Blog entry

Progressive Mandate in a Sea-Change Election

Robert Borosage — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 10:15:44 -0500

Barack Obama’s historic victory in 2008 spearheaded not only a change election, but a sea-change election. It marks the end of the conservative era that has dominated our politics since 1980, and the beginning of a new era of progressive reform, driven by an emerging progressive majority.

The scope of the victory itself reflects the desire for change. Obama’s historic and unlikely candidacy won a majority of the vote, the first Democrat since Jimmy Carter to accomplish that. Democrats in the House and the Senate gained seats in back-to-back elections for the first time since the Great Depression.

The repudiation of George Bush and the Republican Congress and the conservatism they championed is clear.

But what marks this as a sea-change election is the consolidation of a new majority coalition, and the mandate provided for progressive reform for Obama and Democrats. Republicans emerge from this election as an aging, monochromatic, largely regional party, increasingly in the grip of its evangelical base. Democrats are consolidating a governing majority in what is, increasingly, a center-left nation.

MORE RESOURCES

VIDEO: See Robert Borosage discuss
the findings of the "Change Election"
report with pollster Stan Greenberg.

» Read the report

The Emerging Progressive Majority

With voters overwhelmingly looking for change, Obama did better than John Kerry in 2004 virtually across the electorate, with the exception of the older white voters. He narrowed the margin in rural areas significantly; he did better among white men; he made gains among professionals; he consolidated support in the suburbs and exurbs. But what is striking about this election is his ability to consolidate an emerging strong majority coalition.

Young voters – 18 to 29 – represented about 18 percent of the electorate and supported Obama better than two to one. This is the third straight election in which this new generation has voted for Democrats in large numbers. And in this election, they can rightfully lay claim to having propelled the Obama candidacy from the start, playing an instrumental role in his victory in the primaries.

African-American voters came out in great numbers – representing 13 percent of an expanded electorate – and voted, needless to say, overwhelmingly for Obama. Latinos, the votes that some said he might not be able to win, constituted 10 percent of the electorate and voted two to one for Obama. Single women voted 70 to 30 Obama. Union households constituted almost one in five voters, and voted 65 to35 percent for Obama. And Obama, as his predecessors, consolidated support among professional Americans with advanced degrees, by 60 to 39.

The Emerging Progressive Movement

This majority is propelled by a progressive movement of increasing capacity and sophistication. This election represented the largest mobilization of that capacity. Obama, of course, ran a truly remarkable campaign, rewriting how campaigns will be run in the future. He set new ground in using the Web to build a community of volunteers and activists, to raise money, to communicate to voters. He devoted more resources to a ground operation. That built upon work done by Moveon.org, by the vibrant progressive blogosphere, by the Dean campaign four years previously.

He also benefited from growing capacity of progressives on the ground. Labor and Working America were on the front line of the debate with working people, and delivered, particularly in key battleground states. Women’s Voices Women Vote expanded its capacity to register and mobilize single women. America Votes helped coordinate an expanded effort by citizen groups on the ground. The Obama campaign, aided by groups like Acorn, expanded voter registration efforts, particularly among the young and in African American communities.

Our poll shows the result. Voters -- particularly independent voters -- report greater contacts from the Obama campaign in every area of campaigning -- more ads on TV, more contacts by volunteers, more ads on lie, more people at the door, more emails, more cell calls. Only in the area of mail was McCain competitive. Even in the contacts of the last days—the vaunted area of the Republican 72 hour plan—the Obama campaign and its allies were far more effective.

The Mandate for Progressive Reform

Not surprisingly, the economy was the overwhelming priority of voters. Nothing else really came close. The argument about the economy – about what Obama described as the “failed philosophy” of trickle-down economics, or what McCain described as a choice between economic growth and socialist redistribution – was the center of the debate between these candidates.

Obama’s agenda was grounded on issues that were championed by progressives: Investment in new energy and conservation as a jobs and growth agenda. Affordable health care for all paid for by raising taxes on the affluent. Investment in education and infrastructure. Empowering workers to organize through passage of the Employee Free Choice Act. Holding corporations and banks more accountable. Ending the war in Iraq. Promising no more NAFTA-type trade agreements, and to repeal tax breaks for companies moving jobs abroad.

McCain largely defended the verities of Reagan era conservatism, founding his campaign on more tax cuts, on freezing spending and stopping earmarks, and continuing corporate trade policies. His health care plan featured a tax credit for those negotiating their own plan. He favored Bush’s privatization of Social Security. He began the election committed to less regulation, but adjusted as the unregulated shadow banking system collapsed. The maverick stayed true to the core of the conservative agenda.

Obama won by large margins over McCain on every economic issue. On the economy generally, 51-38. On education, health care, the financial crisis, the energy crisis, Medicare and Social Security. He even won the debate about taxes 51-42.

When asked why they voted for Obama, the leading reasons were his proposals for withdrawing troops from Iraq, cutting middle class taxes first, providing affordable health care, and his commitment to invest in education and make college more affordable. When those who voted for Obama were asked about their doubts about McCain, picking Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin led the list, but fear that he would give tax breaks to the rich and big corporations came in second, followed by the notion that he would continue Bush’s policies.

For voters, Obama should give greatest attention to reducing unemployment and getting the economy moving. That is followed by investing in alternative energy and getting us off foreign oil and changing the health care system. Given a choice on priorities, ending the war in Iraq, ending dependence on foreign oil, fixing health insurance, regulating the banking system all ranked high.

In this the divide between independents and Republicans was clear. Independents gave Obama double-digit margins over McCain on the economy, education, health care. They have him a margin of 9 percent on taxes Only on government spending, Iraq and national security, did they favor McCain over Obama. Self-described moderates also favored Obama by double digits in economic issues. They sided with McCain only on national security.

This mandate was true down the ballot as well as on the top. Bernie Horn and Alex Carter of the Campaign for America’s Future completed a report – Congressional Elections Deliver a Progressive Mandate – looking at Democrats who won House or Senate seats previously held by Republicans. This report is available on our web site at www.ourfuture.org

We measured their position on six core progressive economic issues:

Social contract: support for quality health care for all, as opposed to the McCain type plan
Progressive taxation: support for raising taxes on the rich and tax breaks for the middle class
Fair trade: Opposition to NAFTA-style agreements
Investment: Focus on investing in clean energy sources over “drill baby drill”
Worker Empowerment: support for the Employee Free Choice Act, which business spent $20 million attacking in this election
Social Security: Opposition to the privatization of Social Security.

Of the 25 Democrats that won U.S. House seats previously held by Republicans, 15 campaigns on all six of these issues; another 8 supported the progressive posture on five of six. Of the six Democrats who have thusfar won US Senate seats held by Republicans, 5 supported the progressive position on all six issues; the other supported five of six.

Candidates up and down the ticket campaigned and won on a progressive agenda.

A Center-Left Nation

After the election, we’ve heard a repeated mantra about how this is basically a center-right nation. Obama is warned to curb his agenda. He’s warned not to succumb to pressure from the liberal wing of the party. Conservatives and Republicans take solace in the notion that by a return to conservative principles will help win back a majority.

After this election, there is no greater testament to the triumph of conventional myths over reality.

It is true that by addition, one can argue this is a center-right nation. There are more self-described conservatives than liberals. Add them to moderates and you get a center-right majority by simply addition.

But that addition disappears with any analysis about attitudes. The reality is that on basic values, on core ideological choices, on core issue debates, this is increasingly a center-left nation. And Republicans are increasingly isolated from the majority of Americans.

Worried about trade accords not protecting workers or the environment enough or about putting too much of a burden on trade? Democrats say protect by 37, Independents by 31 percent. Republicans go the other way by 20. Liberals worry about worker protections by 56; moderates by 8. Conservatives go the other way by 4.

