# We really need a new progressive movement in America **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 11, 2012, 7:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444 "2012-04-11T07:35:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Dallas\_Jones](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dallas_jones/32/3277_2.png) [@Dallas\_Jones](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dallas_Jones)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2012, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/21 "2012-04-11T19:09:15Z")
In order to get a new progressive movement going you really need to ask yourself ‘what happened to the old progressive movement?’ Even people who mostly vote a liberal view still tend to see themselves as moderate, and this skews the percentage who view themselves as conservative even higher. Self identified ‘Progressives’ are such a small portion of the voting public as to be influential only on the fringe. > **[Americans Unsure About "Progressive" Political Label](https://news.gallup.com/poll/141218/americans-unsure-progressive-political-label.aspx)** > > More than half of Americans are unsure of whether the "progressive" label describes their own political views, while 12% say it does and 31% say it does not. Among those with an opinion, liberals are more likely to embrace than reject the label,... > **[In 2010, Conservatives Still Outnumber Moderates, Liberals](https://news.gallup.com/poll/141032/2010-conservatives-outnumber-moderates-liberals.aspx)** > > Conservatives have maintained their leading position among U.S. ideological groups in the first half of 2010. Gallup finds 42% of Americans describing themselves as conservative; 35% are moderate and 20% are liberal. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2012, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/22 "2012-04-11T19:50:14Z")
The board is broken, it seems. Come to the Zombie thread in ATMB to talk about it. [Linky-poo.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=647866) ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2012, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/23 "2012-04-11T20:12:08Z")
We don’t need a new progressive movement. Pretty much every idea in the OP is the progressive movement’s list. We just need a shitload of more people to support the one there is. What we need is a much smarter general public, presumably arrived at by creating a much better education system. One problem with that is that primary and secondary education is almost exclusively in the domain of local government, and lots of places have absolutely no interest in producing highly educated, and highly questioning and skeptical, citizens. ---
**Author:** ![suranyi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@suranyi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/suranyi)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2012, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/24 "2012-04-11T20:24:44Z")
> [@Eric\_the\_Green](#): > > The solutions are so obvious. The only obstacles are political. Political obstacles are the hardest to overcome. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2012, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/25 "2012-04-11T20:43:40Z")
> [@](#): > > We really need a new progressive movement in America Why? What’s wrong with the old one? Are you advocating a new Progressive PARTY, or a revitalization of the old one…or something else? Or are you wanting a new progressive movement that will shift the Democratic party towards progressive ideals (which, to be honest, don’t seem all that different than the OLD progressive movement to me)? > [@](#): > > Finally, a movement that is willing to use any effective and ethical means necessary to achieve these goals, not declare up-front that it refuses to use any of these means in order to protect its “purity” from feared co-option. How do you envision this working, in practical terms? Or do you worry about little things like practicality? Do you envision this ‘new’ progressive movement in the US replacing the current progressive movement, or do you envision them as sort of like the Tea Party…i.e. working for change and attention within the system and as part of one of the two big tent parties? Or do you envision this ‘movement’ as replacing one of the parties (presumably the Democrats) to become a new dominant player in the two party system? Or are you advocating something that transcends the current system, replacing it with…what? -XT ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2012, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/26 "2012-04-11T20:53:02Z")
I certainly agree that the OP is a bit pie-in-the-sky and rather lacking in details. That said, I think responding to any pie-in-the-sky proposal with a dismissive sneer of “but who decides X, who gets to sort Y, who gets to analyze Z” as if that just defeats the original proposal all by itself is a little facile. I mean, you can do that to just about anything: Person 1: I think we should have laws that make sure food and drinking water is safe Person 2: But who would decide what qualifies as safe? Who would decide what qualifies as food? Person 1: I think that if you killed someone in self defense, that should be legal defense against a charge of murder Person 2: But who decides when it is or is not self defense? Once you open this loophole then everyone will always claim it’s self defense and we’ll never get to convict anyone!!! etc etc etc. For instance, in this thread, the OP (presumably) would like a law which makes it hard or impossible for big corporations and super PACs to give millions of dollars to politicians’ campaigns without making it impossible for joe citizen to give a hundred dollars to a politician’s campaign. Now, we could argue about whether that’s good public policy or not, and it’s also not necessarily trivially easy to write a law that properly distinguishes between those two cases… but it’s also not necessarily impossible to write such a law, either; and responding to his proposal simply by pointing out that a finished law would need way more complicated language than his initial proposal is rather silly. Of course it would! (Granted, in that particular example there’s also the question of constitutionality, but my point stands…) ---
