Time for Progressives to Stand Up Proudly for Government

From the beginning of the "Reagan Revolution" in 1980 until the election of Barack Obama, progressives were in a defensive crouch. The ideas and values of the right wing were predominant. During the Clinton years, at least there were two ideological teams on the field, but even then progressives fought on the defense - especially when it came to the role of government. Remember it was Bill Clinton who felt compelled to open a State of the Union with the words: "The era of Big Government is over."

Today's health care debate epitomizes the sharp difference between the progressive understanding of the role of government, and the right wing views underlying of the failed policies that culminated in the Bush years

This year progressives, lead by President Obama, have stopped apologizing for our view the proper role of government, and begun to assert that Reagan was fundamentally wrong when he said government was the problem. Instead, as Congressman Barney Frank says, government is the name we give to the things we choose to do together.

The right wing argues that government can never do things as well as the "private sector."

Government is not always the solution, any more than it is always the problem. But in many cases, progressives know that it is more efficient, more effective and more consistent with the values of a democratic society for all of us to do something together - through our government.

Progressive leaders need to finish getting out of that defensive crouch, stand up straight, and assert our view of government forcefully and without apology.

After all, we have the high political ground. For example, today's Washington Post-ABC poll shows continued strong public support for a public health insurance option (57% support, 40% oppose). The public option has consistently shown to be the most popular element of health reform.

The same poll shows that 55% of voters feel that the health care plan would create either the right amount (34%) or not enough (21%) "government involvement in the nation's health-care system". The charge that health care reform will result in a "government take-over" of health care has failed to resonate.

In fact one of the major concerns voters raise about health care reform is the fear - especially among seniors - that it would weaken the very popular government-run Medicare system. It's actually pretty remarkable that one of the most potent criticisms Republicans have raised about health care reform is this completely incorrect charge that it would weaken the government run Medicare program that the Right opposed as socialized medicine for years.

Progressives know that Government action is necessary to assure the public health, provide public education, and maintain the public infrastructure for our common life - from streets, parks, and airports, to mass transportation. Government is the expression of our common life - our life as a community; and in democratic societies, it is much more accountable to average citizens than any other major decision-making structure, including large corporations.

Most Americans agree with us that government - not the "private sector," is best equipped to provide public security, fire protection, public education, highways, public transportation and a common defense against enemies. Most also agree that we are much better off providing everyone with Social Security and health insurance for retirement through Medicare. And most agree that government has the obligation to make sure that all Americans have health insurance.

After 9/11, when it was obvious that America needed to massively strengthen its airport security, there was uniform agreement that security screeners should become officers of the government rather than the private security contractors who had done the screening before the 9/11 attacks. The choice seemed obvious. Where you want serious attention to security and public accountability everyone agreed that the screening personnel should be officers of our government.

In fact, the demonization of government -- and the Right's success over the last three decades at diverting resources from the public sector into the hands of Wall Street and multi-national corporations -- have lead directly to our most intractable problems. It has shortchanged our investment in the education of our next generation, created a health care system that costs twice as much per person as any other on earth but leaves us 37th in health care outcomes. It has starved our investment in infrastructure and energy efficiency.

The anti-government forces prevented serious regulation of Wall Street that lead directly to the frenzy of reckless risk-taking that precipitated the current economic collapse, and cost millions their jobs.

By starving the public sector they contributed directly to the concentration of income in the top 1 percent of the population, and outsized growth of Wall Street and the rest of the financial sector.

Right wing activist Grover Norquist, the leader of the Republican efforts to slash taxes for the wealthy, expressed their view in its purest form when he said he believes that government needs to be "shrunk to the size that it can be drowned in the bathtub." In his view, government is the enemy of moral purpose, which resides solely in the ability of individuals to pursue their own individual self-interest. In a utopian right wing world, there are very few things that we should choose to do together.

From the progressive point of view, government is critically necessary because it uses the common wealth for the common good - to make individual freedom possible - and to allow each individual to realize his or her own individual goals and aspirations. In the progressive view, as George Lakoff says, "the common wealth builds the infrastructure for freedom."

The progressive view of the role of government is not a radical new departure. It dominated American domestic politics from 1932 until the mid 1970's. That dominant view translated directly into policies that created a huge leap in economic growth. Real income grew among every sector of the American population and the level of income inequality shrank precipitously.

