Building an Agenda for a Progressive Governing Majority

Kari Chisholm FacebookTwitterWebsite

For years, a right-wing group called ALEC - the American Legislative Exchange Council - has been generating policy ideas for right-wing state legislators. Our very own Karen Minnis even charged the state's taxpayers $3800 in 2003 to go to an ALEC conference in Kissimmee, Florida (along with her husband and chief of staff.)

Well, they've got themselves a counter-argument now: The Progressive States Network. Launched last year, here's the game plan:

Progressive States will also act as a "war room" to help legislators respond quickly with legislative amendments, provide expert policy testimony, and generally act as surrogate staff members to help encourage passage of legislation. Our aim is to promote campaigns, including innovative online communication strategies, that generate a crescendo of interest that sweeps multiple states simultaneously and raises progressive issues to a political prominence that helps redefine state politics.

Progressive States argues that even many self-identified conservative voters (as defined by Pew) don't agree with the right-wing economic policy agenda:

Among two groups, "Social Conservatives" and "Pro-Government Conservatives"-who make up a majority of the Republican base-- over 80% feel "too much power is concentrated in the hands of a few large companies" and a strong majority of both groups support stricter environmental regulation, raising the minimum wage, and guaranteeing health care for all Americans.

In fact, one small demographic, what Pew calls "Enterprisers" who make up just 9% of the population, are the ONLY group whose members generally oppose raising the minimum wage, the ONLY group which opposes guaranteed health care, the ONLY group that thinks outsourcing is good for the economy, and the ONLY group whose members generally think environmental regulations are not worth the costs.

Given that, what should progressive leaders do? They shouldn't move to the center/right - as some would argue. Rather, says Progressive States:

If anything, the problem for progressives has not been that its current leaders are seen by the population as too ideological but that they are seen as not standing for much of anything. For example, a 2005 Democracy Corps poll found that only 27% of Americans thought Democratic leaders "know what they stand for" compared to 55% who see GOP leaders as clearly articulating their positions.

If progressives reverse this problem and clearly assert what they stand for and define themselves around popular progressive policies, it leads to two major results:

First, since you have a whole group of socially conservative, economically progressive voters who know where rightwing leaders stand on social issues those voters support, but are unsure where progressive leaders stand on the economic and environmental issues that those voters also believe in, those voters often deliver their votes to the rightwing leaders who take a clear stance on SOMETHING they support. But if progressive leaders clearly emphasize the progressive policies that those disaffected voters DO support, that give those voters a real choice at election time. And as November election results show, that can lead to electoral gains for progressive candidates.

Second, campaigns on these popular progressive issues can solidify support among many swing voters and mobilize the base of progressive voters. Such mobilization is important not just for increasing turnout of those voters but for expanding the volunteers who in turn will help recruit their neighbors -- and give those progressive activists a message that they can actually use to win over members of their communities to the progressive cause.

In this way, good policy becomes good politics.

Over at Progressive States, they've got a big report that covers six major areas: Wage Standards and Workplace Freedom, Balancing Work and Family, Health Care for All, Smart Growth and Clean Jobs, Tax and Budget Reform, Clean and Fair Elections.

Over the next few weeks, here at BlueOregon, we're going to have a series of open discussions on the various parts of this Progressive States plan - and we'll talk about what Oregon is doing and can do to lead the nation with our new progressive majority.

If you're as serious as I am about moving forward with a progressive agenda, I invite you to join this conversation. Because if grassroots activists are patient but persistent in supporting Oregon's progressive leaders, we can build a lasting majority for a generation.

Let's get started.

  • someonesane (unverified)
    (Show?)

    In fact, one small demographic, what Pew calls "Enterprisers" who make up just 9% of the population, are the ONLY group whose members generally oppose raising the minimum wage, the ONLY group which opposes guaranteed health care, the ONLY group that thinks outsourcing is good for the economy, and the ONLY group whose members generally think environmental regulations are not worth the costs.