**Author:** ![Eric\_the\_Green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8baadc/32.png) [@Eric\_the\_Green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eric_the_Green)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2012, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/27 "2012-04-11T22:37:48Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Because that is the only meaning I can get out of this. If we don’t have to settle for what we know because nothing else works better, then it seems the only alternative is that we can settle for something new even though we know it must be worse. The alternative is to stick with what we know isn’t working, or try something that might work better. > [@](#): > > At least 51% of the popoulation does not agree with you. If we can get that to 49%, then it will fly. > [@](#): > > Evidence? Read the news. > [@](#): > > You actually said that you intended to “take money out of politics” and “stop defining political spending as “free speech.”” which rather clearly implies that you intend to make it illegal for people to spend money on political lobbying. I gave specific proposals that are already quite well known and accepted by many. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2012, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/28 "2012-04-11T23:07:18Z")
> [@Eric\_the\_Green](#): > > A movement that will . . . Look, if you’re serious about this, I suggest you get active in an existing progressive organization, no need to re-invent the wheel. The most promising one going right now is the [Working Families Party.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_Families_Party) (Or the [Vermont Progressive Party](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermont_Progressive_Party) if you happen to live there.) If you want to go further left even than progressive, try [the Democratic Socialists of America](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Socialists_of_America) or the [Socialist Party USA.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_party_usa) If you want to go further left than **that**. . . well, you can’t, really, not in this country, even the Communist Party USA is really democratic-socialist these days. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2012, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/29 "2012-04-11T23:10:57Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Which of those items does the current Progressive Movement not espouse? I take the lack of response to mean “none”. You don’t need a new movement. You need to get enough people interested in the existing one. Good luck. ---
**Author:** ![Eric\_the\_Green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8baadc/32.png) [@Eric\_the\_Green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eric_the_Green)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2012, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/30 "2012-04-11T23:11:43Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > It means that your entire post reads like a typical freshman screed, and I assumed it was posted because you were off on spring break and thus had time to discover this site. Assumptions are not too accurate, are they? > [@](#): > > Such blatant logical fallacies won’t win you much support around here. Anyone who has heard Boehner and his cohorts rattle on about “job creaters” knows what I’m talking about. This ideology is intended to deceive the people with libertarian slogans into supporting policies that have and will benefit only the wealthy. > [@](#): > > So these best thinkers are going to decide how the country should be run, rather than elected representatives? Representatives can think too, if we voters decide to vote for people who can think instead of the idiot Tea Partiers who can’t. > [@](#): > > What, only broadcasters? Why not print media? Why not internet sites, blogs and twitters? What is your evidence that broadcasters offering free air time would be optimal over no free air time, or free representation in all mass media? > > In short, what is your evidence for the claim that this is the optimal solution? Where is your evidence that it would produce an improvement over the current situation? > > What sort of air time? Interviews? One person talking head style addresses? Are they allowed to use Powerpoint presentations during those addresses? How about animated Power Points? Short films? How about 3d short films directed by James Cameron? > > What is your limitation here and why did you set that as your limit? Where is your evidence that this is the optimum? Where is your evidence that it would produce an improvement over the currents situation? Why