A PROGRESSIVE MANIFESTO (Part 2 in a series)

This is the second installment in a series designed to present a broad overview of the progressive position on a wide array of current issues, designed to dispel any misconceptions conservatives, moderates, or independents may have about what we believe and where we are coming from.



THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT

Teddy Roosevelt was a very influential and immensely popular Republican President.
Republican Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive who firmly believed government had the right and the obligation to look out for and protect the best interests of all the people. In an Osawatomie, KS speech given on August 31, 1910, he declared, "The object of government is the welfare of the people. The material progress and prosperity of a nation are desirable chiefly so far as they lead to the moral and material welfare of all good citizens." With this statement, he defined the progressive belief that government is an entity whose major responsibility is making certain that ALL citizens' needs are met, not just those of a particular class or income level. This was further reinforced by another 1910 speech he gave to an audience at the Sorbonne in Paris, when he stated, "Every man holds his property subject to the general right of the community to use to whatever degree the public welfare may require it." That statement, of course, also refers to government's role in regulating business, as he made clear in another speech, this one at the Progressive Party Convention in Chicago on June 17, 1912. "We wish to control big business so as to secure among other things good wages for the wage-workers and reasonable prices for the consumer", he said. By this time, his Republican Party had disagreed with him on the role of government, particularly as to how it related to business, so he had broken away from it to form a more progressive party, known back then as the Bull Moose Party.

Roosevelt's declarations stand in stark contrast to the beliefs of today's free-marketers and far-right conservative Republicans, who believe that government has no right at all to interfere with business and that the free market will fix whatever problems it encounters all, and best, by itself. We progressives believe this to be an errant, naive philosophy. Historical events prove OUR belief to be true, and theirs to be folly.

Wild, unregulated market speculation fueled by greed caused the crash of October, 1929, and led to the Great Depression. Similar wild unregulated speculation fueled by greed caused our summer of 2008 $4 per gallon gasoline problem, our mortgage banking problem, the failure of numerous banks, and contributed to our current Great Recession. In all these cases, had government been able to exercise a moderating influence on free market business initiatives, general prosperity would have been maintained rather than lost, and millions of people now unemployed would still have jobs. If rhe government had more power to regulate the health care industry, we would not have 1 of every 6.5 people in this country without health care insurance coverage, and the ever-rising costs of health care WOULDN'T be rising at a rate much higher than inflation or wages, and millions of citizens wouldn't be heading into bankruptcy due to medical costs. In all of these cases the lack of government regulation and the totally free exercise taken by unrestrained concentrated capital hurt, rather than helped, the public welfare. Each of these cases perfectly exposes the fallacy of private enterprise being able to take care of problems all on its own, without regulation.

We progressives believe that government has the inherent power to protect its citizenry from powerful enemies from without as well as from powerful entities within. You have every right to march and prance around as often and in any way you like, but should your marching and prancing be all over my toes and hurt my feet, we progressives say that your marching must be restricted, and that restriction should occur as a result of government regulation and supervision. That is only basic common sense, and so should it be with the marketplace. We do not believe that individuals or their businesses have the absolute right to do as they please without question; to force workers to work in unsafe conditions; to pay these workers, who actually produce the goods and services from which profit is made, very low wages while the company owner or CEO makes many hundreds of times that amount; or for an individual or business to be able to pollute the environment or endanger others in their pursuit of profit. In each case, we see the complete necessity of government to act as a regulator for the common good.

We progressives do not at all agree with Ronald Reagan's assertiion that government is the problem and not the solution. For government is the creator and enforcer of LAW, which is the underpinning of a stable and civilized nation. In the absence of law there is anarchy and constasnt civil disorder. Government is therefore an absolute necessity.

