Perhaps, simply, we'll call them Regressive?

"the Equal Rights Amendment."

That would be the amendment which doesn't exist because it was never ratified? There is nothing in the constitution that requires equal treatment of women and men.

If you want to remember the "good old days" of forty years ago when married women were explicity barred from admission to some public medical schools because they were presumed to be sexually active and might get pregnant. And many medical and other professional schools rarely admitted women at all on the assumption that they would never really work for a living. You might look back fifty years ago when girls interscholastic sports didn't exist in most schools - that was for boys. Women took home economics, learning to cook and sew, rather than learning employment skills. Except typing of course.

Lets be clear, the American Dream didn't exist for over half of all Americans. Women were relegated by both law and custom to second class status. And there is nothing in the constitution that prevents that from happening again, it is only political will.

The progress we need to make must go beyond new programs. Our culture is on a suicidal path and while some of us may be aware, our efforts to "progress" are ineffective.

"Give me convenience or give me death" seems apt.

We need a cultural sea change and we need one quick. The corporate/empire agenda must give way if we are to survive. As long as “progressives” continue to support the corporate/empire agenda, can they really call themselves “progressive?”

Recently, I went to a bipartisan event (a dinner to honor someone) and themes of the evening included: the need to elect people to work together to solve problems, the need for people who will stand up for what they believe under pressure, the need for people who don't see issues like education and health care as partisan issues.

There were current and former legislators in the room who had done just that. I consider such people the political center.

I'm not sure I know what progressive means anymore. It once meant opening up the system so everyone could participate (open meetings laws, controlling the power of interest groups--think Teddy Roosevelt, for instance) and it seems across the political spectrum there are those who don't believe that anymore. Under the "open meetings" part of it, Sens. Gordly and Westlund having "the Oregon caucus" with open meetings will be more "progressive" than closed partisan caucuses.

And yes, I remember the old days when women and minorities didn't have the opportunities they have now.

Progress comes in small steps (much smaller than most of us like). Yes, the Equal Rights Amendment hasn't been ratified, but I have faith that it will be...eventually. At least we've begun the public discussion and that discussion has benefited our nation. We must include all Americans in progressive goals and persuade them to broaden their social ideology. I've never effectively persuaded an opponent with a punch to his nose. Grace, patience and provacative discussion are the winners of minds. America has pursued progress (more at times than at others) and the Civil Rights Act is, but one great example of that. As I stated, I could go on and on with examples of repressive social behavior and our movement beyond it as a nation. I likely have as long a wishlist as any progressive for essential progressive goals that must be reached. When I call myself an American dreamer, that is an indication of FAITH that progressive values will prevail. I have certainly had many moments of doubt and anxiety, especially in recent years, where that faith has been shaken. I believe that if we want to climb the mountain, we must first begin by believing it possible.

I think the thing about values is it seems today that everything comes down to money, and a person's value is reduced to that. How do you measure the value of a parent at home nurturing a child one on one, vs herding them into daycare. My mother was the local precinct person, and neighborhood organizer in addition to working on the bi-monthly public Church supper, proceeds used to help families in trouble, and our eating out, was going to that and the swedish smogisboard at the local Lutheran Church, not McDonalds, she and other mom's worked hard building community and holding down the fort, even thought they got paid for thier labors with hugs and sloppy kisses. Things were not perfect, one of the moms had a drinking problem, but her kids were welcome and camped out at everyone elses house, and one had an affair and was rumored her third child didn't have the same patronage. My spouse tried to go back to work after the birth of our second child, and our life was total chaos. We were stressed out all the time, dropped the two kids off at 6AM and picked them up at 6PM didn't eat until 7PM, when we looked at the teaching salary, we figured it only made about $100/mo difference back then for both of us to work, so we made the decision for one of us to stay home. After about a year, we really began to feel tied into the community with one of us now volunteering in the school one day a week, meeting people, as the kids got older scouts, T-Ball, and 4-H, and school plays, all desparate for help in constant budget cutting. I am certain we enriched our childrens lives more than my salary contributed by the done by help in the classroom so the teacher could teach, the after school activities, healthy food served at a decent hour, with vedgies from our garden. We had progressive dinners, with friends, not $100 dinners, You have the "good old days" when you value eachother and neighbors for more than the salary or money or status and things that just add clutter to your life.

Your hope is nice Kimberly and certainly where we need to anchor everything we do to make real progressive values.

However, in fairness, it's not clear from your comment what you are advocating beyond that. If the core progressiveness values are human rights, social justice, and equal opportunity, both domestically and internationally, as I believe the do, what emphasis are you putting on agressively standing up for those values, as opposed to passively dreaming about them?

Unfortunately, "grace, patience and provacative discussion are the winners of minds" frequently are code for not really doing much by folks who really aren't that interested in defending core progressive values when in those times when it is necessary to stand up "shout, say 'no more', and get in people's faces".