don’t you give _your_ proposal, instead of constant requests for evidence and specifics? You are doing nothing but saying nothing can be done. My proposals would be better than having politicians spend half their time asking for money and the other half doing the bidding of those who pay for them. Public financing works in other countries. > [@](#): > > So if 10 million people adopt a campaign position WRT the US president tomorrow, they will all have to be given the exact same amount of campaign funds as Barack Obama? How would you fund such a situation? Major candidates would get a set amount, and people could contribute a set amount that allows each citizen to contribute instead of a few people with the most money. > [@](#): > > If that isn’t the case, then how do you decide who gets campaign funding? Do you intend to make it illegal for me to personally campaign on behalf of Obama because I \*don’t \*have public funding? If not then in what sense are all campaigns publicly funded? And if so then how do I have freedom of speech in any practical sense of the word? > > What is your limitation here and why did you set that as your limit? Where is your evidence that this is the optimum? Where is your evidence that it would produce an improvement over the currents situation? Money is not speech. We should have Obama campaign on behalf of Obama, not YOU. Restrict money for campaigns so no-one’s money is more important than someone else’s. Demanding exact figures is just stalling. Legislators and courts can work the best workable amounts out over time. > [@](#): > > Ummm, financial gambling is just another way of saying taking risks with money, where high risks reap high rewards and vice versa. For someone as uninformed as you, you sure are stubborn and proud of your opinions and quick to knock others. > [@](#): > > OK, so how do you do that? How can the US economy possibly remain fluid and stable when it is impossible for anyone to advance venture capital? > > This isn’t a trivial issue. It is the heart of your screed. How exactly can an economy function when it is illegal to so much as buy a share or apply for a business loan? YOu are exaggerating my claims again. Most of what we need to do is reinstate the laws that you Republicans, “New” Democrats, and Libertarians took away. > [@](#): > > And who decides who the right thinking people are? The voters (I hope; maybe a vain hope in the USA I know) > [@](#): > > You are advocating a system that can only work under authoritarian rule with no democratic representation. Do you really think that would be an improvement over the current system? Almost anything would be better than our Tea Party congress. They are extremely authoritarian and downright stupid. > [@](#): > > Yes, indeed. Being [diplomatic with Hitler](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement) was a great saving. You must have been around supporting the Vietnam adventure. Your argument is such old hat as to be really tiring. The Munich Doctrine again? Next you’ll be trotting out the Dominoe Theory. Gimme a break. > [@](#): > > Once again, I have to ask, doesn’t it give you even a moment’s pause when what you believe has not been believed by even \*one \*the greatest in the field for the past two centuries? > > Ahh, Democrats since Carter have been responsible for more foreign military interventions than Republicans. Hence the old saw “Democrats want a small military and want to send them everywhere, Republicans want a large military and want to keep them home”. I doubt I would agree with your choice of who is “greatest.” Democratic presidents have not been perfect, but their foreign policy is on the right track. They kept us out of major wars, while Republicans deliberately started them for no reason. They certainly didn’t keep them home; what planet are you living on dude? > [@](#): > > Evidence? Maybe later. I don’t have time now to prove the obvious to you. > [@](#): > > You actually believe this? How charming. I think so 😉 > [@](#): > > So humour me. 😉 I can give you a few starting points, which I’m sure you will sneer and snicker at. > **[Extreme weather will strike as climate change takes hold, IPCC warns](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/nov/18/extreme-weather-climate-change-ipcc)** > > Heavier rainfall, storms and droughts could wipe billions off economies and destroy lives, says report by 220 scientists > **[HEAT | FRONTLINE](https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/documentary/heat/?)** > > A far-reaching investigation into America's energy landscape and what can be done to save our planet - and what it will take. > **[Q&A: Climate change](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2007/jul/26/climatechange)** > > What is climate change and why should we be concerned about it? David Adam explains > **[Bill McKibben on the Late Show with David Letterman](https://350.org/letterman/)** > > Est. reading time: 1 minute Again, what planet have you been living on? Mars? > [@](#): > > Yes, those of us who are non-Right-Thinking people who are blinkered, callous and not a real citizen. And you know that we are non-right thinking people who are blinkered, callous and not a real citizens because we ask inconvenient questions like “How?” and “Why stop there” and “Can we see your your evidence please?” All the obstacles are political. Your questions are intended to obfuscate and block action. > [@](#): > > By which you mean the solutions are obvious, but 51% of the population keep voting against