Progressive Party Platform, Construction Thread Options

[Wolfman Mike]

I think it's time to face facts. The Democratic Party really isn't worth trying to salvage anymore. We try to put up genuinely Progressive candidates, they get shut out by the mainstream media. We dare raise the prospect of impeachment, and speak out against those who actively try to stifle it, we get punished. Just look at what the powerful are doing to Dennis Kucinich. He's facing a primary battle because he refused to back down on impeachment. So I think it's time all Progressives start getting the process started to reform the Progressive Party. We already have enough Progressive Democrats in Congress (seventy-two belong to the Congressional Progressive Caucus) to switch over to a newly formed political party. If each and every one of them were to up and leave for a newly-formed Progressive Party within Congress, imagine the sheer power we'd establish in the legislature. We could caucus with Democrats on certain conditions, like ending the Iraq war and impeaching Bush and Cheney. And if the Democratic "leadership" under Pelosi, Hoyer and Emanuel balks, we would caucus with no one, thereby giving the threat of reverting the House to Republican control real teeth.

Whether or not this actually works, I think it should still be tried. If we don't at least try, then what's the point of democracy in 21st Century America? And obviously if we're going to try to build a new Progressive Party, we shall need a platform. I think before anyone even begins to form a new political party we should know exactly what we stand for and why. So I think we should first agree whether or not we want to do this, and then create a solidly Progressive platform.

What do the rest of you think? Do you want to try this?

And obviously, if we're going to try to build a new Progressive Party, we shall need a platform. This being the Activism forum, this is a team effort and collaboration. What shall we stand for as a political party? From this post forward, we should all be contributing ideas. I shall update this post as new ideas and positions are incorporated, until we have a more or less complete platform with which to run on.

And for a more muted color scheme...



Progressive Party Platform

[rjones2818]

The Dems don't speak for me. They never really had, but I teamed up with them in '06 out of sheer disregard for the Repugs. It's time we, as progressives, leftists, anarcho-socialists, etc., let that party fall apart. I think the Dems are as rotten as the Repugs party wise, and I think both are about to collapse.

[Wolfman Mike]

My sentiments exactly, which is why I think now is the time to do something. I went ahead and checked out the CPC's platform page, and it is 99% of what I personally stand for. It doesn't mention abortion, but that's something we can discuss. I think the CPC's platform is something we can adopt and build upon. Here's the PDF link.

[A Proud Liberal]

Found the following concerning abortion on CPC site.

Nadler Statement on the Introduction of the Freedom of Choice Act

Legislation Would Codify Roe v. Wade Decision

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Jerrold Nadler today announced the re-introduction the Freedom of Choice Act, H.R. 5151. The legislation would codify the Roe v. Wade decision. His statement on the legislation follows:

“I am pleased to join so many leaders in the pro-choice movement, and my colleagues, and Senator Barbara Boxer, to introduce the Freedom of Choice Act.

“This legislation would, for the first time, codify the rights guaranteed under the Constitution by Roe v. Wade. It would bar government - at any level - from interfering with a woman’s fundamental right to choose to bear a child, or to terminate a pregnancy. I want to thank Senator Barbara Boxer for introducing this legislation in the Senate and for her tireless efforts in defending a woman's right to choose.

. . . . . .

That takes care of the missing one percent for me.

[Wolfman Mike]

Ha ha, good work tracking that down! My missing one percent is now covered, too. So what else, if anything, should a new Progressive Party adopt for its platform? We need to get as many members to chime in on this as possible.

[Kizzume]

I wish I knew what their stance on guns was....

[Wolfman Mike]

I wish I knew what their stance on guns was....

That's something we shall have to research as well. I am all for reasonable gun control, because the 2nd Amendment does pertain to a well regulated militia. So I think whatever the CPC's position is on gun control, we should make a Progressive Party platform incorporate a far more traditional position on gun control and the status of state militia control. (Incidentally, here is a blog entry on Daily Kos that is worth reading when discussing control over the National Guard units.) I highly recommend, Kizzume, that you read Saul Cornell's A Well Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America. It really is an eye-opening book.

