Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: The New Progressive Movement

Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 13, 2011, 2:42 p.m. EST by looselyhuman (3117)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Occupy Wall Street and its allied movements around the country are more than a walk in the park. They are most likely the start of a new era in America. Historians have noted that American politics moves in long swings. We are at the end of the 30-year Reagan era, a period that has culminated in soaring income for the top 1 percent and crushing unemployment or income stagnation for much of the rest. The overarching challenge of the coming years is to restore prosperity and power for the 99 percent.

Thirty years ago, a newly elected Ronald Reagan made a fateful judgment: "Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem." Taxes for the rich were slashed, as were outlays on public services and investments as a share of national income. Only the military and a few big transfer programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and veterans' benefits were exempted from the squeeze.

Reagan's was a fateful misdiagnosis. He completely overlooked the real issue - the rise of global competition in the information age - and fought a bogeyman, the government. Decades on, America pays the price of that misdiagnosis, with a nation singularly unprepared to face the global economic, energy and environmental challenges of our time.

Washington still channels Reaganomics. The federal budget for nonsecurity discretionary outlays - categories like highways and rail, education, job training, research and development, the judiciary, NASA, environmental protection, energy, the IRS and more - was cut from more than 5 percent of gross domestic product at the end of the 1970s to around half of that today. With the budget caps enacted in the August agreement, domestic discretionary spending would decline to less than 2 percent of GDP by the end of the decade, according to the White House. Government would die by fiscal asphyxiation.

Both parties have joined in crippling the government in response to the demands of their wealthy campaign contributors, who above all else insist on keeping low tax rates on capital gains, top incomes, estates and corporate profits. Corporate taxes as a share of national income are at the lowest levels in recent history. Rich households take home the greatest share of income since the Great Depression. Twice before in American history, powerful corporate interests dominated Washington and brought America to a state of unacceptable inequality, instability and corruption. Both times a social and political movement arose to restore democracy and shared prosperity.

The first age of inequality was the Gilded Age at the end of the 19th century, an era quite like today, when both political parties served the interests of the corporate robber barons. The progressive movement arose after the financial crisis of 1893. In the following decades Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson came to power, and the movement pushed through a remarkable era of reform: trust busting, federal income taxation, fair labor standards, the direct election of senators and women's suffrage.

The second gilded age was the Roaring Twenties. The pro-business administrations of Harding, Coolidge and Hoover once again opened up the floodgates of corruption and financial excess, this time culminating in the Great Depression. And once again the pendulum swung. FDR's New Deal marked the start of several decades of reduced income inequality, strong trade unions, steep top tax rates and strict financial regulation. After 1981, Reagan began to dismantle each of these core features of the New Deal.

Following our recent financial calamity, a third progressive era is likely to be in the making. This one should aim for three things. The first is a revival of crucial public services, especially education, training, public investment and environmental protection. The second is the end of a climate of impunity that encouraged nearly every Wall Street firm to commit financial fraud. The third is to re-establish the supremacy of people votes over dollar votes in Washington.

None of this will be easy. Vested interests are deeply entrenched, even as Wall Street titans are jailed and their firms pay megafines for fraud. The progressive era took 20 years to correct abuses of the Gilded Age. The New Deal struggled for a decade to overcome the Great Depression, and the expansion of economic justice lasted through the 1960s. The new wave of reform is but a few months old.

...

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/8379-the-new-progressive-movement

20 Comments

20 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by MJMorrow (419) 12 years ago

We need a true Social Democratic Party, focused on growing the middle class and creating a reliable means for the working class to enter the middle class. We need this party to fucus on the equitable distribution of weath and political representation. We also need an upper middle class and a rich class, but where we need an ultra rich class, is outright baffling to me. I need Paris Hilton, to sit on a party boat?

[-] 2 points by looselyhuman (3117) 12 years ago

"We also need an upper middle class and a rich class, but where we need an ultra rich class, is outright baffling to me. I need Paris Hilton, to sit on a party boat?"

Ha. Agreed 100%.

