There is a lot of definitions of “progressive” in terms of American politics. I’m pretty sure that most people (except Glenn Beck) use the term to mean a centrist but that is equally nebulous.
Suppose us centrists on both sides of the aisle wanted to bring back the values of the old Bull-Moose Party, but updated of course for 2010. What would it look like? What would the platform be?
Here’s my 2 cents
• Government has a duty to regulate business to protect consumers
• All Americans should be treated equally under the law
• Small businesses are the backbone of American commerce and should be encouraged to thrive. Historically, this was the role of the farmer but with the huge amount of farming now done by large corporations and the rise of industrialization we should support small business and family-run farms.
• Government is more responsive to the citizen the more local it gets. Power should start flowing from Washington DC back to the states and through the states to the local governments.
• Social programs should go to the needy and not be used for wealth redistribution.
Spending should be controlled so as not to place future generations under a crushing debt burden. At first these ideas seem contradictory, but they truly are not. As every American knows, we need to live within our means and budget our money. Necessities come first, then savings, then exravagence. The government is unchecked and runs up more debt which as the common people know, will eventually come crashing down as financial ruin. Currently we spend over 10% of the budget just in interest payments. Imagine what that 10% could be used for.
For social programs, we need to limit assistance to the truly needy. Government bailouts to pay for executive bonuses and farm subsidies to large corporations is money wasted that could go to help the common people that truly need help or could be invested into the economy to help grow business that benefit all Americans.
I also think that the current recreational drug / alcohol / tobacco laws should be reexamined. A lot of decisions in that arena were made based on fear and misconceptions and lobbyist intervention. In light of 2010 research, we know what should be legal and what should be controlled.
Teddy Roosevelt, the original Bull-Moose candidate, would’ve taken issue with your position that “Government is more responsive to the citizen the more local it gets. Power should start flowing from Washington DC back to the states and through the states to the local governments.” Roosevelt was a great believer in the use of federal power. If you want to found a party with those beliefs, knock yourself out, but don’t try to tell me that your party is the Bull Moose Party.
Basically, an increase in federal power, more direct democracy, strong federal protections for workers, increased funding for general education and scientific labs, trade protectionism, pro-conservation, equal sufferage, campaign finance reform, against judicial review of laws, wants to levy progressive estate and income taxes, aid for immigrants, pro-international arms treaties and regulation of financial products.
It’s actually impressive: 1) how much of this has come to pass (Teddy would be happy) and 2) how much of the rest of it tracks with the platform of the modern Democratic party. Aside from the direct democracy bits, and the limits on judicial review and raising of tariffs, I imagine Obama would happily sign off on most of this.
Teddy was a very progressive American with one appalling flaw: a militaristic, adventuresome imperialism. Like so many victims of testosterone poisoning, he was obsessed with showing off what a “tough guy” he was. Thousands died so he could publicly scratch his balls. Alas.
I interpret the first paragraph as desiring a balance between state and fed. For example, Utah believes they can handle the education issue within their state, so why did the Federal government force them to accept No Child Left Behind. OTOH, the need for post 9/11 security or disaster relief is far beyond what a state can do so TSA/DHS/FEMA is appropriate. Perhaps my point was poorly stated (but in reaction to today’sBig Brother Feds) that there should be a balance between the Big Picture issues (Fed Power) and Little Picture issues (State Power). Would that view be more Bull-Moosey?
The second paragraph is the BIG PICTURE issue such as (in 2010) UHC or NCLB which directly affects the common welfare. However, I do not interpret it as the level of Federal micromanagement we have with the proposed health insurance regulation or education bills. And I especially do not interpret it supporting government bailouts of private companies but perhaps the banking system bailout would fall into this. The real issue with that was Hoover showed in 1929 that you couldn’t give banks money expecting them to lend but BushObama didn’t learn that lesson.
I think the last paragraph says it best - we are all Americans and not citizens of 50 sovereign states anymore . . . but that doesn’t mean that Federalism should be non-existant.
So were Bull-Moosers into absolute Federal power or balance between Federal and States?
Where do get the centrist part? In current terms progressives are anything but centrist…unless you consider Dennis Kucinich and Bernie Sanders centrists.
I want to direct your attention to this image from this insightful post on FiveThirtyEight.com. In it, you can see that the percent amount of the federal budget that goes to interest payments has remained broadly constant over a period of forty years! This has been accomplished in no small part due to a reduction in the interest rate on bonds, which is discussed in the article’s text. Furthermore, the reduction to something like 6% in 2009 and 2010 is a result of the increased size of the budget which grew more quickly than the amount of interest owed on the balance. It is simply not the case that the currently held federal debt is crippling - it is absolutely true that, like any bubble, we cannot continue this trend for long before one of the dynamics has to change. But for the time being (and I do mean very temporarily) it is of greater concern to get the economy on track than it is to cry about the payments on the federal debt.
To indulge my gift for oversimplification: if we can get the economy back on track, we can pay off the debt, no matter how big it is. If we can’t get back on track, we can’t pay the debt, no matter how small it is.
Ok!!!
I will gladly change my view on the interest or maybe change it to critisizing the growth of mandatory spending.
Remember that the Federal Government in 1912 was very different than today. I find it hard to believe that TR’s image of a strong Federal government is the bloated, wasteful, micromanaging post New Deal monstrosity that Washington DC has grown into. I picture his Washington DC as more of ensuring the average American wasn’t being abused by corporations. Am I wrong?
A difference of scale and proportion, more than anything else. The business oriented conservatives of his day were nothing like they are today, in his day, they really did eat parboiled babies. They were to the capitalists what the fundamentalist wahhabists are to Islam. Public intellectuals widely opined that the Constitution demanded that business was free to do whatever it bloody well pleased, to whomsoever it wished.
On the other hand, if Teddy were President, we would have entered WWI in August, 1914. Pretty sure on the English side, but with Teddy, you were never quite sure…
Did you read the full platform? Its actually impressive how much of it has come to pass and is now part of our present “monsterous” Federal gov’t, with large federal agencies ensuring working safety standards, regulating labor and health standards of products and (trying) to regulate finance and business.
Who knows, Teddy might’ve stopped there and sought no further expansions for the federal gov’t, but I doubt it. The New Deal was a pretty natural progression from the earlier Bull Moose party, and indeed many of the Bull Moosers went on to support FDR. And the platform I linked to comes pretty close to calling for something like Medicare, unemployment insurance and Social Security.
Saint Cad outlined a great platform, IMO. Pointing out the differences between his outline and the historical BMP is irrelevant (not to mention redundant) since he said he wanted it updated for 2010, and then spelled out exactly what he wanted to update.
Stagecoach was an inspiration for Citizen Kane. Does that fact make you climb the wall in horror because Geronimo is not mentioned once in the latter film?
My primary school teachers used to tell me I’d argue with a lamp post. I grew out of it.
You are wrong in thinking Washington DC can ensure the average American is not being abused by corporations, without a bloated, micromanaging post-New-Deal etc.