Should gays be accepted or should their relationships be discouraged? Democrats say accepted by a 50 percent margin; Independents by 23 percent. Republicans go the other way by 20 percent. Liberals accept by 65 percent; moderates by 32 percent; conservatives discourage by 32 percent.

Does government regulation do more good than harm? Democrats say more good by 53 percent; independents by 12 percent. Republicans say more harm than good by 23 percent. Again conservatives are isolated from liberals and moderates on the issue.

Are you more worried that Obama will put minorities first or that McCain will put the rich and big corporations first? Democrats, not surprising worry about McCain and the rich by 51 percent. But so do independents by 28. Republicans worry about Obama and minorities by 35 percent. Liberals worry about McCain by 61 percent; moderates by 23 percent; conservatives the other way by 16 percent.

There is only one area—and it is a critical one—where independents and moderates still side with conservatives. That is on government spending. Clearly, years of conservative misrule have made people skeptical of the ability of government to act effectively. That will surely be where Republicans try to reassert themselves in the coming days. But the test on that will not really be about spending – it will be about effectiveness. The challenge – and it is a monumental one – is reviving the government to work effectively once more. That isn't a contradiction to the progressive project; it is at the center of it.

This has clear implications for the debate going forward. Republicans will find that their conservative base is increasingly out of step with a growing majority of Americans.

So for example, we asked voters if Republicans should give Obama the benefit of the doubt and help him achieve his policies, or, since his policies will lead us “down the wrong path,” Republicans should oppose them. By nearly three to one – 71 to 24 – voters thought they should support Obama’s policies. They’ve elected him to change things and they want that mandate respected. Independents agreed by a nearly 40 percent margin. Republicans by 40-33 said Republicans should oppose.

We asked people should Obama try to reach across the aisle to gain Republican support for his agenda, or should he compromise his agenda to gain Republican support. Voters chose 54 to 39 that he should try to bring Republicans to his agenda, not compromise it. Independents agreed 48-43. Republicans thought he should change his plans by 63-31

Our poll asked: did Republicans lose because they were too conservative or not conservative enough? By a twenty point margin, voters chose too conservative. Independents agreed by a 21 point margin. Republicans disagreed by an 11 point margin Moderates when with liberals as too conservative by 41 percent.

The Progressive Mandate

Obama and the new Democratic majorities in the House and Senate inherit the desert – an economy plummeting into recession, two wars, and an increasingly dysfunctional government. They have a clear mandate for bold change – for bringing the Iraq war to an end, for getting the economy moving, for reforming health care, on energy, on holding corporations and banks accountable, on progressive tax reform.

They face a public clearly skeptical, after years of conservative misrule, about the capacity of Washington to get anything done. That will be our test. If progressives succeed in providing Americans with at least some of the change that they so desperately need, a new and potentially enduring majority for progressive reform is there to consolidate.

What Happens to the Progressive Movement Now?

Sara Robinson — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 16:38:23 -0500

All good movements turn into organizations turn into businesses turn into rackets.
—Old organizers' saying

I don't think any of us expected to get so far so soon.

Back in 2003, when Bush was southern-frying the Dixie Chicks and the Iraq War was propelling millions into the streets and progressive blogs consisted of a small handful of folks writing in their pajamas under esoteric banners like "Eschaton" or "Orcinus" or "Daily Kos," anybody who suggested that America might someday return to its liberal Enlightenment roots was right up there on the wack-o-meter with those who dreamed that the country might someday abolish private property and adopt socialist utopianism. Nobody serious thought it was remotely possible. Amongst ourselves, we told each other that ousting the conservative juggernaut would probably be the work of a couple of decades. Or maybe even a whole generation. Or maybe it was a fool's errand that wasn't even possible at all any more.

At the same time, we had the sick feeling in our guts that the republic simply didn't have that much time left. We would probably fail; but we had to try. Fighting back was the only thing that seemed to quell the queasiness, so we fought for all we were worth. In 2004, we organized the country. In 2006, we used the lessons learned to do better—and took back the House. Along the way, we pioneered Internet fund-raising, built or revived an entire infrastructure of liberal organizations, and took our message to every county in the country—some of which hadn't seen a proud liberal in decades.

And so it came to pass that this fine November morning, we are waking up—to our own unutterable surprise—to find ourselves in power, in undisputed control of two of our government's three branches. We did it. We actually pulled it off. The country survived President Bush (by the skin of its teeth: that urgency we felt was fully justified); and the permanent one-party rule of the GOP is over. Our fighting spirit, combined with a series of disasters that deeply undercut people's faith in conservative free-market happy talk and the structural strengths inherent in our system of government, have transformed the political landscape of America. And we did it all in just five years.

Go ahead. We've all earned the right to spend a few days basking in this well-earned glow. But the moment will be over soon enough. The very fact that we won has brought us to a fresh moment of reckoning. We are no longer the loyal opposition; we are now the people in charge -- and our next act of transformation will be to come to terms with that fact. Our movement is about to morph into something else—and the quality and duration of our leadership will greatly depend on what new form we choose.

The opening quote describes the way this has usually gone down in the past. Time passes; goals shift. Effective movements start out with the goal of creating change. When they succeed, they ossify into organizations, and the goal becomes self-perpetuation. Big, powerful organizations need money to survive, so then the goal becomes finding a workable business model. Invariably, the business devolves into some kind of scheme in which they trade their major asset—power—for money. In other words, a racket. At this point, another movement will usually rise to challenge their corrupt status quo and seize their power for other ends.

That's what happened to Democrats in the 1970s. We're in power now in no small part because it happened just that way to the conservatives, too. The bad news is that, some time in the future, this is most likely what awaits us as well. The good news is that we do have some choices here—and between now and the inauguration, we should be talking about how we can structure ourselves to forestall this fate for as long as possible.

From Movement to Community
Recently, I discussed this looming dilemma with a group of friends—one of whom suggested that, rather than repeat the past model of creating a progressive order dominated by a set of big organizations that will inevitably become change-resistant and ultimately corrupt, we might choose to think of this transition as the transformation of the existing progressive movement into a large and diverse "progressive community."

What does that mean? We came up with a short list of critical distinctions:

Movements are essential for gathering and directing the energy for large-scale change effort. However, that same energy and transformative power also makes them unstable and volatile. Achieving their goals requires members to conform to a set of tightly-coordinated beliefs and behaviors; and they often become ideologically dogmatic and socially exclusive as a result. Furthermore, making a big impact requires people with big visions—and often, big egos and a big appetite for drama to match, which in turn fuels the rise of personality cults and power-hoarding leadership. These inherent instabilities explain why many movements don't outlast their founders.

Also, as the conservatives learned the hard way, in the heat of battle, it's easy to lose touch with your own principles. You can justify anything if you're doing it "for the cause." So far, our movement has shown tremendous discipline in resisting this impulse, because we understood that our progressive principles were our core source of moral strength in opposing the conservatives. Everybody understood that compromising those principles was a fatal error, because it would make us just like them.

Unfortunately, it's going to be much too easy to relax those standards as our opposition wanes, and our group identity no longer depends highlighting the sharp contrasts between us and the conservatives. And things could devolve very quickly once the infighting starts over who's going to actually wield our newly won power. (Don't be too surprised if those fights start breaking out within a matter of days.)

It's not uncommon for movements to fall prey to the old Zen principle, "What you resist, persists." We're all familiar with lefties whose battles against The Man eventually left them every bit as authoritarian and paranoid as the power structures they worked to overthrow. The eternal tendency to become that which we most despise makes permanent opposition an inherently unsound way to organize a group for the long haul.