[Wolfman Mike]

Alrighty then, let's post the CPC's platform and see who here supports it:

The Congressional Progressive Caucus offers the Progressive Promise for all. We believe in government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Our fairness plan is rooted in our core principles. It also embodies national priorities that are consistent with the values, needs, and hopes of all our people, not just the powerful and the privileged. We pledge our unwavering commitment to these legislative priorities and we will not rest until they become law.

1. Fighting for Economic Justice and Security in the U.S. and Global Economies

» To uphold the right to universal access to affordable, high quality healthcare for all.

» To preserve guaranteed Social Security benefits for all Americans, protect private pensions, and require corporate accountability.

» To invest in America and create new jobs in the U.S. by building more affordable housing, re-building America’s schools and physical infrastructure, cleaning up our environment, and improving homeland security.

» To export more American products and not more American jobs and demand fair trade.

» To reaffirm freedom of association and enforce the right to organize.

» To ensure working families can live above the poverty line and with dignity by raising and indexing the minimum wage.


2. Protecting and Preserving Civil Rights and Civil Liberties

» To sunset expiring provisions of the Patriot Act and bring remaining provisions into line with the U. S. Constitution.

» To protect the personal privacy of all Americans from unbridled police powers and unchecked government intrusion.

» To extend the Voting Rights Act and reform our electoral processes.

» To fight corporate consolidation of the media and ensure opportunity for all voices to be heard.

» To ensure enforcement of all legal rights in the workplace.

» To eliminate all forms of discrimination based upon color, race, religion, gender, creed, disability, or sexual orientation.


3. Promoting Global Peace and Security

» To honor and help our overburdened international public servants – both military and civilian.

» To bring U. S. troops home from Iraq as soon as possible.

» To re-build U.S. alliances around the world, restore international respect for American power and influence, and reaffirm our nation’s constructive engagement in the United Nations and other multilateral organizations.

» To enhance international cooperation to reduce the threats posed by nuclear proliferation and weapons of mass destruction.

» To increase efforts to combat hunger and the scourge of HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, and other infectious diseases.

» To encourage debt relief for poor countries and support efforts to reach the UN’s Millennium Goals for Developing Countries.


4. Environmental Protection & Energy Independence

» To free ourselves and our economy from dependence upon imported oil and shift to growing reliance upon renewable energy supplies and technologies, thus creating at least three million new jobs, cleansing our environment, and enhancing our nation’s security.

» To promote environmental justice in affirmation that all people have an inherent right to a healthy environment, clean air, and clean water wherever we live, work, and relax.

» To change incentives in federal tax, procurement, and appropriation policies to:

(A) Speed commercialization of solar, biomass, and wind power generation, while encouraging state and local policy innovation to link clean energy and job creation;

(B) Convert domestic assembly lines to manufacture highly efficient vehicles, enhance global competitiveness of U.S. auto industry, and expand consumer choice;

© Increase investment in construction of “green buildings” and more energy-efficient homes and workplaces;

(D) Link higher energy efficiency standards in appliances to consumer and manufacturing incentives that increase demand for new durable goods and increase investment in U.S. factories;

» To eliminate environmental threat posed by global warming and ensuring that America does our part to advance an effective global problem-solving approach.

» To expand energy-efficient transportation choices by increasing investment in synthesized networks, including bicycle, local bus and rail transit, regional high-speed rail and magnetic levitation rail projects.

» To preserve prudent public interest regulations that encourage sustainable growth and investment, ensure energy diversity and system reliability, protect workers and the environment, reward consumer conservation, and support an expanding marketplace that rewards the commercialization of energy-efficient technologies.

Freedom of Choice Act, H.R. 5151. The legislation would codify the Roe v. Wade decision.

Are these positions to Liberal-Progressive members' liking?

[TreeHugger]

Michael/Wolf, I replied to this great idea of yours in more detail over at my place. You can color me interested. I've always been quite a bit to the left of the Democrats, but after these past couple of years, I'm now officially disgusted with them.

Count me in.

If I thought for a minute, a Progressive Party had a chance of making some noise in this country, I would volunteer both time and money.

