kucinich was a “serious enough candidate” to be questioned about his views on health care coverage. As a result, all that was discussed was splitting hairs about cumbersome components of the Clinton – Obama plans. Medicare-for-all remained a somewhat invisible concept only understood by progressive members of the party, particularly in the African-American community.

All of this has changed in 2015 for Bernie Sanders. The Oct. 13 debate reinforced the notion that he is the only present candidate who is a legitimate contender to Hillary Clinton. Sanders brings to the table the whole ‘kahuna,’ everything progressive, with the exception of gun control (he’s working on that). He describes himself as a democratic socialist and does not shy away from advocating income redistribution in the United States. Hillary Clinton may say that Wall Street is too powerful, but her words are somewhat insipid in light of the massive amounts of donations she takes from the Street. Sanders eschews big money and has the track record to challenge Wall Street, large corporations and interest groups, wherever they might be.

His agenda includes long-standing support for H.R. 676. Hopefully the press will ask him about this, because if they don’t, and he is elected, they will be very surprised about what he will do with health care. To recognize what a powerful influence Sanders has had on the political landscape of the Democratic party, imagine what the debates would be like if they were only between Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. The key word would be ‘parsing.’

The media, and CNN in particular, did not say that they need to listen to a progressive voice in 2015 because they didn’t in 2008. They don’t work that way. But Bernie Sanders and his widespread enthusiastic supporters made that a necessity. Hillary Clinton may wind up being the nominee, but it won’t happen until she answers the hard questions from the progressive perspective, something that did not come close to happening in 2008.

The post Media does for Bernie Sanders what it never did for Dennis Kucinich appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Recently, Charlotte NC Mayor Dan Clodfelter proclaimed April 30, 2015 to be Honesty Day. In response, the editorial page editor of the Charlotte Observer–Taylor Batten—issued an invitation to readers to submit questions.

One reader asked: “Why do you support such a liberal agenda?”

Batten answered honestly. And those of us who call ourselves liberals/progressives would do well to make multiple copies of his response and keep it in our wallets, post it on our home screens, hang it on our refrigerators, and plaster it on t-shirts, mugs, and highway billboards. Well, it’s a little too long for some of those locations, but you get the idea. Here’s what Batten wrote:

We believe that everyone is created equal.

We believe that children should not bear responsibility for the sins of their parents.

We believe that prevention is a heck of a lot cheaper than a cure.

We believe people should not be treated as lesser citizens, with fewer rights, because of whom they love.

We believe a thriving city, state and nation rests to a great degree in the quality of its public schools, and that every child deserves a dedicated, dynamic teacher, regardless of what ZIP code that child lives in.

We believe discrimination is wrong in every instance.

We believe in consistency, so if you are going to drug-test recipients of public assistance, drug-test them all, including the corporate chieftains who are the biggest beneficiaries.

We believe that police officers should act professionally, under incredibly difficult circumstances, regardless of a suspect’s race.

We believe taxes should be kept as low as possible while still providing a sound safety net for the neediest, a robust education for all, decent health care for the elderly and the destitute, and other basics.

We believe politicians of any party should keep their promises, avoid the appearance of personal gain from the public trust, and look out for the general welfare, not that of any one special interest.

We believe there are people of worth beyond our tight circle and there are neighborhoods beyond our own, with different histories, perspectives and needs.

We believe offenders have paid their price when their sentence is up and should be helped to assimilate back into society. And that that’s better for the community than neglecting them and watching them commit another crime.

We believe there are peace-loving Muslims.

We do not believe President Obama was born in Kenya.

We believe in the separation of church and state.

…We believe if you’re a fan of a politician solely because he has a ‘D’ or an ‘R’ after his name, then you’re not paying attention.

We believe we have only one planet, and we should protect it for our grandchildren.

If that earns us the label “liberal” in your eyes…so be it. We approach the issues of the day with an open mind and guided by those principles, not by blind devotion to any political party. And that’s the honest truth.

Wish I’d written that!

[Hat tip to Black Max at Daily Kos, for dredging this up and putting it where I could find it.]

The post “Why do you support such a liberal agenda?” An honest answer in a tough market appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Not too long ago I was having an out-patient medical procedure. The technician was extremely nice and I thanked her for it because it made the test much easier for me. She said that others in field are often harsh, even militaristic, and her preference was to make the procedure as easy as possible for her patients.

I thanked her again and then said that it had been my experience that most people who are nice have empathy and are more likely to be liberal than conservative. I asked her if she would mind telling me if her political leanings were more liberal than conservative.