[-] 1 points by LibertyFirst (325) 12 years ago

Serious question: What does your need have to do with it? Why do 'we' need a middle class, upper middle class and a rich class? What do 'we' need them for?

[-] 2 points by MJMorrow (419) 12 years ago

It is in our (non- ultra rich Americans) best National interests to create conditions that are conducive to maximizing long term growth in shareholder value, off of servicing the US market. A system that optimizes the interest of the individual need optimize the interests of all individuals in society; this creates optimal, sustainable social interaction and the greatest freedom of movement within and across social classes. If only a few benefit, then in the long run, the few will be eliminated; as in the case of the Tzar or the Emperor of Machukuo. There is a strange tension in this, mind you. I should rightly strive for my own best interests, but also be mindful that I am ultimately worth, not what I have, but what I have for others.

To resolve this tension, I must seek to create a system, whereby each one of us, with few exceptions, have the best possible future we can, while collaborating collectively; a future that is superior to any we could achieve, working on our own. This means that my best interests must be harmonized with that of my community, creating conditions where the working class can enter the middle class, the middle class can work hard and be upper middle class and the upper middle class, through their hard work can enter the rich class, but where there is free movement, personal initiative and collective responsibility. We ensure that we don't rig the system to benefit a few members of society, able to benefit at the expense of the many, without negative consequence to their own lives.

That is the parasitic life of the ultra rich, quite unlike the life of all other members of our various social classes. Where as, it is in my interest to see the best for the community, to maximize my own opportunity, the ultra rich can burn the community to the ground and still be well off. Their anti-social status makes them undesirable, for the best interests of the vast majority of humans. We cannot seek and pursue our best interests, freely, through reciprocal interactions and mutual advancement of community members, because we have nothing over the ultra rich and they are utterly uncooperative, with advancing our best interests.

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 12 years ago

Says the robber baron / Marie Antoinette.

[-] 2 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 12 years ago

Not voting supports the 1%. Voting against the 1%, consistently, will start with the less-bad choices, but has the potential of allowing us to build to better choices in the future.

No fast fixes, no easy fixes, so some will give up. If OWS keeps on keeping on, it can change the world.

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 12 years ago

I agree.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by RufusJFisk52 (259) 12 years ago

progressives are no better than reagan and the neo cons. Both subvert the constitution grossly.

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 12 years ago

Let's accept your premise, that the constitution is basically defunct.

So let's look at outcomes. Do you prefer the constitutional heresy that builds on the American Dream, or destroys it?

[-] -2 points by Farleymowat (415) 12 years ago

We need government to leave us all the hell alone.

[-] 3 points by looselyhuman (3117) 12 years ago

We need corporations and the 1% to leave our government the hell alone.

[-] 0 points by Farleymowat (415) 12 years ago

Perhaps they are one and the same.

[-] 3 points by looselyhuman (3117) 12 years ago

Only because the people have abdicated, bought in to the propaganda, been consumers more than citizens, accepted that government is the problem, and let the elite have it for their benefit alone.

Also, bump.

[-] 0 points by Farleymowat (415) 12 years ago

Lots of propaganda going around these days. Advertising is a massive industry, along with it's suggestiveness using sublimination. To make a statement "people are more consumer than citizen" is bizarre though. We are all consumers, in varying degrees, and if one is a citizen, well then, that person is a citizen. Being a consumer has nothing to do with being a citizen.

[-] 2 points by looselyhuman (3117) 12 years ago

Actually, it does. The new freemarket meme is that we are more powerful as consumers than as citizens, that we should vote with our dollars, and that's how to change the world. How to change the world is to vote, as citizens, and to prevent voting with dollars by the propagandists and lobbyists and campaign financiers.

[-] 0 points by Farleymowat (415) 12 years ago

I don't get your analogy. It just doesn't make any sense.

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 12 years ago

Ok, thanks for playing. Bump.

[-] 1 points by an0n (764) 12 years ago

Lol.

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 12 years ago

:o)