The Four Things Necessary to Turn this Historic Opportunity into Progressive Realignment

It is possible that 2008 could mark the beginning of a fundamental progressive realignment in American politics of the sort that happened in 1932. That year President Franklin Roosevelt and a Democratic Congress were swept into power and changed American life by enacting the New Deal. The New Deal involved fundamental reforms. It included Social Security, labor laws that allowed working people to organize for middle-class wages and a tax structure that ended massive economic inequality. It also included large-scale investment in public sector projects that created the infrastructure that would serve as the foundation for an unprecedented period of long-term economic growth.

The reforms of the New Deal, coupled with the GI Bill that followed World War II, created America's middle class. They made possible the high wage economy and educated work force that lead to sustained, shared economic growth. They were built on a premise that is fundamentally at odds with the Bush-McCain economic dictum that "you're on your own, buddy." That premise is the simple moral imperative that we're all in this together -- not all in this alone.

But to turn our own historic moment into progressive realignment we have four tasks:

1). Elect Barack Obama. After almost eight years of George Bush it goes without saying that progressive realignment requires a progressive president. It requires a president whose success can help elect, and reelect, Democrats at all levels. It requires a president who aspires to make fundamental progressive change. It requires a president who can inspire the voters to demand that Congress deliver on that change. I believe that Barack Obama could be that kind of president.

2). We have to act boldly to create fundamental change. Just as in 1932, there is a massive pent-up demand in America that our leaders deal with the fundamental needs that affect our future.

A lot of good people in Washington who are used to the gridlock and conservative domination of government think that a new Democratic administration will allow us to pass a series of minor improvements -- slightly expand children's health care, increase funding for education, tinker with the tax code. All of those are fine things, but, like Roosevelt, we must focus on the fundamental structures of our economy and society that will determine the kind of world we leave to our kids.

We need to deliver on the big issues like providing affordable health care for everyone. We must massively redirect resources into alternative sources of energy and end our bondage to the oil companies. Like Roosevelt we have to rebuild the public economic and transportation infrastructure that the Republicans have allowed to crumble. We need to reintroduce fairness into the tax code and reform labor laws so that workers can once again organize to defend middle-class incomes. And of course we have to end the War in Iraq and re-establish a foreign policy that can really make us safer by creating a peaceful, prosperous world.

It's exciting -- and somewhat disorienting -- for Progressives to contemplate making fundamental change in America rather than simply defending our country from a right-wing assault. It's been a long time. It will take some getting used to. But if we win this election, we have to deliver, or we will loose this historic moment.

That brings us to point three.

3). We have to substantially increase Democratic majorities in the House and Senate. Narrow majorities simply won't do. To pass a bold, fundamental progressive agenda we need margins big enough in both Houses so that the more conservative wing of our party can't hold us up at every turn. Increasing the majority in the Senate is especially critical since virtually every major piece of legislation requires 60 votes to end debate.

This is particularly important when it comes to big economic issues like universal health care, where hordes of special interests lobbyists will descend like locusts on vulnerable Members of Congress. The banks, the credit card companies, the insurance industry, the pharmaceutical companies, the Chamber of Commerce, the oil industry -- all of them will use every arrow in their quiver to prevent progressive change.

In the House things look bright. Democrats have won three successive special elections in long-held Republican districts. There are literally 54 additional districts where Democrats have a serious chance of taking Republican seats. Many of those overlap the 30 seats left open by Republican members who bailed out rather than run for re-election.

There are about 30 Democratic seats that also require a serious defense. Of these, only one is open (the Hooley seat in Oregon). Most of these should lean Democratic, but nothing can be taken for granted.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is well-organized and well-funded. Its Republican counterpart is short on cash and is reeling from an embezzlement scandal that damaged its fundraising and caused it to spend over a million dollars on a forensic audit.

In the Senate the field has broadened over the last month. Twelve states are now in play. Democrats are on the offense in eleven -- threatening to turn red seats blue. The most likely take-aways are Mark Warner in the open seat in Virginia, Jean Shaheen against John Sununu in New Hampshire, Tom Udall for the open seat in New Mexico, his cousin Mark Udall for the open seat in Colorado. Al Franken has a good shot against Norm Coleman in Minnesota, as does Jeff Merkley against Gordon Smith in Oregon, and Congressman Tom Allen against Susan Collins in Maine.

But the remarkable thing is that many more nontraditional seats are also up for grabs. Recent polls showed Kentucky Democrat Bruce Lunsford leading Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell 49% to 44%; Alaska Democrat Mark Begich leading Republican Senator Ted Stevens 47% to 45%; former Mississippi Governor Ronnie Musgrove leading newly-appointed Republican Senator Roger Wicker 47% to 46%; and Democrat Kay Hagan trailing Republican Libby Dole by only 2% in North Carolina.