It is interesting to note the difference between the progressive and conservative perceptions on government. The conservative believes government is necessary to enforce absolute property rights and to protect the wealthy's holdings from being taken away by the lower classes. The progressive sees government as a necessary buffer to protect those in the middle and bottom from excesses and exploitation foisted on them by the wealthy. Conservatives therefore only see government's value in terms of its material protection, and see all other attributes as encumbrances. Yet, as Manifesto Joe of Manifesto Joe's Texas Blues (http:manifestojoestexasblues.blogspot.com/) so wisely pointed out in the comments section of the first installment of this series, "property rights exist BECAUSE OF GOVERNMENT, not in spite of it." He further explains, "Government and law define what property is, how much of it one rightfully owns...a typical difference between progressive/modern liberal view and that of conservatives and libertarians is that the former consider property rights CONDITIONAL . The piblic interest comes first, and ownership of assets carries with it the condition of being accountable to that public interest." With these statements, Manifesto Joe has brilliantly reinforced that which Republican Teddy Roosevelt first laid out and practiced during his presidency from 1901-1909, and which subsequent progressive Presidents, among them FDR, Truman, JFK, and LBJ followed suit with.


Progressives believe government can and should be a good force working on behalf of the people and not just a vehicle for special interests to use and abuse for their own ends.


NEXT: FOREIGN POLICY AND NATIONAL DEFENSE

LEADERSHIP WE COULD USE TODAY!

"TAX THE VERY WEALTHY TO MAKE EVERYONE HEALTHY!"
- VIGILANTE, SOZADEE, CA -


It was a kinder, gentler, and, in many ways, a much nobler time. People were far more civil back then, as they had shared a unique and almost universal commonality. His country had just left a terrible economic catastrophe which had seen millions go hungry and without work. It had also been involved in a horrifically bloody and costly war. Many returned soldiers were still without jobs and there was a housing shortage as well. A new enemy was devouring territory overseas and had declared its determination to conquer the world. Though it seemed that the absolute worst of the preceding few years had passed, much had been lost and many were gripped with an uneasy and gnawing fear. The future seemed uncertain at best. In such a foreboding atmosphere, he decided to run for high political office in an effort to bring hope to millions and improve their lot in life.



He was a member of "the greatest generation", and like most others of that time, he had come from very humble roots. Son of a small town pharmacist, he was raised in a small midwestern village of only 700 people. From this simple and austere setting, he dreamed of some day becoming a college professor. The dream was seemingly dashed, however, once the Great Depression hit. He had to leave the university in his first year of study to work in and help save the small family drug store. To do so, it became clear that he, like his father, must also become a pharmacist, and so he buckled down to learn the trade. This extremely bright and dedicated young man amazingly completed a two-year course of study in only six months' time and received his Pharmacist's License from the Capitol College of Pharmacy in Denver, CO. Over the next 7 years, he worked tirelessly in the family store until it had once again become prosperous, this in the middle of the worst economic downturn in the nation's history.

By 1937, his hard work had made it possible for him to return to college. Two years later he had earned a B.A. from the University of Minnesota. The very next year, he attended Louisiana State University (where a classmate of his was future Louisiana Senator Russell B. Long). Here he obtained his Master's Degree in Political Science. Ever gregarious, friendly, and energetic, he along the way became a brother of the Phi Delta Chi (Theta Division) fraternity, and also an honorary brother of Alpha Phi Alpha, an African-American fraternity. This was a rather remarkable occurrence for a white man of his era. But then war broke out, and the direction of his life took another turn.

Like most men of that time, he felt compelled to help his country fight to victory. After two failed attempts at enlistment (he was rejected due to a hernia), he worked in several different wartime agencies over the next few years to aid the cause. He began to notice the positive effect government agencies could play in people's lives, and so became interested in government and politics as a practical career. He ran for mayor of Minneapolis but was defeated due to an inadequately funded campaign. Undaunted, he remained active in politics, and played a pivotal role in merging Minnesota's laborers and farmers with the state's Democratic Party. The resultant DFL (Democratic-Farmer-Labor) Party he helped forge back then became, and remains to this day, Minnesota's dominant political party. On his second try, he was successful in his bid to become mayor of Minneapolis, and was reelected by a record margin two years after that. He had enacted many local beneficial reforms and had been successful in removing undesirable criminals from the city.

And so it was in 1948 that he decided to make a bid for even higher office. He figured that, if he achieved the office of U.S. Senator, he would be able to work for the betterment of millions all across the country rather than just several hundred thousand on a local level. That year he became the first Democratic Senator from Minnesota in 47 years, and the first Democrat actually elected to the Senate from that state since 1858!It was an amazing accomplishment. He didn't fully realize it then, but he had engineered a huge political shift for his state. But the best was yet to come.