Communities have a different purpose, and different internal dynamics—and this model may be better suited to the new environment we find ourselves in now. Like organizations, they're built to last. But where organizations are founded to achieve goals that they too often outlive, communities are living, renewable, organic entities that are held together by a workable social contract, a common cultural identity, complex social and family structures, dependable bonds of trust, and a strong set of shared values. They're about inclusion, not exclusion; and exist for mutual support and survival, not status. They are an end unto themselves, not in opposition to anyone. And they can endure for centuries, if not millennia.

A good community is a creative shared space in which we can work out practical ways to live out our values in every area of life, and plan together for our common future. Communities are more about people and the environment than they are about money. They perpetuate themselves by raising and educating children, looking after their elders, and caring for the sick and disabled. They create spaces and rituals where they can share in celebrations and life passages together. They support artists and businesses, and make collective decisions about security, investment, and infrastructure. The flexibility of the community's boundaries and agenda allow it to take a more holistic view that transcends the narrow organizational preoccupations of power and money. The community provides a larger context in which organizations can form, re-form, and disband as they're needed to get the work done; and stands ready to hold those organizations accountable against corruption and entrenchment.

Street Prophets' Pastor Dan Schultz, who was also part of this conversation, blogged his take on this idea:

Communities...are focused on persons and the relationships they manifest. Movements succeed when they accomplish their objectives, but communities succeed when they nurture the members they have - and when they expand their circle. Movements are short- (or at least limited-) term and transactional, communities play the long game and are transformative.

Now, I'm not going to pretend that communities are particularly better than movements. We need both.

Nor am I going to pretend that I've always been some sort of communitarian advocate. I have happily rejected the idea of creating a bipartisan political consensus as a false and unjust community, for example.

I've always been in this thing for the community, and willing to put up with the movement for its sake. My patience with that movement has always had its ebbs and flows. Now, in the midst of a high-stakes presidential election where everybody is tense and grumpy and throwing sharp elbows at their political opponents and one another, it's definitely ebbing. It took some time to put a finger on that change, and that's what's had me gobsmacked.

Still, I wouldn't say that it's time to reject the progressive political movement as such...But the context of all our struggles—emotional, spiritual and political—is the community, [to quote Paul] "striving side by side with one mind."

The abstract community of progressives that I am trying to bring into reality along with many others has also been pushed to the side for too long. Too many of my friends and colleagues seem to have forgotten that we are seeking more than a political win in November. At heart, we are looking for a new way of doing business, perhaps even a new way of being...Now that I am reminded of my priorities, it's much easier to keep my eyes on the prize and do the work I am called to do.

What America wants, more than anything else right now, is to recover its larger sense of itself as a national community. (Fortunately, we elected ourselves a community organizer to help us do just that.) Yesterday, we gathered together to overwrite the old conservative fiction that "you're on your own" with a new message that "we're all in this together." The best kind of leadership leads by example; and reinvesting our formidable energies into the task of building a vibrant national progressive community will be an act of leadership that reminds the whole country how it's done.

How do we do this? What will it look like? That's the stuff of a long conversation that can be had on these pages, across the blogosphere, and everywhere else progressives gather. The most important thing to bear in mind right now is that the organizations and institutions we're about to build are not the end-all and be-all of who we are. They are simply tools that express the shared ideals and goals of a large and diverse progressive community.

The first rule of navigating the transition ahead is this: Every decision we make, from here on out, needs to be made with the deeply-held values and the long-term viability of that community front and center in our minds. Our time in power will last exactly as long as we do that. And our season will end the day we allow anything else to come before those priorities.

H/T to Dave Neiwert, Nicole Sawaya, Rev. Dan Schultz, and Jesse Wendel

Remembering Studs Terkel

Tula Connell — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 10:22:15 -0500

What bitter irony. Studs Terkel, who gave voice to working people throughout his life, passed away yesterday, just days before a potentially historic presidential election. Should Sen. Barack Obama win on Tuesday, his victory would be a sweet vindication for Terkel, whose affinity for America's workers would be reflected in the policies of an Obama administration.

Terkel, 96, has been renowned for his compilations of oral interviews with famous and mostly not-so-famous Americans. He has talked with thousands of people about their experiences on the job, serving their country in World War II, their perceptions of race and most recently, the challenges of growing old and facing death. One of his most famous books is Working, in which more than 100 Americans share their hopes, dreams and daily struggles on the job.

In April 2006, Terkel received the Lifetime Achievement award from the workers' advocacy organization, American Rights at Work. After accepting the award, Terkel said:

What brings workers together can be a belief, a hope of improving the climate and community at work--the spaces where so many of us spend so much of our lives. Respect on the job and a voice at the workplace shouldn't be something Americans have to work overtime to achieve.

Born Louis Terkel, he grew up in the 1920s and 1930s in an environment filled with workers, union organizers and other progressives who gathered in the lobby of his parents' Chicago rooming house. Starting his career as an actor, disc jockey and radio and television personality, Terkel ultimately turned to documenting oral interviews in a series of books. In Working: People Talk About What They Do All Day and How They Feel About What They Do, Terkel elicited first-hand experiences of workers as varied as bus driver and strip miner, policeman and film critic. Blacklisted in the 1950s by the House Committee on Un-American Activities, Terkel went on to win a Pulitzer Prize in 1985 and a National Humanities Medal from President Bill Clinton in 1997.

Terkel, who has been called a "guerilla journalist" and a man "whose name is synonymous with Labor Day," sprinkles his conversation with references to the ancient Greek mathematician Archimedes and American revolutionary Thomas Paine--yet has the unique ability to engage people in a way that draws forth the hopes, dreams and heartfelt experiences of everyday Americans.

In July 2005, I was honored to interview Terkel, and in his inimitable style, his conversation ranged from erudite quotes from the classics to conversations heard at his local bus stop. In remembering Terkel, there's no better way than to hear him in his own words. Below is the excerpt from that July 2005 interview.

"The thing that's so ironic, is we are stuck with what I call national Alzheimer's disease. The general American public, through no fault of its own, but through the media--which is laughingly called, absurdly called, obscenely called--liberal media, which is a joke, of course. But the point is that because of that, day after day after day, putting down of labor organizations, or not mentioning them led to the children not knowing a thing about it.

How did the eight-hour day come into being? It began in Chicago and four guys got hanged for it--the Haymarket affair in 1886. What were they fighting for? The eight-hour day.

There's no knowledge what the labor movement did for the lives of people. Social Security came out of the New Deal, and the minimum wage idea, and the idea of national health, these all came out of [labor]. And that's all being dismantled by what we have now. And so part of it is not knowing the past. No past, therefore there is no present and no future.

What was the first thing Ronald Reagan did as president of the United States? In 1981, he broke the air controller's strike. You know what they were striking about? It wasn't about pay. It was about R and R, rest and recreation. So the issue was passenger safety, right? And Ronald Reagan said, 'No,' and four out of five Americans applauded.

You start wondering, 'Wait a minute. Are we a necrophiliac people?' And you start thinking some more. 'We're the only industrialized country that still has the death penalty, right? We're the only industrialized country that does not have national health insurance.' So one is death, and the other is life. And so you start thinking, 'My God, have we become so perverse?

If so, then all my books are junk? Because my books depended on the sense of decency of ordinary Americans and their native intelligence and it's under assault today as never before.

[Americans' sense of decency and native intelligence are] there, but the information has been siphoned through--we know what it's siphoned through: Fox News, Rupert Murdoch and Rush Limbaugh. And thus we have a certain kind of news filter to it. Right? It becomes entertainment, it becomes banality, it becomes nothing. And there's no past. The big thing is to revivify in one way or another the past and to show how we came to be.