them. But you know so much better than the majority of citizens and the head of the state department and historians. You just need to put the Right Thinking People in charge. The ones that the citizens steadfastly refuse to vote for. > > In short, the solutions are simple, if only it weren’t for this bloody democracy Not a bad summary there. The people have indeed voted incorrectly, in my opinion. There is a remedy for that though. The people can vote correctly instead. And there’s some hope that demographic changes will favor the correct side in the long run. > [@](#): > > The world today is more peaceful than it has been in the past, but you don’t take that as evidence that the policies of the past 50 years have been effective. So what exactly are you using to divine “more peaceful than today” Do you have an alternative universe you intend to measure this against? I was talking about American foreign policy. Democratic presidents have enacted a more-peaceful policy than Republicans over the last 35 years. That’s a good starting point. > [@](#): > > Once again, wouldn’t it be nice if everyone was nice. But what are you proposing we actually _do_? Why wasn’t that obvious to you from my statement? We actually DO _not_ start unnecessary wars like the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan. You tell me, _why_ were those wars so necessary? Give your opinions for once instead of just knocking others. Are you sure you libertarians are not all the same person? I’ve heard this all “since 1965” too; nothing new, very old hat. > [@](#): > > I’m well aware that you did not originate them, as i pointed out, they are boilerplate freshman screed. Could have been cribbed from 1965. > Nonetheless while you are expressing them they are your ideas and they will be labelled as such.. Your labels have nothing to do with my ideas. > [@](#): > > Totalitarian has a legitimate and specific meaning. > > You have proposed a system wherein the limits of freedom, limitations upon security forces and political involvement are controlled by a group of elite “Right Thinkers” whom the citizens would never elect democratically. It isn’t name calling to point out that such a system is totalitarian. No, we need to vote correctly to elect people who _can think_ to begin with. > [@](#): > > Indeed, we should not be afraid to embrace totalitarian political systems, should we. We should not be afraid of what _extremist libertarians_ like you _CALL_ “totalitarian.” We should embrace it indeed! Stagnation IS horrible. It will lead to much worse if not corrected. Problems cannot be left to fester. On what basis do you think they can be? Try leaving your house to rot and fall down, and see if that works. It won’t work in politics either. We need to take action, and we’ve been stalled for over 30 years while other nations advance and leave us in the dust. ---
**Author:** ![Eric\_the\_Green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8baadc/32.png) [@Eric\_the\_Green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eric_the_Green)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2012, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/31 "2012-04-11T23:19:14Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I take the lack of response to mean “none”. > > You don’t need a new movement. You need to get enough people interested in the existing one. Good luck. Sorry, the forum would not allow me to post yesterday. I guess by “new movement” I mean to reenergize the old one, or get it to actually exist and be effective, instead of only being somewhat existing; something like that. It ought to be at least as strong as the lunatic right wing, which it isn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Eric\_the\_Green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8baadc/32.png) [@Eric\_the\_Green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eric_the_Green)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2012, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/32 "2012-04-11T23:20:42Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > I certainly agree that the OP is a bit pie-in-the-sky and rather lacking in details. That said, I think responding to any pie-in-the-sky proposal with a dismissive sneer of “but who decides X, who gets to sort Y, who gets to analyze Z” as if that just defeats the original proposal all by itself is a little facile. I mean, you can do that to just about anything: > > Person 1: I think we should have laws that make sure food and drinking water is safe > Person 2: But who would decide what qualifies as safe? Who would decide what qualifies as food? > > Person 1: I think that if you killed someone in self defense, that should be legal defense against a charge of murder > Person 2: But who decides when it is or is not self defense? Once you open this loophole then everyone will always claim it’s self defense and we’ll never get to convict anyone!!! > > etc etc etc. > For instance, in this thread, the OP (presumably) would like a law which makes it hard or impossible for big corporations and super PACs to give millions of dollars to politicians’ campaigns without making it impossible for joe citizen to give a hundred dollars to a politician’s campaign. Now, we could argue about whether that’s good public policy or not, and it’s also not necessarily trivially easy to write a law that properly distinguishes between those two cases… but it’s also not necessarily impossible to write such a law, either; and responding to his proposal