Of Democratic incumbents, only Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu has a serious challenge.

All told, it would not be surprising for Democrats to pick up 25 to 30 House seats and six to eight Senate seats -- maybe more.

4). Finally, to achieve long-term progressive realignment, we must shift the fundamental value frame for political and economic debate. We must re-establish the dominance of progressive values in the mainstream political dialogue, as the definition of what is political "common sense."

In my book, Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, I make the case that while some people think that in order to win we must move to the center, adopt conservative values, and split the difference, history shows they are wrong. We don't need to move to the center. We need to move the center. We need to redefine the political center in American politics.

From 1932 to about 1973 -- at least so far as domestic policy is concerned -- traditional progressive values defined the political and economic center in the United States.

By the mid-1970's that changed, and we've been on the political and ideological defensive ever since. For seventy percent of the years since 1968 we have had Republican presidents. President Clinton made many important progressive initiatives. But even in the Clinton years we were forced to battle the dominant conservative value frame.

To achieve realignment, we have to get out of that defensive crouch. To do that we have to forcefully, proudly, consistently stand up for those progressive values. We have to provide a clear contrast between the Right's belief in the unbridled pursuit of individual interest and our commitment to the common good; between selfishness and commitment to others; between division and unity; between fear and hope. We have to consistently assert that fundamental progressive premise: that we're all in this together -- not all in this alone.

Robert Creamer is a long time political organizer and strategist and author of the recent book: Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, available on Amazon.com.

Comments

[randyjet]

Given an Obama victory and overwhelming support in the Congress, as far as I can see from Obama HE has NO plans to deliver on universal health care. It would be piss poor if we accomplished all that you postulate and the best we can get is minimal reform. That is why I am not so sure I will vote for Obama instead of Nader. I can see nothing ahead with him except some programs for the poor which I and the middle class will pay for, with nothing for us. Thanks but NO thanks! It is simply the old liberal crap to help the poor and screw the middle class. That is NOT the way to win an election folks. Unless Obama and the Democratic Party start proposing real reforms that are needed, the scenario will NOT come about. THAT is also why Obama is considered an elitist and the label is accurate. The wealthier part of his supporters have no problem paying higher taxes since they can well afford it.

His total unconcern about high gas prices is also another symptom of this. He has no program to bring down the high price of gasoline when he knows that there is a way to do so. That is to dump oil from the SPR onto the market and to regulate the speculation which is driving the high costs of oil. I hardly see Obama as any answer at all to that.

[koromuso]

Maybe we WILL get something approaching universal health care. Didn't Obama just ask Elizabeth Edwards to join his campagin ? And, if so, wouldn't that give him to cover to shift in the direction of John Edward's health plan, which is specifically designed to get us to universal health care?

And maybe we don't WANT to bring down oil prices. I car-pooled from Bellingham to Seattle on Wednesday in the HOV lane and probably passed, oh, two thousand cars with single occupants. ...this with gasoline at $4.00/gallon.

Okay, someone is going to accuse me of being weird because I think public transportation, car pooling, bicycles and shank's mare are the way to go, but, seriously, people, it was heart-breaking to look at all those people stuck in massive traffic jams, wasting time and energy because they've convinced themselves they need their cars. We've got to get over this.

I truly don't understand Obama as "just another liberal politician." I'd like to encourage you to go to Obama's website and read some of his policy papers. He seems like someone who has thought deeply about the problems facing us at the end of our disasterous attempt at Empire.

Full disclosure: I voted for Nader in the past because I used to admire him. Now he just seems like a cynical and grumpy old man.

[RS]

I've lost all respect for Ralph Nader ever since he sold out to Herr Goebbels (Rupert Murdoch) to get his second book "The Good Fight" published.

[zann]

I love all these calls to action at this moment when its change or fail. But I'm too confused. I get dozens of emails a week from progressive groups that want me to email my congresspeople about some issue or other, or demonstrate, and I do, some, and work with a local peace group, but I don't know know who it affects. There's some kind of fringe group ceiling that its hard to break through.

We're trying to use the Deomoratic Party as a progressive umbrella organization, but it doesn't quite work. The Democratic leadership is mostly wealthy conservative and elite. Are we pushing them left, or are we pushing them into a solid wall of tricky lobbyists? Isn't the winner-take-all voting system still a fundamental obstacle? We really do need a national progressive party. What national groups are growing and effective? I know this place, HuffPost, is a good place to learn and talk.