An interesting site:


http://progressivepunch.yvod.com/

Just as an example, here is the Progressive Rating for Congressman Tom Allen from Maine who is going to be challenging (and hopefully defeating) Republican Senator Susan Collins this fall. As you can see, he's wonderfully progressive and I think he'd represent my fine state very well.

[Wolfman Mike]

Michael/Wolf, I replied to this great idea of yours in more detail over at my place. You can color me interested. I've always been quite a bit to the left of the Democrats, but after these past couple of years, I'm now officially disgusted with them.

Count me in.

If I thought for a minute, a Progressive Party had a chance of making some noise in this country, I would volunteer both time and money.

An interesting site:


http://progressivepunch.yvod.com/

Just as an example, here is the Progressive Rating for Congressman Tom Allen from Maine who is going to be challenging (and hopefully defeating) Republican Senator Susan Collins this fall. As you can see, he's wonderfully progressive and I think he'd represent my fine state very well.

Why thank you! And not just for participating, but for providing those excellent links.

[Wolfman Mike]

In a couple of days I'll place a poll for adopting platform planks, but first I want to address a couple of things that I believe could be stumbling blocks. The first is abortion, the second is gun control -- two hot-button issues that we'll want to make sure we can promote to people from a broader range of beliefs.

On abortion, while I do believe it is a woman's unalienable right, I think we should stress that we are committed to reducing it through: educating teens on the consequences of sex and how they can protect themselves when engaging in it; reforming our foster care system so it is a more attractive option for expectant mothers; offering prenatal care to low income mothers; and getting community leaders and parents to engage in serious discussion, among other things. I think we should also stress a tendency to make third trimester abortions legal only in cases where the life or long term health of the mother is in jeopardy, as diagnosed by a trained and licensed physician. But that's something I think we can debate amongst ourselves.

On gun control, as I said, I think Saul Cornell's A Well Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America is worth reading for anyone regardless of his position on the issue. I think we should stress reasonable gun control, and promote a return of the National Guard to the states' full control.

Just my ideas, feel free to add your own.

[TreeHugger]

Interestingly, Tom Allen (my Maine Senate candidate) has a higher progressive rating than Dennis Kucinich. I'm considering volunteering for his campaign, even if it's just calling people or putting up signs along the side of the road.

I had fun on that site going through both the House and Senate trying to find the most (and least) progressive.

[Wolfman Mike]

Interestingly, Tom Allen (my Maine Senate candidate) has a higher progressive rating than Dennis Kucinich. I'm considering volunteering for his campaign, even if it's just calling people or putting up signs along the side of the road.

I had fun on that site going through both the House and Senate trying to find the most (and least) progressive.

Yeah, I'll definitely have to check that site out in more detail.

[Wolfman Mike]

One more thing I'd like to add, especially in light of what I posted here. One of the problems we face is having too many disparate issues to promote as a political movement, and an inability to make them work together. I'll explain why in a moment, but I want to stress first that there is a way around such a stumbling block.

The biggest thing we can and should do in promoting a platform is to get people to realize that their personal issues are all part of a larger one, which everyone can support, and that issue is inequality -- both economic and social. Once we get people to see that their issues are shared by everyone else, I think we can generate a sense of unified purpose.

The biggest problem we face is that we as a society have become programmed to forego selflessness and charity in favor of selfishness. I know that's a loaded word, but that's what it is. It doesn't mean people are bad for it; we've simply been conditioned to place our own personal problems above those of everyone else, while forgetting that we all share those problems as part of the larger American community. So as we finalize a platform it is important to remember that each mini-issue is part of a larger, overall one that unifies us all by way of common purpose: the reduction of economic and social inequality in society.

[CHAZ]

We have talked about this in the past and I think it is time to find a change. I had a post on KOS about what I thought would happen if Clinton was the nominee. I am not impressed with the direction of the DNC. So yes, count me in. I think that we should emphasize that we are a full participation party, controlled by the members.

This post has been edited by CHAZ: Feb 8 2008, 09:08 AM

[Wolfman Mike]

I agree, Chaz, and the way things are going it doesn't look like it matters who the nominee is; McCain is likely to be the Republicans' nominee, so while Obama and Clinton continue to battle it out for votes and cash until the DNC, he now has time to build his chest for the general election and get lay voters to back him.