The right wing counter-revolution against government never spread to most other developed countries in the world. The progressive view of the role of government is widely shared throughout Europe and Asia not just by the center-left - but by many who would describe themselves as center-right.

Today the right wing view that "government is the problem" is shared by a shrinking minority of the American population, and it is embodied in the ideology of a rapidly declining Republican Party that is out of touch with the needs and beliefs of ordinary Americans - not to speak of the views of people in the rest of the world. Only 20% of Americans now self identify as Republicans according to today's Washington Post-ABC Poll - the lowest in a quarter century.

But the most important thing for us to remember is that the anti-government ideology is not simply a set of ideas that emerged whole cloth from scholars at the CATO Institute or the mind of Rush Limbaugh. It is not simply an alternative view of what's good for the "public interest." It is the creation of those who use it to justify their own private gain.

It is used to justify the empirically unsupportable notion that private insurance companies are better at providing health insurance than publicly organized insurance programs like Medicare, or the public health insurance programs that provide better health care outcomes in other industrial countries at much lower prices. Would anyone seriously argue that we should leave fire protection to the private sector We all agree that it is both more efficient and more humane to make fire protection the responsibility of government. The same goes for health insurance - a fact that has been recognized throughout the rest of the world.

Of course, health insurance companies don't embrace anti-government rhetoric because of some deep-seated ideological commitment. They do it so they can continue to make huge profits and pay multi-million dollar executive salaries.

Wall Street bankers don't battle "governmental intrusion" for ideological reasons, they do it so they can continue to be free to make billions in bonuses - even if they periodically bring the economy down in the process.

The Republicans don't promote huge tax cuts for the rich out of a high-minded belief that the private sector is more effective at investing hundreds of millions of dollars than the government. They do it because their wealthy backers want the money.

Opposition to policies that would create millions of new clean energy jobs does not flow from the oil companies' principled opposition against an "intruding government." They want to be free to make as much money as they can, no matter what the consequences for our children or our planet.

The movement for more "outsourcing" of governmental functions from public employees to private companies like Haliburton and Blackwater has nothing to do with genuine concern for "effective" government. It has everything to do with siphoning off taxpayer dollars into the hands of big corporations.

The anti-government forces have always wanted to prevent us from doing things together through a democratically accountable government, so they can do things privately to enhance their own wealth and power - often at the expense of everyone else.

This year progressives - led by the President - have the opportunity to reassert the importance of the public sector by winning health insurance reform, financial regulatory reform, and a new energy policy. Together, let's get it done.

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.

 

 

Comments

[Philclock]

Give me ONE example of government being "efficient", instead of being a legalized monopoly that perpetuates itself at the expense of the citizenry and is constantly bankrupt (Post Office, Military-Industrial Complex, Public Education, Medicare, Social Security, AMTRAK, TVA).

[research]

Why do you hate our troops?

You are saying the USA does not have the the worlds greatest military by Far?????

Just because a program is do to come up for new funding, does not mean it was going to go Bankrupt.

You know that right?

[den1953]

You can proudly fight for progressive views if Washington would have your back problem is the votes may be there but our law makers that can make it happen are not in touch with the movement!

[guard]

I would like to point out also that the private vs. public debate is a red herring. By private is meant corporations, which are artificial entities created by, and therefore extensions of, the state. Corporations are simply another manifestation of government. As we can see from our present economic situation, one tyranny is as good as another.

[LeighAnnes]

I disagree. The government doesn't have a direct profit motive. Private insurance companies make profits by denying coverage not providing any services.

[Stephen Meli]

According to an AMA study, 2008 Health Insurance Report Card (http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/368/reportcard.pdf), Medicare denies a higher percentage of claims than private providers. So basically, you're point is not correct.