simply by pointing out that a finished law would need way more complicated language than his initial proposal is rather silly. Of course it would! (Granted, in that particular example there’s also the question of constitutionality, but my point stands…) Points well taken. ---
**Author:** ![Eric\_the\_Green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8baadc/32.png) [@Eric\_the\_Green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eric_the_Green)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2012, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/33 "2012-04-11T23:23:34Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Yes, yes, but how does that cover the “and keep us safe from terrorists” part? I’m not against such things as inspecting people boarding planes, and investigating terror plots. I’m against making unnecessary violations of civil liberties on the excuse of fighting terrorists. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2012, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/34 "2012-04-11T23:24:36Z")
[QUOTE=Eric the Green] I guess by “new movement” I mean to reenergize the old one, or get it to actually exist and be effective, instead of only being somewhat existing; something like that. It ought to be at least as strong as the lunatic right wing, which it isn’t. [/QUOTE] Well…why isn’t it? How would you make it different and relevant enough to be as strong as the lunatic right wing? How would you appeal to enough Americans to make it so? And do you envision this as a direct challenge to the existing dominant Democratic party, or working through existing channels (as the ‘lunatic right wing’ has done a la the Republican Party), or supplanting them? -XT ---
**Author:** ![Absolute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2012, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/35 "2012-04-11T23:25:05Z")
You know what’s absurd about this thread? I’m a fiscally conservative, socially liberal republican, and I agree with almost every one of your statements! Yeah, human rights, environmental protection, fair tax system, debt reduction, efficient social programs, cheaper healthcare, all of those are great! Let’s go! We need all the government we need! Sure, I can get behind that! Protect the environment! Hell yeah, I love the environment! Fuck the polluters! Where we likely disagree is in the best way to actually accomplish these goals, and balance them when they conflict. ---
**Author:** ![Eric\_the\_Green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8baadc/32.png) [@Eric\_the\_Green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eric_the_Green)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2012, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/36 "2012-04-11T23:27:07Z")
> [@just\_some\_guy5](#): > > You realize that we have a progressive tax system, right? > > Even the oft-vilified capital gains rate is progressive - households making less than ~$60k pay a 0% cap gains rate. In my opinion, we need to let all the Bush tax cuts expire, enact a millionaire’s tax on top of that, and just _refuse_ to do all the other things people are suggesting-- like lower rates, and flat taxes which would NOT be progressive. Corporate taxes are another thing; it might be possible to lower rates if more loopholes are closed. But we already closed enough personal loopholes in 1986. ---
**Author:** ![Eric\_the\_Green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8baadc/32.png) [@Eric\_the\_Green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eric_the_Green)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2012, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/37 "2012-04-11T23:28:07Z")
> [@Absolute](#): > > You know what’s absurd about this thread? I’m a fiscally conservative, socially liberal republican, and I agree with almost every one of your statements! > > Yeah, human rights, environmental protection, fair tax system, debt reduction, efficient social programs, cheaper healthcare, all of those are great! Let’s go! > > We need all the government we need! Sure, I can get behind that! > > Protect the environment! Hell yeah, I love the environment! Fuck the polluters! > > Where we likely disagree is in the best way to actually accomplish these goals, and balance them when they conflict. Well, you have to be willing to pay for them, and that means paying some taxes. “Fiscal conservatives” don’t always like that prospect! ---
**Author:** ![Eric\_the\_Green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8baadc/32.png) [@Eric\_the\_Green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eric_the_Green)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2012, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/38 "2012-04-11T23:36:41Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Who decides when it is a constructive investment for the people? What corporate welfare currently existing is not considered a constructive investment for those that passed it? > > What “dealings” do you want to regulate? Should the government decide if an investment is too risky for a firm to take on? > > In deciding what to regulate, from whom do you seek advice? For example in regulating the “big financial companies”, would politicians have the expertise needed to write such regulation? If not, wouldn’t they seek advice from _professionals in the industry_? Who’s interest do you think these professionals have in mind? Your goal of reducing corporate influence in government while simultaneously