Anyway, I think now it is time to address two aspects of the Congressional Progressive Caucus's platform that do not appear to have been posted. That, I think, is because they're hot-button issues for a lot of people and it's very tricky to incorporate them in such a way as to accommodate the sensibilities of most members. We can't and shouldn't even try to please everyone, but we need to come to an agreement before putting it up for a vote. I speak, naturally, of abortion and gun control. Either or both of these issues could potentially fracture and even kill a new political party, if there is too much emotion-driven disagreement amongst the membership. So we need to be abundantly clear on what position we should actually adopt. So what better time than now to start hammering it out details? I'll pitch my ideas first, and the rest of you should pitch in with your own. Bear in mind that at this stage these are only ideas to be considered and debated upon, We won't vote on these until there is a general consensus.

1. Abortion
   
   

   Obviously this is the biggest issue for us to grapple with, since it directly affects roughly half the nation's population and indirectly affects the other half. I speak, of course, of women and men, respectively. I think most of us can agree that women have the right to decide whether or not to go to term with pregnancies. I also think most of us can agree that third trimester abortions should be restricted to instances in which the life or long term health of the mother is threatened, but I don't want to put my opinion in other people's mouths, if you will. So I want to know if this is something our female members can agree with. Since this is your issue, ladies, the vast bulk of the decision is yours.

   
   
2. Gun Control
   
   

   This is another hot-button issue, for obvious reasons. There is a whole swath of the population that thinks gun ownership is an individual right, and another that thinks it is a collective right for militias. I purchased a book last year by OSU professor Saul Cornell, called A Well Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America, which now that I have finished reading Paul Krugman's Conscience of A Liberal I may now devote my attention to. Cornell argues that both sides of the gun control debate are wrong, that gun ownership is a civic duty of the able-bodied populace and that governments retain the right to regulate militias as they see fit in keeping with the 2nd Amendment. My own thoughts on gun control are that we need to pass reasonable laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and psychopaths, while returning full control of the National Guard unites to the states from whence they are taken. In short, have both a federal military and the individual state-controlled, regulated militias. What say the rest of you?

I think these two parts of a platform should be as fully and comprehensively settled as we can make them, before proceeding to a vote.

[CHAZ]

Just my input: I am pro-choice and I have said that it is personal and private decision that is made by the individual and that the government should not have a say in that decision. The person should have at hand all available info on the proceedure and that is about as far as the govt needs to be involved.

Gun Control: This is a even touchier subject for most Americans. Damn near everyone thionks that for some reason they need access to firearms. look at 07 feb 08--in LA man shoots family and cops and then dies, in Mo. man enters into city council shoots mayor and others, then is killed, in, don't remember state, man enters scholl shoots woman teacher and on and on....it is an epidemic of gun violence. And this is a daily occurrence. Personally, I do not want a gun, I played Army in Vietnam and have head enough gun crap for the rrest of my life. They need to be more adequate control over the sale, if we must have them. I could go on and on, but it would just set off a barrage of negative stuff.

Just my thoughts.

[Wolfman Mike]

Just my input: I am pro-choice and I have said that it is personal and private decision that is made by the individual and that the government should not have a say in that decision. The person should have at hand all available info on the proceedure and that is about as far as the govt needs to be involved.

Gun Control: This is a even touchier subject for most Americans. Damn near everyone thionks that for some reason they need access to firearms. look at 07 feb 08--in LA man shoots family and cops and then dies, in Mo. man enters into city council shoots mayor and others, then is killed, in, don't remember state, man enters scholl shoots woman teacher and on and on....it is an epidemic of gun violence. And this is a daily occurrence. Personally, I do not want a gun, I played Army in Vietnam and have head enough gun crap for the rrest of my life. They need to be more adequate control over the sale, if we must have them. I could go on and on, but it would just set off a barrage of negative stuff.

Just my thoughts.

Which is exactly why we need to have these two issues covered before holding a vote on whether to adopt any positions on them. A lot of people have one or both of these as their biggest make-or-break issues in politics, and I think we need to be able to say we are the party that actually holds a position on each that most voters can live with.