Even prior to his senatorial election, he undertook a principled, courageous, and controversial fight to end racial discrimination. At the 1948 Democratic National Convention, he took to the microphone and boldly proclaimed, "To those who say, we are rushing this issue of civil rights, I say to them we are 172 years too late...the time has arrived in America for the Democratic Party to get out of the shadow of states' rights and walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights!"

Once elected, he spent the next 15 years steadfastly working for civil rights, the cause of labor, and government aid for the less fortunate. He once admonished, "Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism." He advocated the idea of the Peace Corps, which President John F. Kennedy adopted and established in 1961. He was passionate and articulate and loved to deliver a forceful speech. Comic Johhny Carson once jokingly referred to him as "Minnesota Chats", a pun on the nickname of "Minnesota Fats" which had been given to a popular billiards player of the day. His joyous and smiling approach to politics earned him the praise and admiration of his colleagues, even political foes. While known for his dramatic and fiery public oratory, he was also very adept at soft-spoken, behind-the-scenes listening, negotiating, and compromising. Conservative Republican Barry Goldwater once said of him, "listening to him is like trying to read Playboy magazine with your wife turning the pages." For, while forceful and excitable, he was also very thorough, as well as respectful and quick-witted. On another occasion, Goldwater recalled, "After one of his long-winded speeches I suggested he had been vaccinated with a phonograph needle. He responded by saying that I would have been a great success in the movies working for Eighteenth Century Fox."

He went on to become his nation's 38th Vice President, serving under President Lyndon B. Johnson. As Vice President, Hubert H. Humphrey continued with his expertise in listening, negotiating, and compromising. He worked with his old Senate colleagues and was instrumental in getting civil rights, voting rights, Medicare, Fair Housing, and other progressive LBJ legislation through Congress, back in that golden era when Congress actually delivered a great deal of benefit for average working people, farmers, and the poor, not just big business.

Humphrey was narrowly defeated by Richard Nixon in 1968 when he ran for the presidency. He went back home to Minnesota to teach political science at Macalaster College. Voters returned him to the U.S. Senate two years later, and he remained there the rest of his life. I consider myself lucky to have actually met him and shaken his hand briefly in 1975. He had a big, powerful hand with surprisingly tender palms. I remember thinking at the time how that hand had probably shaken 1 million others prior to having shaken mine, for he had met people all across the country and throughout the world in his long career. The very next year, I had the distinct pleasure of seeing him deliver a stump speech in southern Minnesota on behalf of then-presidential candidate Jimmy Carter. I had driven down to see and hear both men speak in an open field and see how they would fare before a crowd in this normally fairly conservative Republican area of the state. Humphrey launched into a fiery "give-'em-hell-Hubert" type of tirade about how Earl Butz, Gerald Ford, and the Republicans had ruined the rural and agricultural economy, and how Jimmy Carter would set things right. At the end of his speech, Humphrey had a good number of those Republicans loudly cheering that day. It was a sight to behold! (Of course, that was back in the days when Republicans actually listened to, and compromised with, their opponents, and didn't try to disrupt political gatherings, or, like spoiled, unruly little children, shout out those not sharing their view. Our country AND the Republican Party were in far saner, more civil, and much better shape in that way back at that time)!

When Humphrey died in 1978, his funeral was attended by hundreds of world and American political leaders, friend and foe alike. All came to pay their last, heartfelt, genuine respects to the man who had been dubbed "the happy warrior" and who had celebrated and fought for the causes of equal rights, fairness, and opportunity for the entire human race.