I'm looking for an on-the-ground, step-by-step plan. Items 1 and 3, getting Democrats elected is fairly concrete, but I don't know what to do with 2 and 4.

[mbaty]

You said it.

[RRonin]

"Move the center." WOO HOO! What a concept! And how do we move the center? By taking away the Republican's control of WORDS and DEFINITIONS. Since 1980 we have allowed the NeoCons (through the Republican Party) to control the debate by accepting THEIR definitions and terms. Thus, a Republican is "pro-life" and a Democrat is "pro-abortion". I hear the MSM parroting such terminology daily. I've never met ANYBODY who was "pro-abortion" yet the MSM routinely uses this word when describing Democrats. If you control the language you control the debate.

[SonofLiberty1]

Maybe you haven't met them but they are sure here in force most of the time:(

The Democratic Party would do well to throw Abortion under the bus....but still the most helpless
among us, those who are unborn, still don't have a voice in this party.

[CindySue]

Your post brought back warm fuzzies of a handful of overnighters fellow disability self-advocates and I have spent in Warm Springs, Georgia, the last few years during training.. A must-do on those weekends is *always* an afternoon at the Little White House..

My favorite is the tangibles, visuals that are there depicting things like electric power lines being run out into rural areas.. There is just something about that set of displays that makes one *absolutely CRAVE* another "Roosevelt" who would unite those around him *OR* her to bring tools *AND* compassion out to meet those wishing to help themselves forward..

Cyber hugs from Talking Rock..

[Tulka2]

Thank you, Mr. Creamer. The people have got to be out in front about a progressive movement, just as they were out in front of Roosevelt. A president only has the bully pulpit to move us to move Congress. Besides your fine book, may i recomend _The True Patriot_, a little red book by Eric Liu and Nick Hanauer. It is a quick course in American history and a convincing argument that the founding fathers meant this nation to continue as a progressive experiment. "We the people, in order to form a more perfect union....". Bad grammer....? No, "a more perfect union" suggests an ongoing experiment in democracy. Great, iconic American images included too. Highly recommended for passing out to your friends.

[3rdCitizen]

I notice that some of the commenters dismiss this blog's last point and call for "action before lofty rhetoric." I think both need to happen, but changing our cultural rhetoric is absolutely essential to bringing about meaningful change. The current "conservative" movement, along with Madison Avenue, have done a masterful job of distorting public discourse on fundamental issues of social policy. It is virutally impossible now to hear a fair and well-reasoned debate based on facts in the MSM, and the repetition of emotional language & biased, simplistic spin seems to have embedded itself in our collective consciousness. There's an old saying that "a disordered mind cannott order itself because all it has to work with is disordered thought." To me, that describes perfectly how our culture reasons about economics, foreign policy and ethics.

[KenFL]

Doesn't the blog's last paragraph basically say that the right has successfully brainwashed the public into a mindset of "the right is good and the left is bad" on every issue, and the recourse is to convince the public that the left is actually good, and the right is actually bad ?

What's different or new about this approach? No one on the right or in the middle would frame their position as a divisive, selfish, unbridled pursuit of individual interest. What good does this name-calling do?

Why not, for a real change, try to understand the reasoning of folks who don't vote the way you think they should, or have the proper opinions on a given issue?

If progressives have a good idea, it should be able to stand the test of reasoned debate, and a consensus can be built over time. The media has been shamefully negligent in this regard, preferring to showcase fights rather than contributing to knowledge and understanding.

I have heard Barack Obama say that he wants to lead a national discussion of these issues at a higher level, and I am deeply touched by this, because I believe he means it, and I'm hoping against hope that we as a nation can rise to the challenge, stop all this name-calling and schoolyard-level meanness, and work together to solve real problems.

[fitconnection]

What incentive does the media have to allow a reasoned debate?

Which party abolished the Fairness Doctrine allowing widespread media consolidation in the first place? Answer: The conservatives.

There is name calling going on because the current Republican/Conservative agenda is completely in opposition to the interest of the general public, and because conservatives and their constituents own the major media corporations, progressives aren't getting ANY airtime to make a turn for the better.

[Artos]

All we need to get a "Grand Design " happening is for there to be True Leadership. We thought we had a Charismatic leader in Bill Clinton, but he wasted his opportunity. He preferred satiating his own needs above the needs of the American People. When we could have used a Charismatic leader to fulfill the need for a "Grand Design" he was nowhere to be found. We need better leaders in our Congress and Supreme Court as well. We need to have men and women who truly want to better this nation and not tear it apart with corruption. If Obama can be that leader that would be great, because the time for a truly Great Leader is now. We can't afford to waste anymore time, because we are on teetering on the brink of decline. Republicans have brought us to this, it is their fault and now in order to undo this we must act swiftly as we did when we mobilized our energies for the war against Nazism and Facisim. Now, is the operative word.