So that's part of the problem facing labor, to reacquaint these people with what happened. The new members are fresh and they have grievances and we've got to hit that and reach as many as possible--caregivers and…maids and get all the people who never thought of organizing, organized. And that's what the oral histories I write are all about, I hope--to recapture our history. And I think we can do it--provided we…stick together.

Whatever split there is has to be healed--immediately. Because we agree on the big thing. Basically, it has to be under one big tent. I like the phrase 'under one tent.' And so, that's pretty much the ticket."

This is a cross-post from the AFL-CIO Now blog.

The Obstructionist Gang of 21

Isaiah J. Poole — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 12:13:55 -0400

Our latest report on the block-and-blame game in the 110th Congress identifies 21 senators who voted to filibuster on each of 12 key votes on bills that passed the House and which had significant popular support.

These are the men and women who spearheaded what former Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., said was a deliberate strategy of obstruction to keep the new Democratic majority in the Senate from changing the policies of the Bush administration and the previous Republican congressional leadership.

Another eight senators missed one or more of these 12 votes, but they voted to filibuster every time they did vote. That group includes Sen. John McCain of Arizona.

One result, the report shows, is a record-smashing 104 cloture votes, in which bill supporters have to amass 60 votes to break a minority-led filibuster. Filibusters became so routine in this Congress that it has become common for reporters to write that bills in the Senate require 60 votes for passage. Actually, a bill can pass the Senate with a simple majority of senators present. The 60-vote threshold applies to motions to end debate on a bill; without a successful motion to end debate or a move to take a bill off the floor for consideration, a bill can be debated endlessly, or filibustered.

The Gang of 21

These senators were present for all 12 key votes in this report, and voted to filibuster (against cloture) each time.

Bond, Christopher S., Missouri
Bunning, Jim, Kentucky
Burr, Richard, North Carolina
Chambliss, Saxby, Georgia
Cochran, Thad, Mississippi
Cornyn, John, Texas
Craig, Larry E., Idaho
DeMint, James W., South Carolina
Dole, Elizabeth, North Carolina
Domenici, Pete V., New Mexico
Ensign, John, Nevada
Enzi, Michael B., Wyoming
Gregg, Judd, New Hampshire
Inhofe, James M., Oklahoma
Isakson, Johnny, Georgia
Kyl, Jon, Arizona
Martinez, Mel, Florida
McConnell, Mitch, Kentucky
Murkowski, Lisa, Alaska
Shelby, Richard C., Alabama
Vitter, David, Louisiana

The only reason we haven't seen much of what the public normally thinks of as a filibuster during the 110th Congress—the one exception being a July vote on bringing an orderly end to the Iraqi occupation—is that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid keeps pulling bills off the floor after they hit the obstructionist roadblock. The public doesn't get to hear all-night conservative rants about why the public shouldn't get House-passed legislation that would shift tax subsidies from oil companies to green energy, provide for equal pay for women, offer help for homeowners struggling with subprime mortgages or make it easier for workers to join unions.

It can't be stressed enough that the obstruction game is a political one, designed not to bring consensus but to keep the Democratic leadership in the Senate from building a record of accomplishment that would build build public confidence in progressive governance. Lott last year spoke of obstructionism as a "strategy" that "is working for us." In July conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer predicted that the the obstruction strategy "will give the Republicans the one opening they are going to have in 2008."

Except that it hasn't. CQPolitics.com today projects that Democrats could add five seats to their slim majority (they now have 49, plus two independents who caucus with the Democrats). Among the "gang of 21" in danger of losing their seats are Senate Minority Leader and chief obstructionist Mitch McConnell, Pete V. Domenici of New Mexico and Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina. Two other senators who missed one or more of our key votes, Ted Stevens of Alaska and Wayne Allard of Colorado, are now rated by CQ as being in "leans Democratic" races.

The public appears to have gotten wise to the fact that people who scorn government, and who resist efforts to put government on the side of the people, ought not be given responsibility to lead it. There's still much work to do to make sure that the history of the 110th Congress is written correctly, not as a "do-nothing" legislature but as a victim of a petulant, "block-and-blame" conservative minority.

Ten Sacrifices We, and the Next President, Will Face

Greg Colvin — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 19:44:12 -0400

At Tuesday night’s debate, the presidential candidates were asked a question that I believe deserves much more attention.

"BROKAW: Sen. McCain, for you, we have our first question from the Internet tonight. A child of the Depression, 78-year-old Fiora from Chicago.
Since World War II, we have never been asked to sacrifice anything to help our country, except the blood of our heroic men and women. As president, what sacrifices -- sacrifices will you ask every American to make to help restore the American dream and to get out of the economic morass that we're now in?"

In my 2006 essay The Progressive Trinity http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0606.colvin.html, I wrote:

"Because Public Service is fundamentally based upon unselfish efforts for the benefit of all of us, that quality must be embodied in the public leader. Especially so for political leaders because we have no choice but to be ruled by them until they leave office.

We have seen people become leaders because they are master manipulators, or sheer opportunists, or charismatic salesmen, or anointed by the oligarchy of wealth and influence that works behind the scenes. We try, as best we can, to project our desires for statesmanship and compassion and wisdom onto the presidents and governors we elect, but we are too often severely disappointed by their behavior.

The paramount criterion for candidates to the highest offices in Public Service should be: is this person able, by their own example, to inspire sacrifices for the common good? "

How did Senators McCain and Obama answer?

John McCain fumbled around with a riff on eliminating government programs, earmarks, an across-the-board freeze on spending except for defense, veterans, and “other vital programs.” He didn’t say exactly which programs would be cut, but I suppose bailing out Wall Street is a vital program now, and so is continuing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, because he didn’t offer to give them up.

Disappointing for a man who brought his acceptance speech to a climax by saying:

"My friends, if you find faults with our country, make it a better one. If you're disappointed with the mistakes of government, join its ranks and work to correct them. Enlist in our armed forces. Become a teacher. Enter the ministry. Run for public office. Feed a hungry child. Teach an illiterate adult to read. Comfort the afflicted. Defend the rights of the oppressed. Our country will be the better, and you will be the happier. Because nothing brings greater happiness in life than to serve a cause greater than yourself."

Barack Obama gave a better answer, but it seemed like he still does not recognize the tremendous potential that a fully honest and prophetic answer could have. He said:

"I think the American people are hungry for the kind of leadership that is going to tackle these problems not just in government, but outside of government. … There is going to be the need for each and every one of us to start thinking about how we use energy. … [E]ach and every one of us can start thinking about how can we save energy in our homes, in our buildings….

I think the young people of America are especially interested in how they can serve, and that's one of the reasons why I'm interested in doubling the Peace Corps, making sure that we are creating a volunteer corps all across this country that can be involved in their community, involved in military service, so that military families and our troops are not the only ones bearing the burden of renewing America."

A truly great leader, with the leadership character of a Lincoln or a Kennedy, would have to look into the next decade and call out those challenges that can only be met by inspiring Americans to set aside their personal comforts and make deep sacrifices for the common good.

This is the essence of progressive political philosophy: We are all in this together. “Every man for himself” and “do what you can get away with” has led us into this mess. We can only pull together to solve the enormous problems that face our country if we can trust and respect each other. And we can only do that if we have an unselfish leader who deserves our trust and respect.

Is there any doubt that universal health care, for those who need it most, will need to be paid for by the young and healthy?

Is there any doubt that we will not stop the polar ice caps from melting and the oceans from rising unless we can stop burning fossil fuels at the rate we have been?

