I was struck several days ago to hear Arizona's Senator Jon Kyl claim that the Democrats' insistence on considering the new START nuclear inspection treaty in the short time before Christmas somehow defiled the holiday.
Perhaps, I thought, Senator Kyl forgot for a moment that Christmas celebrates the birth of the "Prince of Peace" -- that the Christmas story is about "Peace on Earth, good will to men." Could there be a better way to celebrate Christmas than to approve a peace accord that would reduce the risk of nuclear war?
Of course, this particular episode is actually emblematic of the fundamental disconnect between the values held by Senator Kyl and many of his radical conservative colleagues, and the progressive values that have served as the very definition of human morality, freedom and progress.
When you think of the heroes and heroines of American -- and world -- history you think of the likes of Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Cesar Chavez, Robert Kennedy, Mohandas Gandhi and Franklin Roosevelt.
They are people who expanded the realm of human freedom for everyone. They stood up for everyday people -- not the rich and powerful -- of their times. They are the people who ended wars, not those who began them. They are the people who created mechanisms that help us avoid violence; who enhanced the ability of every child -- no matter her background or income -- to live a fulfilling life; who stood up against ignorance and oppression and greed; who understood that we're all in this together -- not all in this alone.
Most of all, they were people who believed that what is important in life is what you can do for other people -- not simply what you can do for yourself.
The progressive values that have always truly defined human progress are about hope, not fear; unity not division. They are about mutual respect and loving your neighbor as yourself. They are the values that are celebrated in this holiday season.
Let's be clear: "Greed is good" is not being celebrated at Christmas. The values of Ebenezer Scrooge do not define the Christmas spirit -- past, present or future. More tax breaks for the top one percent is not the moral of A Christmas Carol.
The right often characterizes progressive values as "soft," "utopian" and "naïve." But the hard fact is that progressive values have not only defined human progress in the past, they must prevail if human beings are to survive and prosper in the world of the future. Far from being "pie in the sky," "utopian" or "soft-headed," progressive values are the most precious, adaptive possessions of humanity -- and they have provided the moral foundation for the unfolding story of American democracy.
The future of our society and our planet depends on our ability to create a world that reflects those values. And the growing power of our technology -- our new ability to destroy human civilization, or alter our climate -- means that we don't have forever to get ourselves on the right track.
A few years ago a planetary scientist named David Grinspoon wrote a book called Lonely Planets that explores the question of extraterrestrial life -- both basic biological life and intelligent sentient life.
Toward the end of his book, Grinspoon speculates on the chances of survival for intelligent life in the universe. He argues that every civilization of intelligent creatures must pass through a gauntlet that tests whether the values and political structures of the society are capable of keeping pace with the exponentially increasing power of the society's technology. If its values and political structures can keep pace with technological change, the society may pass into a phase of enormous freedom and possibility. If it does not, the power of its own technology will destroy it. Perhaps, he postulates, civilizations are like seahorses. Many are born, but only a few survive.
For the first time, a little more than half a century ago, human society entered that gauntlet. The autocatalytic nature of technological growth reached a point of takeoff that for the first time gave us the power to destroy ourselves and all life on our tiny, fragile planet. From that moment on, the race began.
The next several generations of humans will decide how that race turns out. They won't simply observe it, or describe it; they will decide it. Whatever the future holds will be a result of human decision for which we are all responsible.
We will decide if we pass through that gauntlet or -- like our cousins the Neanderthals -- become evolutionary dead ends. We will decide if humanity passes into a new era of possibility and freedom -- or the human story simply ends.
Progressive values are humanity's most precious possession. We must nurture them, fight for them, stand proudly for them, and celebrate them now during the holidays -- and in all the battles we face in the coming year.
Robert Creamer is a long-time political organizer and strategist, and author of the book: Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, available on Amazon.com
After Japan occupied northern French Indochina in late 1940, he authorized increased aid to the Republic of China. In July 1941, after Japan occupied the remainder of Indo-China, he cut off the sales of oil. Japan thus lost more than 95 percent of its oil supply. Roosevelt continued negotiations with the Japanese government. Meanwhile he started shifting the long-range B-17 bomber force to the Philippines.