She said, yes, her views are primarily more liberal than conservative. She added that she had not grown up in a household where politics was much discussed. When she was in college, she signed up for a political science class so that she could become a more informed citizen.

Unfortunately, she had a professor who seemed to have too much of a mean gene to be an effective teacher. He humiliated many of his students, including the soon-to-be medical technician. She found it extremely uncomfortable when he would call on her in class with a question that he knew was about material that the class had not yet covered.

As you might expect, she dropped the course – quickly so that she could withdraw without a tuition penalty. The net result was that a woman who preferred politeness rather than nastiness had to endure unnecessary insults. Equally important is that someone who wanted to become a more active citizen had a bad experience with politics and still regrets that she did not have an opportunity to learn more about politics and current events.

The problems that students around the world have with nasty teachers are renowned and are addressed elsewhere. The problem of interested citizens wanting to learn more about politics but not finding a comfortable path to politics creates a significant problem in a democracy. The problem of friendly individuals not connecting with progressive politics is a tremendous loss for both these individuals and the progressive movement.

In so many ways, progressive politics involve the same degree of nastiness as the conservative movement does. Does Chris Matthews treat you with any more dignity than Bill O’Reilly? Does a solicitation from a Democrat include any less invective than that of a Republican? Perhaps so, but if so, not by much.

Politics is the means by which we try to build a consensus within the country. This common ground should reflect an amalgam of the beliefs of all Americans who participate in the process. One thing that we can learn from the medical technician is that the world of politics is not a very welcoming place for many who are nice, empathetic and caring. Yes, there are many nice and caring people who participate in politics and by and large are progressives. But many of the can be “in your face,” at least when it comes to written communication. The progressive movement can benefit from focusing on what’s most valuable in politics – votes. The idea is for kind people to want to engage in politics – at least to the extent of voting. We don’t want to turn them off by asking for things that they have no interest in giving.

So here are some suggestions for doing a better job of connecting kindness to progressive politics. You’ll note that many of the ideas are of the do not variety:

1. Progressives could create thousands of meet-up type groups around the country which are primarily designed to make politics more welcoming. They need not be exclusive to progressives but they should be limited to people who prefer environments that are low-keyed and constructive.
2. If someone does not want to make a political contribution to a candidate or an interest group, don’t ask them. If the person first wants to learn more about politics, let him or her be able to state right off the bat that he or she doesn’t want to be solicited for money.
3. If an individual says that he or she does not have time to engage in the “grunt work” of politics, let that person be. You can be a terrific person and still be someone who does not like to knock on doors or stuff envelopes.
4. If an individual does not like being pounded with e-mails from numerous progressive candidates and organizations, honor that person’s request to “chill and stop sending unwanted e-mails.”
5. Do not foist upon voters negative campaigning. Comparing records in an objective manner is fair but lambasting an opponent does not work for an individual with a kind disposition.

My requests are quite selfish; I much prefer thoughtful politics focused on issues rather than being constantly asked to join a bandwagon. If we would turn off the harsh noise of our “solicitation on steroids,” we would go a long way in encouraging kind people to engage in politics, most particularly by voting progressive.

The post Making it easier for nice people to be progressives appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The presidency seems to becoming more and more of a burden for Barack Obama, even though we are only halfway into the first year of his second term. Regrettably, the Republicans have him right where they want him, mired in the gridlock of partisan politics. In all likelihood, conditions will remain the same for the remaining three and a half years of his presidency. This is why it may be wise for many progressives to trim their hopes for the next few years and look forward to the time when Barack Obama can more freely speak his mind and then tell us in his memoirs what he can’t now tell us now.

An example would be the president’s thinking about election reform. It would be my hope that his real beliefs include:

1. Federalizing all rules, regulations, and procedures that relate to national elections (e.g. president/vice-president; senators, members of the House of Representatives).
2. Explore new ways of reducing the length of campaigns and reducing the amount of money in campaigns. He might suggest that, ultimately, this would require a little tweaking of the First Amendment, though that has obvious risks.
3. Ensure, through the strength of the federal government, easy registration for voting, and election times that are convenient for all voters.

On health reform, I would hope that he would make it clear that his preference would be a single-payer or “Medicare for all” program. Many Republicans suspect that’s what he wants, and many progressives hope that’s true. The imperfections in the Affordable Care Act may be best solved by moving toward a more unified and efficient system that would lead to single-payer. President Obama may have been crazy like a fox in accepting the current law and the anticipated improvements that may be made in the future.