The 78-year-old caller from Chicago no doubt remembers, as fewer and fewer of us alive today do, that World War Two required incredible sacrifices. Detroit was ordered to stop making cars and build only tanks and airplanes. Gasoline was rationed. You couldn’t buy sliced bread because steel was needed for the war effort. Does any conscientious person truly doubt that the same level of sacrifice will be needed to stop global warming? Perhaps the Greatest Generation is yet to come.

So, let’s start a list of the sacrifices that the candidates should share with us:

1. Energy conservation. By every reasonable voluntary and mandatory means, we will need to curtail our wasteful use of fossil fuels and conserve our oil resources. Now. Not after we have converted to electric cars and hydrogen fuel cells and the other technological breakthroughs we hope for. We need to keep our remaining offshore oil and Alaskan oil in the ground if our grandchildren will be able to fly on airplanes and have an Air Force to protect them. Come to think of it, climate change also means conserving other resources, too, like water and fisheries.

2. Paying for the war in real time. We cannot keep fighting the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere without paying for it now. To pay for the war in Vietnam at the time it was happening, the rich in America paid an income tax surcharge and Lyndon Johnson sold off Fannie Mae. George Bush, incredibly, has reduced taxes for the wealthy and paid for the war with deficit spending.

3. The rich will be called upon to sacrifice. Obama should highlight that he is asking those who make over $250,000 a year to pay more in taxes. They can afford it, and should be contributing more to the common good, especially in hard times. If the tax burden paid by the wealthy during the Reagan years can be restored, that will go a long way toward paying for the war on terror, the Wall Street bailout, the cost of taking care of our veterans, health care and educational reform, and the cost of new green technology.

4. We all will need to keep supporting our government with our taxes. Bill Clinton, when he was running for president in 1992, promised middle-class tax relief. He couldn’t deliver, because economic realities required him to reduce the federal deficit. After Obama proposed a tax reduction for 95% of households, the government committed us to a $700 billion expenditure to rescue the financial system. Hello? It should surprise no one if Obama’s middle-class tax cut were to be reduced or delayed.

5. Delaying retirement. All signs point to the fact that my generation, born after 1945, will have to keep working longer and retire later, due to the drop in value of our 401(k) and other retirement plans. There are too many of us to stop being productive and live off of Social Security, diminishing home equity and investments. Things will get worse before they get better, and it may take another 10 years for the country to pull out of this financial crisis.

6. No more easy money. Wealth did not trickle down during the years of Republican administration, but lots of credit did—subprime mortgages, credit cards, companies issuing junk bonds, states and counties borrowing, bizarre unregulated derivatives and hedge funds. A house of cards, collapsing on us now. We will have to spend less and save more, and the financial self-discipline will be a painful adjustment.

7. Yes, there will be more government regulation. Isn’t that the lesson of the financial meltdown? There won’t be as many ways to get rich quick on Wall Street. If Obama is elected, unions may have more rights to organize, companies may be forced to pay women equally, fuel efficiency standards for automobiles may be raised. Maybe even price controls on prescription drugs. The business world will be called upon to sacrifice for the common good. About time.

8. Social Security and Medicare reforms. Of course, the rich should pay a greater share of the payroll taxes. As Obama has proposed, those making over $250,000, who don’t pay a dime more right now, can afford it. That’s progressive taxation, long overdue. If that were done as a first step, then it might be reasonable to ask others to sacrifice by making other small adjustments, to the eligible retirement age, for example.

9. Civil preparedness. After September 11th, the most visible change in our daily lives was the increase in airport security measures. In the seven years since then, many other steps that could protect us have been neglected. A suitcase nuclear device could be driven or walked into almost any office building in America. As a society, we don’t practice emergency procedures for earthquakes, floods, fires, or terrorist attacks. And at no level of government do we have well-organized, practical ways to enlist ordinary citizens in rescue, recovery, and cleanup operations. A flotilla of small boats could have saved many lives in Louisiana during Hurricane Katrina, but we just left those poor people on their rooftops.

10. The Ugly American, revisited. In 1960, John F. Kennedy inspired a new generation of Americans to care about our relationship with the rest of the world by joining the Peace Corps. He spoke German in Berlin and Jackie spoke French in Paris. Senator Obama wants to double the Peace Corps and has lamented Americans’ lack of fluency in foreign languages. Recently, a group of former Secretaries of State convened and agreed that our most serious international problem is the low level of respect for America in the rest of the world. We could set aside a bit of our arrogance about being “the best country in the world,” take the time and trouble to understand other people’s cultures, religions, and problem, and win back our allies and friends.

Our presidential candidates have sought to win this election by telling their personal stories, by trying to relate to the average person’s needs, by attacking the failures and lies of their adversaries, by mobilizing thousands of grassroots supporters, and by offering new policies and benefits. They have tried to outdo each other with the promise of better government service at no additional cost.

When JFK, in his inaugural speech, said “ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country,” he prepared an entire nation, the G.I. Generation and the Baby Boomers alike, to do amazing things for the benefit of all humanity, from sending a man to the moon to overcoming racial inequalities at home.

There is no other appeal to the voter that is more powerful, more courageous, more uplifting, than the bare-headed image of an American president who is able, by his or her own example, to inspire sacrifices for the common good.

Moguls Steal Home While Companies Strike Out

Bill Moyers — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 14:28:27 -0400

From our offices in Manhattan, we look out on the tall, gleaming skyscrapers that are cathedrals of wealth and power -- the Olympus ruled by the gods of finance, the temples of the mighty, the holy of holies, whose priests guard the sacred texts of salvation -- the ones containing the secrets of subprime lending and derivatives as mysterious and elusive as the Grail itself.

This last couple of weeks, ordinary mortals below could almost hear the ripcords of golden parachutes being pulled as the divinities on high prepared for soft, safe landings -- all this while tossing their workers like sacrificial lambs into the purgatory of unemployment.

During the last five years of his tenure as CEO of now-bankrupt Lehman Brothers, Richard Fuld’s total take was $354 million. John Thain, the current chairman of Merrill Lynch, taken over this week by Bank of America, has been on the job for just nine months. He pocketed a $15 million signing bonus. His predecessor, Stan O’Neal, retired with a package valued at $161 million, after the company reported an eight billion dollar loss in a single quarter. And remember Bear Stearns Chairman James Cayne? After the company collapsed earlier this year and was up for sale at bargain basement prices, he sold his for more than $60 million.

But let’s change the metaphor for a moment and go to our sports desk, because if religion is no longer the soul of capitalism, as Max Weber once taught us it was, we have to venture somewhere else to try to understand the continuing follies of the new Gilded Age. And so we travel just a few miles north of Wall Street to the House that Ruth Built. Yankee Stadium, as fabled a place to Americans as Ilium was to the ancient Greeks, is about to be demolished and replaced next year by a brand new ballpark.

In 1930, the year after the market crashed, as the Great Depression began, Babe Ruth was taking home $80,000 a year, more than the President of the United States, Herbert Hoover. "Why not?" Ruth asked. "I had a better year than he did."

Yankee star Alex Rodriguez had a better year than both of them. This season, A-Rod is making $28 million, just part of an annual Yankee payroll of $209 million, the richest in baseball. Their owner, George Steinbrenner, is among the Forbes 400, one of the country’s richest tycoons.

But when it came to paying for the new, $1.3 billion pleasure dome, the millionaires on the field and King Midas in his skybox came up with some razzle-dazzle plays to finance their new wealth machine -- tax-free bonds, requiring ordinary citizens to subsidize the construction, and hundreds of millions more for new parking garages, a train station and parks that supposedly will replace the ones seized by the city to make room for the new stadium..