Right now, a tough choice for progressives is whether to get in the face of the Democratic Party, the party most of us call our own, to demand that the our Party defend our core values in this election. The Party makes the claim it can't win without the 10% or so of the middle and therefore must tone down it's play to it's base. Well, if the Party gets the 10% of the middle and looses the 10% of the base, it still looses. And the base, not the middle, articulates leadership values that define the party and to which the middle will be attracted if the leadership values are sufficiently well presented.

So, I'm curious, in your thinking you articulate here, what should folks be doing in response to these two examples of party failure in this election year?

Issues Await if Democrats Retake House http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/26/washington/26cong.html&OQ=_rQ3D2Q26orefQ3Dslogin&OP=3a0dad14Q2FIQ3EY6I3ZQ5DLlZZiQ27IQ27Q3CQ3CQ3FIQ3COIQ27Q3FIQ3E_L)UcaiZcIQ27Q3FQ5DZcaA)iQ3Ak (anyone can sign up to the NY Times on-line free service to read this)

Rusty from being out of power for 12 years, Democrats are rethinking how they should parcel out coveted committee chairmanships and the other plums that would come with House control at a time when the party’s potential chairmen are increasingly being portrayed by Republicans as liberal extremists.

In fund-raising appeals, on the Internet and in stump speeches, Republicans raise the specter of a Judiciary Committee headed by Representative John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, a banking committee steered by Barney Frank of Massachusetts, a tax-writing committee led by Charles B. Rangel of New York, and an energy panel under the leadership of John D. Dingell of Michigan. ... “Seniority is a consideration, but merit of course must come first,” said Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic leader, who has approved a review of party rules so Democrats are not left scrambling should they reach their political goal.

Perhaps the most powerful member of progressive coalition in Congress, Pelosi, is getting ready to betray some of the stalwarts in Congress who actually have defended true progressive values day-in and day-out for over a decade. One of the "progressives" she has made no indication thus far she would betray, much less even speak contrary to, is a Democratic representative from her own state caucus who has just done this:

Key US legislator says will block aid to Lebanon http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060827/ts_nm/mideast_usa_lebanon_dc

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - A key U.S. legislator said in Israel on Sunday he would block aid President George W. Bush promised Lebanon and free the funds only when Beirut agreed to the deployment of international troops on the border with Syria.

Lantos said he was putting a legislative hold on Bush's proposal to provide $230 million in aid for Lebanon in the aftermath of the 34-day war between Israel and Lebanese Hizbollah guerrillas.

At a time when lives are on the line in Lebanon, and hours and days matter, and the U.S. has made promises to provide aid in the face of otherwise despicable U.S. behavior in this matter, Lantos has decided to play regressive politics (and that's putting it politely). Our very own sell-out progressive Pelosi, has so far decided not to say a thing, pretty much in the manner she has conducted herself at key times on key issues since she became minority leader. (And, if you doubt his "progressive" credentials, at least on paper, you can also check out his interest group ratings on Project Vote Smart):

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=H0271103

There is, of course, another side to Lantos that is anything but progressive when it actually comes to where it matters in legislative process:

The Lies of Tom Lantos The Bela Lugosi of the House http://www.counterpunch.org/madsen02152003.html

In view of this attempted sell-out of progressive values and progressives right before this election, what do you advocate we do now, when time is of the essence? Would not flooding the offices of our elected Federal and State elected leaders, and the national and state parties, with from-the-heart messages of disgust and anger at the betrayal of our values, and a promise to not vote unless they earn our vote, at least be a little more meaningful?

Quote: "Give me convenience or give me death" seems apt.

Yeah, and more and more it's looking likely that "Give me convenience AND give me death" will be the way of things. Social progress is a good thing - it's given us better treatment of women, minorities, religions other than Roman Catholicism, and everyone else who is considered "not normal" by society-at-large. (side note: What is "normal"? A white male Roman Catholic Republican? That can't be more than 10% of the population. Society seems to define "normal" as "everyone who is on OUR side in the current issue of contention.")

Social progress is good, but economic progress is not. The corporate ideal is "increased efficiency at all cost", and this has translated into consumer culture as "convenient is better". Convenient isn't necessarily better, and in many respects is the antithesis of quality of life. As an example, what's worse - talking to a frustrating person on the phone, or talking to a computerized phone system with limited options that does not allow you access to a person? (Granted, some people are THAT scripted, as well)

It's desirable to return to "The Good Ole' Days" in some respects, but we really need to ask ourselves what "Days" we're trying to return to. Let's take the best of today and reclaim the best of yesterday. If that's possible.

That last post was a little rambling - let me focus back on the first statement.

Today's society revolves around convenience, and convenience has given us freeways and suburbia, a world in which we use 5x as much energy as everyone else, shortages of fresh water, an impending collapse in oil and gas production, depleted soils, and a host of other problems, not to mention global warming. Convenience is going to be the death of us as a species, simply because we can't do with less, because we've grown attached to our conveniences.

Hopefully that makes the above post a little more to the point.

<hr/>