President Obama may favor dramatic reforms to improve the lives of the working poor and those without employment. This may include a doubling of the federal minimum wage to make it an affordable wage. He may also support a new stimulus program of several trillion dollars, with much of the money being used to rebuild and expand our infrastructure. The infusion of funds could also be used to provide additional jobs for people in the fields of education, health care, child care, and care for the elderly.

He might also support real reforms with teeth to curb the runaway powers of Wall Street bankers and investment moguls. To have a former president strongly siding with the 99% would give the movement a considerable boost.

The value added to the progressive movement by the former president announcing his support of such policies could be incalculable. This is especially true if in 2016, the country elects another Democratic president. Barack Obama would be able to advocate policies that are truly progressive, which hopefully are the ones in which he truly believes. He would not have to face the same sort of Republican and right-wing media opposition that he currently does.

The true conservative agenda is unabashedly advocated by many members of the GOP. What progressives really want is still somewhat of a secret. If upon his retirement, Barack Obama advocated a progressive agenda, he could do so with no political risk to himself and considerable benefit to the movement and many of his fellow Democrats.

The post Memoirs may be the best thing that Barack Obama can give us now appeared first on Occasional Planet.

When I scanned an article listing the compensation of CEOs in 2012, I noted that Gregory Boyce of Peabody Coal received $9.5 million. Even though he earned 7% less than in 2011, my reaction was indignation; I grieve for the miners who are now threatened with losing their pensions and health care after Peabody intentionally passed off their financial responsibilities to Patriot, a company doomed from the start to bankruptcy. I muttered under my breath, “I guess I’m just a bleeding-heart liberal.”

That got me to wondering about the definition of bleeding-heart liberal. Dictionary.com characterizes a bleeding heart as “a person who makes an ostentatious or excessive display of pity or concern for others.”  Even worse was “an individual and idealist who at times espouses very reasonable, perhaps even thoughtful, political inclinations but whose lack of character and unsubstantiated smugness make any discourse they may embrace largely unpalatable to any self-respecting citizen.”  I found those descriptions unpalatable, so I searched further.

My hunt ended with a definition I can cheerfully accept.

From Urbandictionary.com – Bleeding-Heart Liberal:

A person whose political view lies generally along the lines of the founding fathers, in that they believe that what unites Americans is a love of freedom, and they tend to vote that way. They prefer to allow others to believe as they like, since this is what the country is founded on, and generally resist any effort to remove rights simply because of who someone is, such as gay, or black, or poor. They believe in the ideal of ‘treating your neighbor as you would like to be treated’, believe that we all have a certain responsibility to support each other, rather than corporations, and believe that the safety and dreams of people come before the earnings of CEO’s. They believe that everyone’s point of view has something to contribute to our political discourse.

Yes!  A love of freedom  I believe in our freedoms, including the rights of women to make their own decisions regarding contraception. I believe in the freedom of religion – the right guaranteed by the First Amendment to choose a religion, or no religion, without interference from the government.

Yes!   …Allow others to believe as they like and generally resist any effort to remove rights simply because of who someone is, such as gay, or black, or poor. I support marriage equality and celebrate each new community that passes a non-discrimination ordinance.

Yes!  ..Treating your neighbor as you would like to be treated.  I believe in fairness; what is right for me should be right for everyone. I believe that a just society is one where all our children can enjoy an education in safe, healthy communities.

Yes!  …Believe that the safety and dreams of people come before the earnings of CEO’s. To see the rubble of the collapsed factory and the faces of families in Bangladesh is to be convinced that corporations disregard the safety of workers in the rush for profit. The accident and explosion of the fertilizer plant in Texas, due to indifference to employee safety, that caused loss of life and the destruction of the town of West, was the direct result of corrupt, corporate greed. I speak up for equal pay for equal work and a stand with our low income workers who demand a livable wage.

But maybe, given the current politics of the country and Missouri, the new definition of bleeding-heart liberal should be more cynical.

Bleeding-Heart Liberal:  a dreamer, someone who envisions liberty and justice for all, a person who faces repeated defeat but doesn’t accept failure, doesn’t shut up, doesn’t bow down, doesn’t stop trying and never stops caring.

The post Call me a bleeding-heart liberal appeared first on Occasional Planet.

George Lakoff has repeatedly stressed the “framing deficit” with which progressives are constantly struggling.  Whether it was before last November’s election, during the lame duck Congressional session, or now with the 112^th Congress, President Barack Obama has consistently talked about and pursued a strategy of being bi-partisan.