There will be 5,000 fewer seats in the stands. And while the Yankees reportedly promise that half of what’s left will cost $45 or less, those seats that used to cost $250, right behind the dugout, will now cost you $850. And if you want to be near home plate, you’ll have to cough up $2500 -- per game.

Meanwhile there will be more luxury suites and party rooms where fat cats can gather, safely removed from the sweaty masses. Corporations and wealthy individuals will be able to rent the luxury suites for anywhere from $600,000-$850,000 a year – tax deductible.

Why aren’t the fans and taxpayers giving the Yankees a Bronx cheer? They did, but city officials rolled over them while making sure local politicians stay in the lineup. The pols are getting their own luxury suite at the new stadium for free -- and first shot at buying the best available seats.

The new colossus will cast its majestic shadow across the South Bronx, one of the nation’s poorest neighborhoods. The residents will watch from the outside as suburban drivers avail themselves of 9,000 new or re furbished parking spaces. Never mind all the exhaust, even though in this part of New York City, respiratory disease is already so high they call it "Asthma Alley."

Not that the well to do in the infield seats will have to hear the wheezing. They’ll have exclusive access to a private club, a private entrance and a private elevator, totems of this Gilded Age. Let the games begin.

Written with Michael Winship.

Bill Moyers is managing editor and Michael Winship is senior writer of the weekly public affairs program Bill Moyers Journal, which airs Friday night on PBS. Check local air times or comment at The Moyers Blog at pbs.org/moyers.

Tackle Wealth Concentration

Sarah Anderson — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 10:45:17 -0400

We are retrieving your content. If it does not appear in a few seconds, please click here.

Indian Americans Could Be Critical To Election

Toby Chaudhuri — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 00:00:00 -0400

MEMORANDUM TO FRIENDS OF CAMPAIGN FOR AMERICA’S FUTURE

FROM: Toby Chaudhuri, Campaign for America’s Future, Jim Gerstein, Gerstein-Agne Strategic Communications and Karl Agne, Gerstein-Agne Strategic Communications

SUBJECT: Indian American Qualitative Research - Summary Findings of Northern Virginia Focus Group

A focus group of likely Indian American voters conducted July 17, 2008 in Fairfax, Va. suggests that this audience could play a critical role in the 2008 election and beyond. Demographic research into the Indian American electorate shows this audience is highly educated, and this focus group indicates they are similar to other highly educated voters across the country in many respects. Most importantly, they see Barack Obama as a candidate who shares their values, has the right priorities for turning around our troubled economy, and is the best possible leader to re-establish our standing in the world. But these Indian American voters also shared some unique perspectives on what is happening in the world and what is required to address the challenges facing America today.

This focus group was the first of a potentially broader research project, and while we strongly caution against drawing actionable conclusions from a single 2-hour discussion with 7 people, the political attitudes and values of these participants suggest enormous opportunities to engage Indian Americans for support with progressive and Democratic battles. These voters clearly saw themselves aligned closely with Democrats and very far from Republicans on a wide range of economic, cultural and international issues.

Even though more than half of the group identified as independents or weak Democrats, the prevailing attitudes expressed in the focus group were very progressive and distinctly anti-Republican. Their extensive knowledge of political affairs was at the high end of what is traditionally seen in focus groups of college-educated swing voters. They were knowledgeable about some issues unique to their community, but these issues were not their priorities. And when it came to attitudes toward core issues like our country’s direction, the economy, the war in Iraq and energy policy, participants were virtually indistinguishable – in their diagnosis of the country’s ills, their indictment of President Bush and the Republicans in Congress, their policy prescriptions and their passion for a new direction – from other progressive-leaning Americans across the country.

We are pleased to offer this report on what marks the first exploration of this type with which we are familiar into this rapidly growing constituency that holds tremendous potential for political activism if properly engaged.

OVERALL POLITICAL MOOD

Participants universally agreed that America is facing numerous difficulties which are not being properly addressed. From domestic issues like the economy and the housing crisis to national security policy like the war in Iraq and mishandling the growing strength of other countries, there was an unmistakable sense that nothing is going right for our country. Like other Americans, their negative assessment begins with the economy which is simply not producing good jobs as the cost of living – particularly gas prices – continues to rise. As one woman noted, the recent tax rebate checks did little to help because they were spent on standard expenses as quickly as the rebates were received.

Even though the economy drove their sense of why the country is on the wrong track, this collection of well-educated and mostly white collar Indian American professionals were not angry about economic conditions or the causes of our current difficulties. Instead of the passionate attacks on corporate lobbyists or a corrupted political system that we have regularly witnessed throughout America over the last several years, these participants were much more analytical about what bothers them and they were hopeful about the future when this down cycle turns around. Moreover, they felt that each successive generation of Indian Americans has greater opportunity than previous generations, and they should be able to continue thriving in America.

Part of their analysis of why America is having problems emphasized the massive growth of the Chinese and Indian economies which constitutes something major taking place in the world and goes well beyond simple cyclical patterns that will correct themselves on their own. In this regard, participants felt it imperative for America to pursue a much better path in order to overcome our economic problems and maintain our competitive edge. They did not necessarily have a specific answer for how to achieve this – and their views were not tied to the outsourcing discussion prevalent across the country – but they repeatedly mentioned China and India as key influences on our economy and America must figure out how to turn these challenges into opportunities.

Most of the participants were first generation Americans, arriving in the last 10 to 15 years, and they had a deep appreciation for international affairs. In addition to their sensitivity and awareness of global economic influences, they brought a sophisticated view of the situation in Iraq. First and foremost, they were pained by the situation facing our soldiers. There is great appreciation for what the soldiers are doing for the country, yet anger at our leadership that went into Iraq unprepared and has spent too much money without due diligence. Iraq did not come up as a topic of discussion until the moderator prompted, but when it was raised, people expressed very strong opposition to the war. Despite their opposition and desire to end the war in Iraq, there was a clear sense that America has a responsibility not to leave a mess in Iraq. Still, they were acutely aware of the unlikelihood of stabilizing Iraq in the short term, and the desire to bring home our troops overwhelmed everything else. When presented with the choice of troop withdrawal or patiently sticking it out until American wins the war, every participant sided with the first statement as articulated below:

Our troops have fought bravely in Iraq and achieved all that can be done militarily, but now they are caught in a civil war that does nothing to make us safer. It will take time and has to be done gradually, but we must start now to withdraw troops, giving responsibility back to the Iraqis and shifting our focus back to the greatest threats to our security – both in Afghanistan and within our own borders.

The Bush administration has badly mismanaged the war in Iraq, but the battle we are fighting against Islamic extremism and terrorism in Iraq is vital to our national security. We must commit ourselves as a country to provide the troops, the intelligence, and the resources needed to win this war. American failure in Iraq will create chaos throughout the region and increase the risk of another terrorist attack on our own shores.

PRESIDENT BUSH AND THE DAMAGED REPUBLICAN BRAND

While participants were mostly analytical about the economy, Iraq and the general direction of the country, they grew more animated when asked about President Bush and the Republican Party. Nobody had a kind word for the president, and they universally derided him as an inarticulate man who was just a puppet for other special interests.

The disdain toward President Bush carried over to an intense dislike toward the Republican Party, which was dismissively viewed as group of old white men who were too stubborn to adjust to changing realities in the world around them. The Republicans were seen as constantly making the wrong decision and being oblivious to the real concerns facing Americans. There was also a racial dynamic prevalent in many assessments of the Republicans. The Party’s image as an old white boys club certainly created a cultural distance between the Party and the Indian Americans in our focus group. One participant’s observation captured the overall sentiment of the group and reflected the fundamental cultural problem for the Republicans: “The Republicans are not racist. But they don’t think racism exists, and that is the problem.”