regulating “dealings” seems a bit silly now, doesn’t it? These are good questions and I probably don’t have time now to answer. It may be hard to distinguish corporate welfare from a good investment. But I think investing in infrastructure and research that benefits more than particular companies, may work. For past examples, consider land for railroads, the space program, centers for disease control, support for science, etc. Financial regulations are an easy call. The trickle-downers got hold of the country and deceived people into repealing laws like Glass-Steagall. Result? The great recession of 2008-2011. We need to put back those laws; that would be a great start. Not much “expertise” needed _there_, is there? > [@](#): > > If you think education, transportation, and health care operate in a free-market you’ve never heard of public schools, student loans, the interstate highway system, oil subsidies, medicare, medicaid, or insurance mandates. How and when exactly did you discover our civilization? What I said was free market policies are driving up prices. We are not allowed to regulate commodity markets who drive up prices without any connection to the actual buyers and sellers. Why do we need to allow this? Why do we have the most expensive and least effective health care system in the world? We are allowing people to charge too much, and it is too privatized. Colleges are unaffordable. These high tuitions should be discouraged. Obama has made a good start on that; we need to do more. Just what I admit I’m not too sure at this very moment. BUt certainly the public could bring down the cost of _public_ higher education if we acted to do so. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2012, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/39 "2012-04-11T23:41:52Z")
[QUOTE=Eric the Green] In my opinion, we need to let all the Bush tax cuts expire, enact a millionaire’s tax on top of that, and just refuse to do all the other things people are suggesting-- like lower rates, and flat taxes which would NOT be progressive. [/QUOTE] So…are you willing to let ALL of the Bush Tax Cuts™ expire…or merely some of them? I’m all for letting them all expire, and I think that’s what should have happened. It didn’t though because regardless of the rhetoric, those cuts effected more than just ‘the rich’…and having them expire would effect a hell of a lot of folks. Probably most of the people participating in this thread. I’m all for higher taxes…but I’m for higher taxes on pretty much everyone (excluding the really, really poor). My issue with those who call for more taxes is that they generally mean more taxes for someone else. > [@](#): > > Well, you have to be willing to pay for them, and that means paying some taxes. “Fiscal conservatives” don’t always like that prospect! And liberals don’t always like the prospect of cutting government programs or budgets. It’s going to take a lot of folks doing a lot of things they don’t always like to fix our fiscal problems. Silver bullet solutions like The Buffet Rule(aar) SOUND good, to the masses, but they are mainly window dressing and fodder for the faithful. Same with your ‘millionaire’s tax’…anything that you could, practically, get enacted is going to be a drop in the bucket when it comes to our fiscal issues without other measures, including the dreaded budget and program cuts. You might get billions…hell, you might get a hundred billion, or even two (I doubt it, but for the sake of argument let’s say you could) but while that sounds like a lot it really isn’t when put up against the size of the deficit, let alone the debt. IIRC, it’s several tens of billions a year just paying on the current ‘debt’, and you simply aren’t going to be able to squeeze The Rich for trillions…at some point they will simply take their marbles and go play somewhere else. An option that THEY have, but We, The People generally don’t have. The trouble with idealistic screeds is that in general the problems are more complex and resistant to easy, quick silver bullet changes, and the solutions even more so…and require compromise while working with the actual system we have, as opposed to the one some of us WISH we had. You aren’t going to be elected God Emperor of The Americas, able to arbitrarily make changes with the sweep of your hand. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Eric\_the\_Green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8baadc/32.png) [@Eric\_the\_Green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eric_the_Green)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2012, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/40 "2012-04-11T23:42:48Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Well…why isn’t it? How would you make it different and relevant enough to be as strong as the lunatic right wing? How would you appeal to enough Americans to make it so? And do you envision this as a direct challenge to the existing dominant Democratic party, or working through existing channels (as the ‘lunatic right wing’ has done a la the Republican Party), or supplanting them? > > -XT I think progressives are demoralized and don’t think they can challenge the dominant trickle-down ideology. The ideology needs to be debunked and we all can do our part. I know we NEED a new or revived progressive movement, and we need to realize that we need it and that it can happen. As far as which channel, I don’t care at this point; whatever works. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444.md?page=3)