This means that the range of cooperation stretches from Obama’s moderate positions to the very conservative views of most Republicans.

When Obama reaches to the right, the term “bi-partisan” is very apropos.  But should he reach to the left, what word comparable to “bi-partisan” would describe his actions?

Progressives are handicapped because we don’t have a word or simple phrase that would simply describe a president reaching out to the members of his or her own party who form its base.

The word “basism” might work except (a) there is no such word, and (b) even if there was, it would be very awkward.

I recently asked readers of the Daily Kos if they could help provide new or fresh language that describes a moderate Democrat taking steps to cooperate with the progressive base of the party. Here are some of the best responses.  Let me know what you think of them; as progressives we definitely need to improve our framing skills.

• “Hit a dinger” as in hit a home run.  This would simply mean touching home base as in connecting with the progressive base that played such a vital role in electing him.  He wouldn’t have to do it all the time; even the best home run sluggers in baseball hit dingers less than 10% of the time.  This may be about 9% more often than the president really is representing a progressive point of view.

• Perhaps a more appropriate term with a similar meaning would be “touch base.”

• Basically, it’s called “playing to the base.”  When Republicans win elections…they play to their hard-core activist base. When Democrats win elections, they play to…the Republican base. There is never a time when either political party gives any respect whatsoever to the activist base of the Democratic Party (except for empty rhetoric by Democrats during campaign season).

In other words, the problem in this particular case is not so much “framing” as it is action and leadership. Democrats who refuse to take action and leadership on behalf of the very people most responsible for getting them elected…are simply not acting in the best interests of their base. That needs to change if the Democrats ever plan to get my vote again (after 25+ years as an activist and contributor, the 2010 election has almost completely convinced me to stop wasting my time on Democrats).

• I know this isn’t a single word, but if you are reading Lakoff as I do, this is what “reaching out to the progressive base” would require.  To him, there is no “center”, there are only conservatives, progressives and what he calls “bi-conceptuals” who have both progressive and conservative approaches to different issues and areas of their lives.  Lakoff stresses that progressives have to use speech that activates the progressive frame and avoid using speech that activates the conservative frames.  Obama succeeded in activating a lot of progressive frames in his SOTU speech, and made a declaration of what he stands for.

• Also, since the progressive position on many an issue is generally not only the most sensible, but the most popular, why not call it the “mainstream” position?  Take that label back from artificial centrism.

And some other short ones:

• “Limited modified liberalism?” [Apologies to RM Nixon’s “limited, modified hangout”]?

• Liberal-ish-ness?

• Liberal-lite?

• Progressive-ish?
• None of these are really alternatives to “bi-partisan,” so I’ll have to try a little harder…I like your “basism” idea, but it sounds dangerously close to “racism,” which wouldn’t go over too well if people didn’t listen carefully.

• Outreach to progressives

• Reality-based strategy

• Keeping faith with progressives

• Partisanship

• Integrity

• Enlightenment

• Honesty

• Liberalization

Thanks to everyone who offered their thoughts.  I’m open to more; you can add comments to this post or go to our on-line poll.

Quite seriously, I can think of nothing that would put more healthy pressure on the president to give greater consideration to the interests of his base than, if every time he was asked about being bi-partisan, he was also asked about “touching base.”  Bi-partisan cooperation on the health care bill meant being sensitive to the Republican’s desire for little or no change (as represented by their nearly unanimous votes against the Patient Protection and Affordability Act).  Touching base would have meant giving serious consideration to Medicare for All.  Then a compromise between the interests of Republicans and the Democratic base would have been something like the public option.

The president ceded the public option without getting anything in return.  It might not have been so easy had we been better at insisting that he “touch base” besides being bi-partisan.

The strength of the president’s base in Congress is much weaker now than it was in the 111^th Congress.  However, by acknowledging the presence of his base as well as that of Republicans, he will help both himself and other Democrats in the 2012 election because it is the base that gives Democrats their identity.

The post President Obama needs to touch base more often appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Adam Shriver is a next-generation leader among St. Louis-area progressive activists. His blog, St. Louis Activist Hub, plays a major role in alerting activists to issues and events, and he is an outspoken critic of tea-party leaders. He was named Political Gadfly of the year [2010] by the Riverfront Times, and he is a co-founder of the recently launched Forward STL blog, a one-stop source for left-of-center news for the area’s progressive community. In an interview with Occasional Planet [OP], Shriver [AS] shared some of his ideas on progressivism, activism and the local political scene.

OP: How did you get started as an activist?