[Eggsackley]

Corporations have historically been extensions ot the state. Most of the American Colonies were founded under royal corporate grants. But now they are independent entities under laws that allow incorporation by anyone to engage in any legal pursuit. Corporations are artificial persons created by the government. The big problem is that incorporation allows enormous power to be concentrated in the hands of a few, and this power is used bythem to control the government that created them. It's a classic case of the tail wagging the dog. The problems is how to limit the political power of the tail without cutting it off completely.
The anti-trust laws are an attempt to limit corporate use of monopoly power to destroy competition and extract excess profits from the public. I was shocked to learn that the insurance corporations somehow got Congress to exempt them from the anti-trust laws. I wonder how much our "representatives" got paid to represent the insurance corporations instead of us? Now I know how AIG got "too big to fail".
One way to limit the power of the tail would be to replace private finance of national elections with public funding. Corporations are trying to safeguard their use of their wealth to control Congress by arguing that Corporate "persons" should have the same Constitutional Rights as private persons. A case on this issue was recently argued before the Supreme Court, but no decision has been made. This is really scary.

[WBC]

What are you talking about? Do you really believe that private corporations are extensions of the government?

Please present your evidence to support this paranoid fantasy.

[Nuyorican21]

This debate could go on forever so let me put my 2 cents in:

Government and economics have and always will be linked together. It is true that corporations were ORIGINALLY extensions of the state, given mandates to settle colonies, build bridges, build roads and provide other services to society.. Corporations now have been given the power to do pretty much whatever is in their self-interest as they were declared independent 'citizens'. That complies with right-wing capitalism and Ayn Rand/Greenspan theory of self-interest as the most powerful engine for societal/economic growth (Rand actually meant it more for personal growth). OBVIOUSLY, they were way too idealist in those beliefs. Self-interested corporations do everything in their self-interest. Not society's. Of course some of us always knew that.

And its in their self-interest to influence government. Sometime, somewhere, we can't let ourselves work for their system (I'm trying to refrain from Marxist social theory as much as possible). Making the system work for us, as other society's have done all over the world is what progressives want as the future role of government, no matter how you define it.

4 F-22 Raptors would pay for the Health Care Bill. FOUR.

[noaxe397]

Push back by libeals in re-framing the debate over role of government is more imporant now than ever.

The "natural rights" movement is gaining ground across the country. These people are typically white supremecists, christian identitists and aryan nation types who believe government power is inferior to natural rights. Natural rights are best described in the DecofInd as inalienable rights.

So, if the government compels you to do something that conflicts with your natural rights, your rights as a function of being, then you may resist the government.

It's not a new concept, the militia crackpots in the 1990s said the same thing.

It's sort of like Grover Norquist on steroids. Or people who want rights without responsibility.

But watch out ofr these kooks. They are a fringe element, racist and heavily armed.

That's what you are dealing with anytime the term "natural rights" enters into the debate.

[wblack]

Before you embarrass yourself like this again read a few books and learn some history. The concept of natural rights received one of its most forceful expositions in the writings of Englishman John Locke (1632-1704), who argued that man was originally born into a state of nature where he was rational, tolerant, and happy. In this original existence man was entitled to enjoy the rights of life, liberty and property. This has nothing to do with Racism or any of the groups you cite.

However, not all men chose to live within the confines of the natural laws and presented threats to the liberties of the others. At this stage man entered into a social contract (compact) in which a state (government) was formed to guarantee the rights of the members of society.

Locke believed that the only reason for the existence of government was to preserve natural rights and, by extension, man’s happiness and security.

These ideas were eagerly accepted by many American colonists in the 18th century, an age when political philosophy was widely read and discussed. James Otis made an eloquent appeal to natural rights in his argument against the writs of assistance in 1761 and Thomas Jefferson offered a classic restatement in the Declaration of Independence in 1776.

[noaxe397]

Look, professor, everytime we try to warn people about the natural rights crowd, guys like you pull out their college texts and start with the dissertations.

Yes, there is a whole PHILOSOPHICAL history of natural rights. But, as you state here you have to go back to the 18th century to talk about it.

I'm speaking of the here and now and the perverse attempt at practical applications of this philosophical theory by the racists, gun nuts and other assorted losers among us.

Stop trying to show how smart you are and try to remember, as no one in the fringe movement seems to, that the Constitution is the blueprint of government in this country and the law of the land, not the Dec. of. Ind, not the Federalist Papers, not the Dec of the Rights of Man, not Common Sense, not the writings of Locke or of Otis.