    They forgot to add, "...the ONLY group that actually has any experience running businesses."

  • (Show?)

    Don't be silly. I run a successful business, and I'm not one of those right-wing wackos.

  • jrw (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Someonesane--

    Your comment is not accurate.

    Unless you want to argue that only 9% of the population has any actual experience running businesses.

    I may be a teacher now, but I used to run a business. I know other teachers who used to run businesses, or who do run businesses for summer income or side income.

    Furthermore, not everyone who owns or runs a business opposes minimum wage, opposes guaranteed health care, thinks outsourcing is good for the economy, or generally thinks that environmental regulations aren't worth the cost.

  • Matt Singer (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Thanks for kicking off this discussion, Kari. My name's Matt -- I'm one of the folks who works at Progressive States. If you click my name you'll see that I'm also a "state blogger" like Kari -- over in my home state of Montana.

    I just wanted to let y'all know that I'll be checking this thread (and future ones) for questions and/or comments about the agenda we're rolling out, even snarky ones, Mr. Sane.

  • someonesane (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Glad to hear you're such an unapologetic capitalist, Kari. Oregon could always use more of 'em. How many full-time employees do you have? How many are "unskilled" or minimum wage-level workers? Do you provide health care to everyone? What environmental regulations do you deal with on a day-to-day basis?

  • (Show?)

    I'm pleased to see that there's a green plank here, but it's an odd one, coupling "smart growth and clean jobs." PSN seems to be trying to preempt the phony economic argument against clean energy:

    Over the last few decades, rightwing activists promoted the myth that a strong environment and good jobs were incompatible -- a strategic tool to pit key progressive constituencies against each other. The result of this divisive strategy was the ascendance of a rightwing politics that undermined both wage standards and environmental planning, while creating racial and economic segregation between emerging exurbs and older urban communities.

    I would like to see energy independence linked more strongly with carbon emissions and put jobs and economic benefit as a subpoint in this major header. Using the "jobs" point muddies the green point (and also echoes Bushie spin about tax cuts being a "jobs" initiative). They're really separate things, and the green piece deserves its own point.

  • (Show?)

    I'm a partner (with my wife as CEO) of a computer consulting firm that has been in business since the late '80s.

    We employ 6-10 fulltime people. We provide 100% health care coverage. We earn a profit. We are capitalists. I have a side business, subcontracting to a mining machine manufacturer.

    We are not part of the 9% because we actually do the research and make the decisions based on the facts rather than on the latest talking points memo from the usual Ayn Rand True believers.

    If your religion tells you that cutting taxes increases state revenues, offshoring jobs creates better opportunities for jobs here at home, corporations are people (except for when it's to their advantage to not be people) and that class warfare is something propagated only by THE LEFT, that's your right. Just remember that you're basing your thinking on faith in propaganda.

    The fact is, if you earn money from any kind of work, management or otherwise, and you are not the CEO of a large multinational with a board made up of fellow CEOs, your economic interests lie with the progressives.

    Regulated capitalism is the only economic model that avoids redistribution of assets to the top of the pyramid. Crony capitalism, as practiced by the current administration, damages the entire world.

    If you're interested, Libertarian Ben Stein has a few words on this topic here

    <hr/>

    And a hat tip to Tom Civiletti for the link he posted on the Clack Dems website this AM.

  • Phen (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I agree with Jeff that the Pew categories are highly suspect, although it is worthwhile to seek useful ways to segment the electorate and figure out what the patterns of thinking are. I view this as a good start, but not something to build a strategy around until much more fully tested in practice.

    Yes, by all means let's begin defining a progressive vision with a lot of detailed programs with wide appeal, however that can be determined. The key will be for a sizable group of leaders to go out and proselytize that vision -- keep reminding people that there is hope of progress in the world, and who is working to achieve it.