AS: When I was five years old, I asked my mother why she didn’t eat meat. She said, “Because it hurts the animals.” According to her version of the story, that was all I needed to hear, and I immediately became a vegetarian. So, you could say that the idea of animal welfare is where I got my start. My first official act of activism was in Iowa in 2001, when I joined a group of environmental activists who protested as George W. Bush came through town.  But I didn’t really understand the full power of activism until I became a campus organizer through an AmeriCorps program after college.

OP: You’re a Ph.D. candidate in the  Philosophy/Neuroscience/Psychology program at Washington U. How does that academic pursuit fit in with being a progressive activist?

AS: In the PNP program, we look at philosophical issues as they relate to the brain. My main interest in philosophy is in ethics. There’s a fairly new field in philosophy that tries to examine the constraints put on ethical theorizing that result from understanding how the brain works. Thinking about ethics provides the motivation to be an activist, and my political activities are, at least in that way, an extension of my studies in philosophy.

OP: How do you define progressivism?

AS: My definition probably doesn’t fit the historical meaning of the word “progressive.” I see progressivism as standing in opposition to the view that there are some people who are bad or in unfortunate circumstances for no reason. Progressivism takes a scientific perspective of looking for the reasons why some people are in difficult situations in their lives. Progressivism acknowledges that there are causes behind bad behaviors and disadvantaged circumstances, and that we can address inequality by understanding its causes.

Progressivism is an inherently optimistic viewpoint. Instead of saying, “There will always be poverty, unemployment and bad people, so just live with it,” as a progressive, you’ll look at the reasons behind those conditions. You want to address the problems. You’re motivated to hope and work for a world with less suffering that functions in a better way.

OP: Is there anyone you’d name as your progressive role model?

AS: One person I’ve admired is John Lewis, who was a leader in the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee during the Civil Rights movement. He embodies the kind of organization and commitment to a better world I think we, as activists, should strive for. Discussions of the movement nowadays focus quite a bit on Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., but I like Lewis because he was more low-key and involved in the day-to-day training and activities. He kept people involved. He’s emblematic of someone who works behind the scenes. The Civil Rights movement wouldn’t have been successful without Martin Luther King as its orator and figurehead, but it also wouldn’t have been as successful without the ground troops like John Lewis.

OP: What are the biggest misconceptions about progressives?

AS: The political right has been very successful in its PR campaign to portray liberal activists as knee-jerk reactionaries who haven’t thought a lot about the issues, or who are just hippies who do it because it’s cool. That perception has seeped into the general consciousness and the press, and as a result, liberal activism is often treated dismissively. An example is the Iraq War: No one presented a strong case for the existence of weapons of mass destruction, but when liberals protested, they were marginalized by the media.

OP: What’s the state of progressive activism in St. Louis?

AS: We’re very fragmented. What holds us back is too much focus on differences among groups and disagreements about minor things. There’s not enough emphasis on the values that we share. For example, there’s a huge number of people in environmental groups who don’t understand the point of labor issues, and an equal number in the labor movement who don’t “get” environmental causes. People don’t see themselves as part of a larger, progressive movement, and that compartmentalization holds back activism. We don’t present a unified set of values and we haven’t defined a core set of beliefs.

OP: How would you remedy that “silo-ization?”

AS: I think we need a large student/youth movement in St. Louis. Right now, there are a lot of old grudges among groups, which I think could be swept away if we had a newer, younger movement of people who don’t remember the old hurts. If we could get students from different campuses to successfully join together, it could demonstrate that working together is effective. And if leaders from student groups got together and met regularly, they could make a change.

OP: What are the biggest obstacles to effective activism by progressives?

AS: Unfortunately, a lot of liberal/progressive people don’t feel a need to participate. Too many people settle for an attitude of “I’ve got progressive ideas and I vote correctly.” To bring people together, we need a stronger level of commitment from the average person. Also, being an activist is hard work, and it’s frustrating. Plus, the right has successfully made a lot of people think that there’s something wrong with being a liberal activist.

OP: How do you maintain your own enthusiasm and energy for activism?

AS: I’m basically an optimist. I know that, looking at the situation right now, it’s bleak: The power of corporations to get people to act against their own self-interest is mind-boggling. But I’m optimistic that, while selfishness is part of human nature, it’s also in humanity to care about each other. I may be diverging from reason on this, but I think that the empathetic part of human nature will be an incentive for progressives to come together. There’s something in people that makes us hope.

The post Interview: St. Louis activist Adam Shriver shares his philosophy appeared first on Occasional Planet.