When asked what positives they could offer about the Republicans, participants focused on tax breaks and deregulation that enables entrepreneurs and individuals to achieve their goals without unnecessary government interference. They pointed to Ronald Reagan as a Republican who got things right, and he was clearly not of the same ilk as the bumbling George W. Bush. But even after mentioning these positives about the Republicans, participants were quick to point out that Republicans instinctively take it too far, resulting in failures of the USDA to protect our food supply and insufficient oversight of collapsing coal mines.

THE DEMOCRATS AND THE OBAMA OPPORTUNITY

In contrast to their deep alienation from the Republicans, participants largely identified with Democrats on cultural grounds because the Party was seen as young and diverse. But this cultural identification should not be confused with any great satisfaction with the Democrats. In fact, participants were looking for reasons to like the Democrats because of the Party’s more tolerant and inclusive approach, but there was also a deep skepticism about Democrats, who were seen as indecisive and unable to turn the multitude of opinions in their big tent into meaningful action.

When asked what accounts for the large scale Democratic victory in 2006 and more recently in Congressional races in disparate parts of the country, it was less about Democratic achievement and more about the failure of the Republicans. Democrats represented change and something different, which was enough to get their feet back in the door, but now they are being watched to see if they can succeed.

Barack Obama’s candidacy appears to provide an historic opportunity for Democrats to form a deep and enduring connection with Indian Americans. His race is certainly the starting point as participants noted “his color” as a great thing that was a shared characteristic between him and them. People could identify with him and they believed he could identify with them. They were also attracted to his youthful energy that could bring the change that the country desperately needs. For these voters, everything about Obama simply embodies change. Unlike some other Americans, these participants saw both his race and his youth as tremendous advantages for a president who needs to tackle the new challenges of the 21st century at home and abroad. They did not necessarily know the specific change Obama would bring in terms of policies, but it did not really matter because he represents a fundamental break from the current Bush direction which led America into its current state of affairs.

Despite their hopes for Obama, who reminded them of John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton because of his cool and smooth demeanor, they had serious concerns over whether he will have the experience and political smarts to get anything done as president. His short time in office certainly led people to harbor real doubts about Obama, but even the way they express these doubts reflected their hopes for the Illinois senator. That is, their doubts were not reasons to oppose him; rather the doubts were about whether this person with tremendous potential would actually be able to achieve everything they are pinning on him.

Obama’s contrast with John McCain could not be starker. McCain was seen as an old, stale Republican who would just be a continuation of the Bush path. When asked who they could compare to McCain, people offered George H.W. Bush because he is another standard boring Republican and “that old senator from West Virginia” (Byrd) because of his advanced age. The only positive thing people could say about McCain was his experience, and we did not even hear anything about him personally or his military record, which usually dominates discussion when voters across the country are asked to describe what they like about McCain.

In the end, these Indian American voters do harbor doubts about Obama’s ability to achieve the change he promises, but they have high hopes for him and they have absolutely no interest in supporting John McCain who is simply defined by his age and common purpose with the current Administration which clearly does not have the right vision for the future.

INDIAN AMERICAN VALUES AND THEMES

In addition to our discussion about the political parties, the overall environment, and the 2008 election, we also explored attitudes on basic conservative and progressive choices on leading issues facing the country. These issues included America’s role in the world, Iraq (as noted earlier), energy, health care, illegal immigration, education and social issues. During this discussion, a few themes emerged:

Pragmatism. These Indian American voters often explained their choices when deciding between the progressive and conservative arguments as “realistic” and seeking “achievable progress.” On energy, they were mixed between the two arguments because both statements offered tangible plans that sought to break America’s dependence on foreign oil. Whether it was investing in alternative energy sources like wind and solar or exploring further domestic oil production and clean coal, the magnitude of the energy problem drove people to just want solutions. This pragmatic and solution-oriented approach was also dominant when discussing illegal immigration. As immigrants who successfully assimilated into American society and “earned our keep,” participants expected the same of other immigrants and were receptive to tough messages on illegal immigration. But they also recognized immigrants’ strong work ethic and the importance they play in lowering prices and strengthening our economy. Again, these Indian American voters wanted a practical solution that would make illegal immigrants pay into the system without establishing unrealistic hurdles.

Multilateralism. Participants held a deep conviction that the last eight years of Bush foreign policy have damaged America’s leverage around the world, and we need to get back to a more integrated military, diplomatic and economic approach in our foreign policy. Participants frequently raised the global economy and they shared a Tom Friedman-like characterization of a small global community where what happens in one corner of the world has profound effects on other parts of the world. Despite this emphasis on international relations, it is noteworthy that they did not express any interest in the U.S.-India relationship beyond India’s impact on our economy. India’s tensions with Pakistan did not come up and India plays no significant role in how any of these participants determine their vote. These participants were deeply assimilated into American culture and prioritized numerous other issues ahead of America’s relations with India.

Family Values. Closeness to family was clearly important to these participants who emphasized that tight families instill good values. But these values were not expressed in the way we often see in the political debate. Instead of the socially conservative world view often identified by those who talk about “family values,” these participants highlighted the importance of families supporting each other in education and providing opportunities for each other. Moreover, they emphasized tolerance as an important value and they prioritized science such as stem cell research as critical to advancing the public good.

The attitudes expressed in this focus group of Indian American voters were largely reflective of other Americans of similar educational and financial backgrounds. They are well informed on the issues facing the country, they are deeply troubled by where they see the country headed after eight years of President Bush, and they are placing great hope in Barack Obama, who they see as a jolt of fresh air. Their beliefs and values tend to be more progressive and Democratic than their non-Indian counterparts of comparable background, and much of this appeared tied to their experience as a racial minority.

This particular focus group was conducted in the Washington, D.C. media market, and it remains to be seen how Indian Americans in other parts of the country – and specifically outside such a political environment – comport or differ from this particular group which undoubtedly indicates great opportunity for Democrats and progressives.

**NOTE: For more information or to support future opinion research about Indian American political attitudes, please contact Toby Chaudhuri at 202-587-1653 or chaudhuri@ourfuture.org. Campaign for America’s Future and Gerstein-Agne Strategic Communications conducted a focus group of Indian American men and women who are registered to vote in Virginia and indicated they are likely to vote in the 2008 election. The group was conducted by an Indian American moderator in Fairfax, Va. on July 17, 2008.**

APPENDIX - POSTCARDS TO PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES

Dear Senator Obama,

Participant 1
Fix our economy. Focus more on us as a nation than concerning ourselves with war. Bring our troops home. Gain control over the immigration issue. Help us create a strong nation on the inside so it exudes to the outside.

Participant 2
I would like you to express and follow on your changes that you so propose in everything you want to do and say. Words mean nothing if it does not happen What will you do different that will give you my vote. Show me the changes.

Participant 3
Come up with a solid plan and approach.
Select a VP ASAP.
Define the 4 yrs plan and provide a welcoming attitude around the world.
Be assertive but approachable at the same time

Participant 4
I would like to see a clear plan that you have for the future, maybe a “100 days” plan and please show me some of the changes you intend on making.

Participant 5
Be honest. What will you do for the Virginians?
Promote small business
Tax break
Fix the economy
Be fair

Participant 6
Fixing the housing crisis
Getting our troops back
Got oil prices down
$$ into alternate fuel sources
Make sure I will get SS

Participant 7
I would like you to discuss your plans on how would you include S. Asian in your cabinet. Meet with the community to discuss your view. How would you change the current economic conditions. How would you deal with the war situation.

APPENDIX - POSTCARDS TO PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES (CONT.)