I have no doubt that Hubert H. Humphrey would be delighted to see we have elected Barack Obama as our first President of African-American heritage. He would likewise be delighted that we now have Sonia Sotomayor as our first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice. And I am certain that he would be an avidly vocal supporter of a universal, public option (if not an outright single-payer) national health care bill, just as he had strongly supported Medicare in 1965. There is absolutely no way this great fighter for justice would have allowed today's greedy and exclusive health insurance and pharmaceutical companies to fleece the public as they have been doing steadily for the past two decades. He would have lambasted and shamed them publicly, and thrashed them for their excesses. His would be a leadership we could use today. He would do as he always did: strongly voice his support for public health care reform publicly, let tthe piggish-monied interests know he meant business, and then privately listen to and negotiate with the opposition to get a meaningful and beneficial bill passed. His approach would not be like that of Mitch McConnell, or John Kyl, or Jim DeMint, or Eric Cantor, or John Boehner, whereby all one says is "no" and tries to gin up angry protestors across the country for the benefit of lobbyists and big insurance companies. For Humphrey worked on behalf of, and truly understood, average working people and those who need special help, not big business and corrupt corporate lobbyists. He never forgot the hard-pressed people who were all around him as he came of age, the difficulties his own family had faced, or how government could be a good and effective means to help better everyone's lives. He would stand today with the positive-oriented and visionary Dennis Kuciniches, Bernie Sanderses, Anthony Weiners, and Sherrod Browns in government, not with the previously mentioned naysayers. Hubert H. Humphrey would now rise and state, with firm conviction, that "those who say we are rushing this issue of universal national health care, I say to you we are 233 years too late, and the time has come for Government to get out of the dark shadows of exclusion and obsession with excessive private profit and walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of providing for universal human needs!"

AND HE WOULD BE THOROUGHLY CORRECT.






UP NEXT: JESUS AND UNIVERSAL NATIONAL HEALTH CARE REFORM

THE MORE THINGS CHANGE, THE MORE THEY STAY THE SAME!

(THEN): "The fundamental business of the economy...is on a sound and prosperous basis."
- Former GOP President Herbert Hoover -
(NOW): " Our economy, I think, still - the fundamentals of our economy are strong."
- GOP Senator John McCain (AZ) -
------------
(THEN): "Every time the government is forced to act, we lose something in self-reliance, character, and initiative."
- Former GOP President Herbert Hoover -
(NOW): "Government can't fix this."
- GOP House Minority Leader Rep. John Boehner (OH) -
------------
(THEN): "Economic depression cannot be cured by legislative action or executive pronouncement. Economic wounds must be healed by the action of the cells of the economic body - the producers and consumers themselves."
- Former GOP President Herbert Hoover -
(NOW): "Not in the history of mankind has the government ever created a job."
- GOP Chair Michael Steele -
------------
(THEN): [On FDR] - "...amiable, pleasant, anxious to be of service, very badly informed, and of comparatively little vision."
- Former GOP President Herbert Hoover -
(NOW): [On Obama] - "he is the world's greatest salesman of socialism."
- GOP Senator Jim DeMint (SC) -
_____________________________________________

Just as during the Great Depression of the 1930s, the nation is once again in the grip of a baffling and worrisome severe economic downturn. Fear and unemployment are rising, consumer spending is tightening, and banks aren't lending. Once more, we have two differing views as to how to overcome this crisis: Pro-government progressives and most Democrats, and anti-government conservatives and most Republicans.

Progressives view government aid to shore up faltering banks and provide work programs as absolutely essential to jump-start the stalled economy and prevent widespread, unnecessary human deprivation and suffering. They, together with President Obama, have fashioned and are implementing a Stimulus Plan which they believe will do just that. It resembles Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal in certain respects. I believe it will successfully ease burdens much as did FDR's revolutionary new plan of yesteryear.

Conservatives oppose this plan. They wish to see minimal government involvement in the economy. They believe government is too large and too influential already, and their belief is that additional tax cuts for the wealthy and big business, coupled with further easing of government regulation over business, are the only actions that will expand the economy and create jobs. I disagree with that premise.

Republicans have long favored business needs and rights over individual, human ones. They continually try, through deregulation, to get government off the backs of business, even as business climbs all over the backs of ordinary citizens with ever-rising prices, frozen workers' wages, environmental contamination, and unsafe products. The conservative Republican business community has long believed that a minimally or self-regulated free market will solve its own problems and correct itself. This group also believes that lowered taxes on business and the rich will spur investment and economic growth as well as create jobs. These are positions they have advanced repeatedly over the years, but time and again they have been proven inadequate or downright wrong. Free market speculation brought on the stock market crash of 1929 which led to the Great Depression. Last summer, free market speculation robbed and strangled us with $4.00 per gallon gasoline. It has also led to skyrocketing pharmaceutical and health care costs. Deregulation enabled irresponsible bank mortgage lending and ridiculously high credit card interest rates, and brought about record foreclosures, bankruptcies, bank failures, and increased incidences of food poisoning and even death. Massive tax cuts for the wealthy and big business since 2001 have NOT created new industry or high paying jobs in this country as had been promised. Yet conservative Republicans continue to push for even more of this nonsense, even though it is exactly what got us into the current mess in the first place.