Anymore of this walk down memory lane stuff and I'll be forced to take out my copy of Leviathan. And that's not a reference to the Bible

[socialtalker]

you do realize that meanings can change, dont you? whatever it 200 years ago, its mutated into something else now.

[Philclock]

Absolutely, much more efficient for progressives to ram policies through the monopoly power of government, rather than get the support of the people and their communities behind it. Progressive policies are just too important to leave to the citizenry. Besides, it's for the good of the children.

[wblack]

You call yourself a democrat -- sorry in this case it is the Citizenry who are the principal parties concerned.

[LeighAnnes]

People support the public option.

[socialtalker]

what are you talking about, the public option as consistently and repeatedly garnered approval in countless polls. what didnt get wide public support was the antics of the baggers birthers and loons over the summer mucking up townhall meetings, "in the name of the people"
you all DID NOT get support of the people with you intimidation, name calling and threats.

[Philclock]

Not at my town hall meeting.

[vinny]

Progressive is a poor term to describe a political ideology.

You can be a progressive liberal - i.e. a liberal democrat (see Rawls, 1971)

You can be a progressive communitarian - i.e. a socialist.

Obama's policies typically fall into the conservative, sometimes progressive communitarian category. As an example, look at Obama's bailout policies. Obama chose to bailout the banks for the good of us all. That's a communitarian justification. It's also conservative since it is preserving the status quo of relations. Republicans are conservative communitarians. So it is no surprise republicans preferred the bailout policy as well.

Liberal democrats were saying wait, what about the interests of affected individuals, e.g. stock market investors and taxpayers? What about a receivership policy for failing banks that would protect individuals from harm? Had obama been a liberal democrat at heart, he would have solved the banking crisis in a very different way.

It's time we get back to calling ourselves liberals.

[reelcobra]

That would be too honest. The whole liberal thing has been understood by normal Americans to really mean big government and race based political hackery.

I like "progressive".

It doesn't mean anything, so we can't be accused of anything, like 'hope" and "change" got us by Hillary and McCain. As long as we stand for nothing the "O" man can't lose!

[wblack]

A word that might mean anything actually means nothing -- standing for a lack of principals does not make you a trustworthy person, quite the contrary.

In a void of principles, where good men do nothing, evil florishs.

[LushLife72]

Agree but is Obama the Progressive Change we've been waiting for (to paraphrase his own speechmaking). I have my doubts. Let's see what he does with Health Care (he's been too quiet for too long) and Afghanistan. The anti-progressive, pro-Wall Street stimulus package he facilitated with his Goldman Sachs protege's Geithner and Summers leave me far from confident. Progressives and the netroots were critical in helping Obama defeat Hilary and ultimately McCain (although, yes, a water cooler could've beaten McCain at that point). C'mon Obama, start leading already!

[research]

Democracy is the only defense from Plutocracy, that the conservative want..

Modern conservatives was formed to fight the Enlightenment and restore the monarchy.

Conservatives, GOP and DLC have always hated democracy and the "people".

Unfortunately we don't have a democratic republic anymore, we have a governmnet for sale to the highest bidder, that's a plutocracy.

Contributions are Bribery, NOT Free speech.

Outlaw all contributions, give free prime time and travel to candidates on the ballot.

The Progressive democrats are the only game in town. The folks like Kucinich, Dean. We need more of these kind of poeple and fewer of the corporatist DLC DINO bluedogs.

The Primaries!

[reelcobra]

Power to the people! (except those who aren't Obama fans).

Money is bad, people are good, give peace a chance, why can't we all get along, what if they gave a war and nobody came (sounds sexual for some reason) and war isn't good for children and other living things.

[wblack]

Power to the people! (except those who aren't Obama fans).

Interpretation: Power to an elite few, tyranny over all others. No freedom of speech, no right to protest, no rights of self determination, no right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

You know, this does not sound like a good thing to me.

[research]

yes, the hippies were correct.

Money is the root of all evil, most anyway.

so you love plutocracy, are you one of the .1%?

If not, get knee pads.

[LeAnn Cammack]

Absolutely agree! Who decided that the idea of paying private corporations public dollars to perform public services for profit from those very same taxpayers was a grand idea? and how earth is it that we fell for it?