[BubbaC33]

Suffice it to say your post has no connection to the reality of the situation during the Clinton presidency. And while most Republican policies are bad, it does no good to accuse them of sending the US into Nazism.

[Zhiroc]

I say this as someone who is pretty much a moderate--right of center fiscally, and left of center socially--don't think that this election cycle, presuming the Dems win big, is necessarily a sea change. What is happening right now is really 1) A huge dislike of GWB, 2) tiredness of the war 3) the economy.

I don't yet sense that the population has actually moved left from its right-of-center leanings that have dictated the last 2 or even 3 decades. I believe we have gone too far right, but what the progressive movement needs is not some huge legislative wave that preceeds public opinion--first of all, you won't get the 62-65 senators you'd need to push everything through anyways, and by trying you might find that you end up with big losses in 2010.

No, you have to take a cue from how the Republicans have been successful--they have moved the people to the right as a whole. Don't just think of congress and laws--work on changing opinions. Otherwise, you might find this election is just a blip, and not the start of your own decades of change.

[davidpeace]

Our fundamental issues, that the government is charged with, at the least, overseeing, has not "crumbled", but like that bridge in Minnesota, broken and fallen down. And this has happened under both democratic and republican control. Sending more democratic lawmakers to Washington, D.C. merely means that the big business lobbies, such as for the oil companies, that they have to spend a little more of their absurd profiteering on the democrats. And they will. And the democrats will turn out to be just as bought and just as corrupt as the republicans. The system needs to be changed at the fundamental level, and by that I mean a complete reworking of the government, with a Constitutional Convention to re-write parts of that document to better reflect the current times and issues. Unfortunately, the idea that arch-conservatives would most likely dominate such a gathering scares me to no end. So, what do we do? We can't continue on with business as usual. Maybe it's time the country broke up....

[cobobs]

In order to get these to happen, Citizens must continue the habit of paying for the political process. It cannot end with the election of Obama. Before comprehensive electoral reform comes, we must elect officials that are not beholden to greedy interests.

[racetoinfinity]

Great summary, with some additions below I'd suggest. The importance of getting 60 Democratic senators is very important.

We have to repair the damage to the New Deal liberal reforms that have been done during the last 28 years, and tilt the balance back from the extreme corporatism that it's tilted to now, but, to me progressive means evolving even further to include environmental green values and equal rights for minorities (see The Green Party's platform), and even including a few of the good ideas that conservatives have, like encouraging entrepreneurship, individual innovation, and individual initiative, and recognizing that responsibilities come equally with rights, within a context of progressive cooperation and understanding that we are a species evolving and developing on this planet which includes our consciousness (our interior minds) which must become planetary and then kosmocentric (See Ken Wilber and other related Integral thinkers for this).

[Artos]

Continuing in the same vein as my previous post....

I would like to see this City use public transportation features and Solar energy to power all public structures. I would want their to be pocket communities that have self sufficiency integrated into it's their makeup. I would like to see homes that would be self sufficient when it came to power needs. Home that had all the best green features. Less formaldehyde usage and less plastics in our daily products. Oil based products are one of the major reasons for cancers. I would like to see more planned park spaces throughout the community so that no matter where you lived a recreational place would be available to everyone. I believe that all this and more could be done if we wanted it bad enough.

continued..........

[desertdweller]

Unfortunately, none of this will happen until we can rid ourselves of obstructionist Republicans like Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn, Tom Coburn, Jim Inhofe, John Boehner, Roy Blunt, Sam Johnson, Dan Burton, James Sensenbrenner, and Joe Barton, just to name a few...

[Artos]

I Think what are also needed are what I call "Grand Design Plans".. The Republicans did have a "Grand Design Plan", but theirs consisted of robbing everyone else to give to the few elitest rich, and their corporations. They wanted to destroy the Government and it's abiltiy to regulate and check their greed and corruption. The Democrats need to make it plain and evident that they govern for all Americans, not just the wealthy. I think a good first step would be to enlist the aid of all those people and companies that have shown good faith and integrity in their actions in joining together to build a model city. This city would incorporate all of the best green ecological and environmental concepts. A city that would encourage modest growth in keeping with the mental and physical well being of it's residents. We would build this city somewhere centrally in the U.S. and let people from all over witness what can be done when Americans put their positive energies to a common good. This would be a good first start.