Conservative Republicans love to falsely claim that "the New Deal didn't work" or that it was really World War II, and not government New Deal work programs, which ended the Great Deperession. Like most claims made by right-wing GOP spokespersons these days, those are misleading distortions and not entirely true. World War II DID vastly increase employment and Gross Domestic Product (GDP), but New Deal work programs like the WPA and CCC were major economic stimuli which helped get the economy moving again beforehand and eased the suffering of millions of Americans in the process. GDP rose slowly but steadily from mid-1933, when the economy had completely bottomed out and the first New Deal programs began, and continued until the recession of 1937-1938, which occurred when FDR heeded the cries of conservative deficit foes of both parties and and reduced government spending. But, with renewed stimulus from the second phase of the New Deal, GDP once more began climbing and never looked back after 1938. Of course, once war began to loom and American factories began pumping out armaments to China, Britain, and Russia, GDP was greatly accelerated, creating the conservative delusion that World War II was solely responsible for ending the Great Depression. Indeed, economic recovery had begun prior to World War II.

Consider this: At the pre-crash beginning of 1929, employment in America had peaked at roughly 31,500,000. Post-crash it dropped to about 30,000,000 and kept dropping for the next 3 years. At its lowest point in late 1932-early 1933, it had plunged to only 24,700,000. Then the New Deal kicked in. By 1937, employment had climbed back up to 31,000,000, a noticeable improvement. The 1937-1938 recession scaled the figure down to just over 29,000,000, before it rose again to 37,000,000 at the beginning of 1941. Conservatives often point to the recession of 1937-1938 as evidence of the New Deal's failure. but statistics do not bear this out. Below is a year-by-year listing of the percentage of the total work force unemployed from 1933-1943. It is comprehensive in that it includes those employed in New Deal work programs, which some studies omit.

1933 - 20.6%
1934 - 16.0%
1935 - 14.2%
1936 - 9.9%
1937 - 9.1%
1938 - 12.5%
1939 - 11.3%
1940 - 9.6%
1941 - 8.0%
1942 - 4.7%
1943 - 1.9%
(SOURCES: US Dept. of Commerce National Income and Product Accounts, Real GDP and GNP, and Consumer Price Index and Money Supply, 1800-2003; and Siley, Gene, "Recent Unemployment Estimates for the 1920s and 1930s, in the Journal of Economic History, June, 1983).

Those conservative Republicans who state that the New Deal didn't work or that government has never created a job are crazy. New Deal work programs helped two of my uncles put bread on their family's table and prevented my very own mother from starving. Also, they fail to notice our world's best postal system, our interstate highway system, many of our parks, bridges, schools, dams, public buildings, and even our space program are all government-created jobs. They also cannot deny the data posted above. No doubt, the economy REALLY started taking off as a result of our war production for World War II, but prior to that, the New Deal played a signifigant role in providing sorely needed ignition to jump-start a very stalled economy! AND, had Roosevelt REALLY gone full throttle with New Deal government spending, our economy may have very well sprung back without having had to resort to war production at all.

So too will it be with President Obama's Stimulus Plan. Our economy will definitely improve as a result of his and other progressives' sensible and timely action. But again, Republicans will try to keep the federal government from going full throttle, so once again, full recovery will be impeded and much slower than it should be. Once again, Republicans are being naysayers standing stubbornly in the way of something progressive and good for the public. Their inherent fear (see my May 31, 2008 blog: "American Conservatives' Paranoia") will freeze them in place and cause them to wrongly accuse the President and their opponents of socialism or communism and thereby try to scare the public away from new approaches they do not understand. This stodgy attitude cost Republicans dearly in the elections of 1934 and 1936, and so it will again, deservedly, in 2010 and 2012. These people just never learn and they are hopelessly out of touch with the majority of Americans. I guess it's true in this case: The more things change, the more they stay the same!