Ordered the internment of Japanese Americans or AJAs (Americans of Japanese Ancestry)
In a country of 305M+ diverse souls, who among us has the right to decide what "society's needs" are? A group of 535 congressmen? By extension, the thousands of nameless, faceless bureaucrats who rule by fiat, unaccountable to the people?
The founders knew that "top down" governance had been in place for centuries in Europe with less than optimal results for the common man. Their radical idea was "bottom-up" governance; government by elected servants, impartial umpires in a game established and played by the people. A market based society that would allow movement between soci-economic strata; a rising tide to buoy all ships.
Fast forward to the mid 1800's, and the idea of "scientific government", rule by enlightened elites was in vogue in Europe. This grew into the various socialist movements, answers to the suffocating socio-economic statism inherent in societies only a few centuries away from feudalism.
The irony of progressivism is its feudalist core - the return of the citizen to slavery to the state via social-welfare policy. History is clear - individual liberty and freedom of economic exchange has done more to raise prosperity for the most people than any method of planned and controlled society.
Progressivism is a misnomer; neo-feudalism is more appropriate.
To answer the question, Is the government working for the people?, you first have to ask, which people are you talking about?
What studies are those? Are you contending the relative prosperity of even the poorest in the US has not risen dramatically in the past 25/50/100 years? Or are you contending the lack of mobility between economic strata?
How many "poor" in the US have access to multiple government aid programs, healthcare, food/clothing/shelter and cheap consumer goods?
How is prosperity to be "fairly distributed", and by whom?
Here's a nice summary of numerous studies: http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
Think we'll have to move Xmas elsewhere.
The history books I remember pointed out all kinds of problems and growing pains with a turbulent nation.
I remember in particular the bankers and barons that appear to be making a comeback for even more unflattering and unsettled history.
The politics of division are alive and well. Where are principles, integrity, and values that made us great?
If I am wrong then elighten me.
First, the southern states began seceding almost as soon as Lincoln was elected and began occupying federal arsenals, which, in itself, is tantamount to a declaration of war against the Union, and all of which eventually culminated in the attack upon Ft. Sumter. Unless you fault him for being elected, it is hard to see how he "started" the war against the Confederacy.
Secondly, Wilson remained, and wanted the country to remain, neutral in the European war. He felt that we should set an example, during the war and after, as the one nation who remained peaceful and took no sides so, in the end, we could be a voice of mediation. He entered the war after it became obvious that such factors as the escalating German U-boat war were a serious threat to world peace and democracy as a whole.
Finally, you are right, however, that Teddy Roosevelt was a war-monger. That is fairly well documented. I believe the Roosevelt about whom MrMainstreet was speaking, on the other hand, was FDR. I could be wrong . . .
I feel I know very little but some of the posts on here are............... unbelievable!
The claim that morality is ideological or partisan is offensive, particularly this time of year.
Those who describe themselves as Libertarians, though ....
Merry Mithra Day
Merry Winter Day
Doesnt sound right dont you think its to cold perhapes your lates warm you "people" up
How many times do I have to tell you people to summarize your opponents' arguments correctly, rather than resort to demonizing and emotionally-charged language?
How many times must I explain to conservatives that progressives do not want "big government," that you're using straw man arguments fed to you by the mass media or your families, that you have to actually research what you're talking about in libraries before you shoot your mouth off?
My grandfather is a Republican. He does not behave like you. Is it the age factor, then? Are most of you young people? My grandfather is 80. He's much more reasonable than all of you; even though we disagree vehemently we can have political conversations like normal people.
Am I doing something wrong? Is there a magic phrase I should be using to get you to actually address your opponents on their own arguments and not the constructs in your brains?
CA Gov Brown - We've been living in fantasy land. It is much worse than I though