Dear Senator McCain,

Participant 1
(I want the same thing from either candidate)

Participant 2
You wise and experience will definitely get you insight [] but what can you do different than Obama? I would like to see changes in the economy and bring the troops home is that a promise

Participant 3
You will have to separate yourselves from Bush’s policies.
Exactly explain how you are going to be different
How are you going to promote diplomacy

Participant 4
How do you plan to stay in Iraq for 100 years and who do you plan on being in the armed services. How are you going to make my life better?

Participant 5
Sorry Senator McCain I have no advise for you. Please stay away from Virginia as you do not want to fix the economy, you are not changing the policies against war and focus on American people

Participant 6
Please do the same as above

Participant 7
Be open minded. Reach out to the S. Asian community and discuss your point of view. Try to come up with solution on the troop withdrawal. What is your plan for economy?

Making Them Do It: The Next Challenge

Digby — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 16:23:38 -0400

Now that the festivities in Denver have drawn to a close and the bleary-eyed conventioneers (and media who cover them) have gathered up their swag and headed home, I wanted to take a moment to contemplate how this progressive moment looks in this short period of quiet after all the speeches and all the TV bloviating. One thing, at least, is clear to me after having spent four days among progressives from all over the country — they are convinced that this moment is real and that the stakes have never been higher.

In casual conversation and formal addresses, from health care to foreign policy to media reform and beyond, the progressive agenda dominated the discourse far more than I expected. I knew there would be solidarity in opposition to conservative rule, but it no longer stems from that alone. There is a sense of opportunity and engagement with issues that I haven't seen in progressive circles for some time.

There also seemed to be an understanding that a new administration is not the end of the fight. As much excitement as there is for the prospect of a new beginning, very few are naive about the tremendous obstacles of institutional torpor, establishment resistance and wealthy special interest pleading facing a progressive administration. If the last few years of conservative rule have taught us anything it's that those forces can get away with murder and it's very difficult to even get anyone to notice.

So, as much as progressives are excited, that excitement is tempered by a new maturity and an acceptance that the words "hope" and "change" are not magical incantations but rather exhortations to the hard and frustrating work of turning this massive ship of state in a new direction. As David Sirota noted, that grainy footage of Teddy Kennedy pounding his fist on the podium decades ago arguing for universal health care is a sober reminder of how little progress has been made. That promise was a casualty of The Age of Reagan, that decades-long failed experiment in free market fundamentalism and movement conservatism.

But I would also argue that at the time Kennedy was making those statements, the idea of an African American president was nearly impossible for a great many Americans to imagine. Even in an era of conservative political dominance, cultural progress happened anyway. And in the long run, it may even be seen that the modern conservative movement was simply a short lived reactionary blip on a much longer liberal trajectory, although that's not something anyone should ever count on in an age of global warming and nuclear proliferation. (And as as smart guy famously observed, in the long run we'll all be dead. )

But however you slice it, Sirota is right that political progress has been stalled and even reversed over the past few years. And for a time progressivism itself stalled and sputtered, unsure of how to respond to the sustained assault by the conservative movement. The Bush years shook it out of its doldrums and as Sirota notes, it is now ideologically ascendant in the Democratic party.

That does not, of course, mean that the Democratic party establishment is progressive. Everything indicates that there will be substantial resistance to a true progressive agenda, perhaps even at times from its standard bearer. The forces for the status quo are always very strong and the challenges are huge. But it seems to me that the energy and the direction is set and whether it happens quickly, with an administration honeymoon and a hundred days of furious activity, or more slowly over time, it's clear that the momentum of conservatism has been stopped and the process of turning in the other direction has begun.

So, the question for the movement seems to me to be less whether progressives recognize this moment, or agree on the agenda, which I think we do. We have also become pragmatic in our expectations of a new administration and take seriously FDR's admonition that a sympathetic president must nevertheless be "made to" do it. The next question then, in discussing this progressive political moment, is how.

By what processes can a progressive movement "make them do it?" I don't have the answers for that, but I think we'd better start focusing on it. You can bet that the status quo, including the corporate media, will use every bit of their money, personal influence and proximity to pressure a new president to slow any progressive momentum before it even starts. Indeed, the conservatives have an entire industry built for just that purpose.

In their piece on the Obama Moment in The Nation, Bob Borosage and Katrina vanden Heuval suggest that it will come with monitoring the opposition and creating large scale issue campaigns from outside the system:

Progressives will enjoy their greatest strength mobilizing independently to support Obama's promises. We can organize constituent pressure on politicians who are blocking the way, something even a President with Obama's activist network would be loath to do. We can expose the lobbies and interests and backstage maneuvers designed to limit reforms. Now that newspapers increasingly lack the resources for investigation, progressive media, online and off, and the independent progressive media infrastructure--from The Nation to Media Matters to Brave New Films to The Huffington Post--must assume a greater role in monitoring the opposition, even as we mobilize activists in targeted districts across the country.

In doing this, we can help give backbone to the Obama agenda, even as we supply muscle and energy to help pass it. The best way to achieve this is to generate large-scale independent-issue campaigns. A clear example is the Healthcare for Americans Now Coalition, which is ready to take on the insurance companies and support the White House's commitment to universal care. The new Half in Ten Campaign, spearheaded by ACORN and the Center for American Progress Action Fund, will help ensure that poverty does not disappear from the agenda. Progressives generally should join the AFL-CIO and Change to Win in their drive to pass the Employee Free Choice Act. The Apollo Alliance and a range of environmental efforts will support the initiative on jobs and energy.

Acting in support of Obama will require challenging legislators in both parties who stand in the way, a task progressives should undertake aggressively. The Service Employees International Union has already taken the lead in announcing a $10 million "accountability program," designed to force politicians to heed the will of their voters, with a new plan--Justice for All--as the core vehicle. This should be complemented by other independent efforts, despite likely objections from the Democratic Congressional leadership and possibly the White House. Democrats should be on notice from their own constituents that they will be expected to help move reform, not stand in its way.

Isaiah Poole wrote about this approach, discussed by Paul Krugman and others, which suggests that focusing on one historic achievement, like health care, could be what establishes progressive success in the public mind and opens the door to a more robust progressive government:

Paul Krugman, the columnist for The New York Times, told me in an interview here in Denver that getting a universal health care plan enacted will be one of he most important keys to creating a progressive moment on a whole host of issues.

His reasoning is this: “If you can get universal health care or something close to it in, however imperfect, then the country will never be the same again. It will be something that is an untouchable, and it will make people just understand once again that government can do things to make the society fairer, safer.”

Other people think the real key is pressuring the congress with attacks on the conservative forces within the party itself and threatening their majority. Still others believe progressives should seize the opportunity to fully discredit and expose movement conservatism, with hearings and legal action, before they have a chance to regroup.

Perhaps the answer lies in doing all of it and seeing what sticks, as FDR did during his first year in office, or assigning roles to certain players. But no matter what, this discussion of specific strategy should be fully engaged by everyone during this period before a new administration takes office. If even an informal consensus could be formed about aims and tactics among those who have platforms and access to institutional support, we will have a better chance of success.

Last week week in Denver I was convinced that the motivation, commitment and pragmatism necessary for progressive success are all in place, and they go beyond any specific candidate or campaign. The goals are clear. In this rather extraordinary moment of transition, as we move from a purely oppositional force to a force for positive action with allies in positions of great power, we need begin to focus in earnest on tactics, strategy and our specific roles for "making them do it."

And I have to say that after the last 25 years of fighting off a conservative movement at the height of its power, it's a very nice challenge to have.

Get The Right Blend Into The Discussion

Isaiah J. Poole — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 12:18:48 -0400

We're retrieving your content. If it does not appear in a few seconds, please click here.