I will never understand how far-right conservatives can be ok with a totally unresponsive, unelected and unaccountable private business entity in charge of any public service but hate that a democratically elected government provide public services for the public good and to "promote the general welfare." , Accountability and responsiveness are measured by elections.

I like to think of them as "performance reviews and/or job interviews."

[LeighAnnes]

For far-right conservatives, the "free market" is their religion. Adam Smith is their profit. They will not question their faith despite any and all objective or empirical evidence.

[wattnot]

Mr Creamer,
I come from a small country that used to be more centrally run by government than Communist Russia ever imagined. During that time, there was a fair distribution of wealth, there was constant progress in every important measure of societal health, there was managed full employment, there was quite brutal regulation of the finance industry, and, for myself and many thousands of others we knew then, and know today, that we were as close as you get to having paradise on earth.
Then the Tories (Reaganites) came in. Now, every day, we creep further down the road to the social chaos that America has become- poverty (beside extreme obscene wealth), corruption, greed, laissez-faire planning (none), and massive environmental degradation. I would take your argument one step further, based on personal experience. With very few exceptions, if government can't do it, it will be done much worse by the private sector.

[Tsalco]

Always interested to find out what has worked. Please tell us to which country you are referring.

[capitaldysfunction]

Agreed, Mr. Creamer. Government can be good. But I also think progressives should stop calling themselves progressives. Darn it! I'm a LIBERAL. A Democrat. And I'm proud of being a LIBERAL Democrat!!!!

[wpiv926]

I'm a LIBERAL TOO!!!

[scott63]

The government knows best really? Progressives act as if government is and intellegent, compassionate, being all to itself, and forget that government is a bunch of flawed often power hungry and greedy groups of human beings mostly looking out for their own intrest.

[DoctorJohn]

One would do well to avoid confusing the difference between "government" and the elected officials, both Democrats and Republicans, of this country who have sold the middle class down the proverbial river. Remember, our elected officials make the policies and those that work in government are responsible for attempting to make those policies work. It is absolutely delusional to conclude that the professionals who work in government are somehow greedy groups of power hungry human beings. Rest assured one does not chose to work in government to become rich and powerful (Wall Street, maybe, but not "government"). To the contrary, the majority of those engaged in the professional of public administration do so out of a commitment to the common good and hold dear the very ideals of progressivism described by Mr. Creamer. Those who attack and demonize "government" have done, and are doing, a great disservice to the democratic foundations of our nation. Anyone who distrusts "big government" ought to distrust "big business" even more for the reasons cited by Mr. Creamer.

[LeighAnnes]

Using that logic, we shouldn't allow the government in charge of the Armed Forces and our National Security should we?

[marinara]

As a progressive, I find this blog to be disingenuous and off the wall. Someone as weak as Obama is, simply can't say: You're with me or against me.

[ron46032]

If Government run health insurance known as Medicare is so good and affordable, why is it going bankrupt?

If Medicare is properly run, why is there according to Dems about 500B in fraud, waste, and abuse there?

If Medicare has all of the fraud, waste, and abuse in it, why are the Dems waiting to cut it? Do they like the fraud, waste, and abuse?

If you think that you can trust the Government, ask an Indian (aka native American) about how well that has worked.

[Jannsmoor]

Thanks for reducing complex issues to simplicity a 6th grader could understand. Our for-profit health care system delivers affordable health care for all our citizens (except when they get sick or the 40+ million left out) so much cheaper than Medicare (except for the fact Medicare is less expensive, even with all the fraud, waste, and abuse you talk about).

We should always leave all our important decisions to the native Americans.

If people would just view the world through this simple lens I'm sure all our problems would be solved.

[LeighAnnes]

Medicare doesn't have the luxury of turning down applicants. They also can't drop coverage because someone is ill. People on medicare are over 65 and statistically have far more expensive diseases than the rest of the population. If the risk and cost were spread over the entire population that would not be a problem. Costs would be reduced for everyone. Currently the U.S. spends more than twice as much per person on health care as any other country. Those costs are driven up by the private system, not medicare.

[sherbug]

There is fraud, waste and abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why are they not cut? See Government can't run anything, not even a war.

[Andante200]

I argee with you completely, Mr Creamer, but perhaps you don't go far enough. You do neglect to expose the corrupt right wing profiteers as opponents of representative government. That's what it also comes down to.