Here are my ideas, and the rest of you can expand upon them or give your own:

1.) On abortion, codify Roe vs Wade, but for third trimester (six to six and a half months and onward) abortions keep it legal only if the life or long term health of the mother is clearly in jeopardy by carrying to term. Increase funding to child placement services (foster care agencies); increase funding for comprehensive sex education programs that are proven to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies; increase funding for prenatal care for unwed and low-income mothers; and expand daycare and nanny services to assist low-income families and single parents who choose to keep their children after birth.

2.) Codify the 2nd Amendment as a civic duty of all able-bodied Americans, regulate guns in keeping with maintaining well regulated federal and state armies, and return full control of National Guard units to their states of origin -- returning the right of states to regulate their own militias as they see fit. That way, we can appeal not only to gun control advocates but also to those who feel that the federal military is too big a threat to state sovereignties. Granted, this would present a problem especially if a time comes when once more states come to blows. Which is why I think there ought to be both a federal military and individual state-sanctioned militias. Balance.

Again, these are just my suggestions. If you disagree, feel free to do so. If you've ideas of your own to add, please add them.

[CHAZ]

Wolf, I like your explanation, it works for me. Is there someway we could work into the document that private armies like Blackwater cannot exist. I mean Aaron burr was arrested for treason trying to raise a private army. I realize this may not be as important as some other courses but I think it needs to be addressed.

Good job! Keep up the good work!

[Wolfman Mike]

Given that the 2nd Amendment clearly gives states the right to regulate their own militias, private armies such as Blackwater would be in clear and direct violation. There's no individual or collective right to gun ownership in the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, as I am learning; it is a right of the states and the federal government to have well regulated militias. An unregulated group of Americans armed to the teeth and fighting as individuals isn't a militia, it's a mob. And mobs have a nasty tendency to be put down by organized and well regulated fighting forces. Quickly.

TreeHugger replied over at the OtL version of this thread, so I'll quote from her answer:

Any ideas pertaining to this post? Here are my ideas, and the rest of you can expand upon them or give your own:

1.) On abortion, codify Roe vs Wade, but for third trimester (six to six and a half months and onward) abortions keep it legal only if the life or long term health of the mother is clearly in jeopardy by carrying to term.

I have to respectfully disagree on this part. I believe in leaving the decision of abortion totally up to the pregnant woman and her doctor. No cutoffs, no restrictions. If the woman chooses to have an abortion, at any time, she has a right to both the procedure and complete privacy regarding that decision. Statistics show that women make sound decisions early in their pregnancies regarding abortion. Abortion providers are also responsible and only perform late-term abortions on rare occasions. These factors, I believe, make additional legislation unnecessary.

Increase funding to child placement services (foster care agencies); increase funding for comprehensive sex education programs that are proven to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies; increase funding for prenatal care for unwed and low-income mothers; and expand daycare and nanny services to assist low-income families and single parents who choose to keep their children after birth.

I agree with all of these 100%.

2.) Codify the 2nd Amendment as a civic duty of all able-bodied Americans, regulate guns in keeping with maintaining well regulated federal and state armies, and return full control of National Guard units to their states of origin -- returning the right of states to regulate their own militias as they see fit. That way, we can appeal not only to gun control advocates but also to those who feel that the federal military is too big a threat to state sovereignties. Granted, this would present a problem especially if a time comes when once more states come to blows. Which is why I think there ought to be both a federal military and individual state-sanctioned militias. Balance.

I'll have to think about this one, Michael. My stance on guns is this: I believe in the right for law-abiding, non-violent citizens to possess firearms. However, I also believe that those who have been convicted of violent crimes (assault, spousal abuse, and (of course) rape, stalking, etc) have relinquished their right to own firearms, at least until they can be assessed by licensed professionals and deemed not a threat to themselves or others. I also see no need for your average citizen to own an AK-47, an Uzi, hand grenades or other high-caliber "assault" rifles.

So I was thinking that a two-part poll could be put up on abortion, or a three-part one. The first two parts would deal with choosing between keeping third trimester abortions legal only in instances in which the life or long term health of the mother is in danger as diagnosed by physicians, and keeping no restrictions on abortion. The third poll question would include the rest (sex education, prenatal care, foster care reform, and so forth).