  • MCT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Bravo! I really like the Progressive States "platform". Sounds remarkably similar to the Green Party platform....and that's a good thing in my book. This set of values echo those of most citizens....I don't see it as being hard to sell at all. We just need to start marketing it with an eye to 2008. In recent years my beef with my Dem party has been a lack of definition, too broad and varied a scope.

    I'm impressed with the idea that business owners can see the value of social responsibility. Why not? Happy employees are loyal and productive employees.

    Kari this Progressive Agenda is indeed a worthy and attainable goal. Keep talking.

  • Matt Singer (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Jeff -- Very solid points. The mix of smart growth and clean jobs is, as you note, part of an attempt to tie "green" with other issues and offset the economic arguments. "Green collar" job creation is something that is very popular. Obviously, though, mobilizing on the environmental front is also key. While we've found this terminology to be a useful way to encapsulate this set of agenda items, we are also working on pieces that are more clearly simply green. We are talking to several state leaders about anti-global warming initiatives. And we're quite excited about our own work with such great environmental outfits as the National Conference of Environmental Legislators, the Sierra Club, and Smart Growth America (all three are members of our policy task forces; other members can be found here).

    All of that being said, this agenda is not complete or definitive. It is, we think, an aggressive agenda for what is still a relatively young organization. We will work with policymakers and other partners on other good ideas and strive to find ways to make all of these issues cut across historic single-issue boundaries.

    Finally, I'll make a point of sending your comments around internally so the rest of the staff can digest it.

    Pat - Great comment. Phen - Measured optimism seems to be the word and I don't disagree with you there. MCT - thanks for the kudos.

    Keep the discussion going, please.

  • (Show?)
    Posted by: someonesane | Nov 28, 2006 11:02:45 AM

    Do you actually have a point to your blizzard of meaningless questions of Kari or are you under the illusion that your nonsense about the PEW quantile called "Enterprisers" oft he far-right somehow represents that actual business owner community at large?

    You do realize that most business owners are NOT GOP whackos, yes?

    Oh I forgot, you seem to want to keep the plate spinning that somehow GOP = good for business even though it is a demonstratively false myth and drinking your own partisan kool-aid.

  • Garlynn (unverified)
    (Show?)

    This looks like a really great effort. It looks like it dovetails with the Apollo Alliance (or whatever their actual title is now). I hope there is some coordination going on there?

    However, I see a huge piece missing from this agenda:

    National high-speed passenger rail.

    In fact, this piece doesn't seem to be on the progressive agenda at all. Yet, I think this is the one piece of infrastructure that is missing from America that, if added, will allow us to tie together the other disparate parts -- especially if it is properly coupled with supportive local transit (including intra-state and regional baby-bullet systems) and supportive land use (transit oriented development). Not only could it be a massive jobs program, many of those would be so-called green collar jobs, and the groundwork would also be laid for other initiatives such as reducing VMT and carbon emissions.

    Where is the leadership on this issue?

  • (Show?)

    Matt, thanks. My critique here is, as you take it, a strategic one. It is also a little bit of a hobby horse of mine, because I think going green is the future of the progressive movement. It's a sure bet that we won't be using internal-combustion engines forever, so the technology that replaces those engines first will have a real advantage. Getting behind green technologies early is actually a huge economic argument--a green revolution could be more profound economically than the silicon revolution of the 80s and 90s was. This affects more than just jobs.

    Moreover, the issue of global warming is, I believe, the sleeping giant for progressives. Since Gore's movie came out, it's been inching up in visibility, but since solutions aren't being offered yet, mostly people have not embraced it as an issue. (I can relate: global warming is so discouraging that without solutions that offer hope, reading about it is a kind of masochism.) I think the first hints of change are visible--biodiesel, green construction, alternative fuels. None of this is new to you, of course--it's even in the "smart growth and clean jobs" agenda item.

    Still, in terms of strategy, I think this should be more explicitly green. Offering solutions, as you do, is fantastic, too.

    Great work--

  • (Show?)

    Since most people agree with our policy choices, but haven't voted for them much until 2006, our challenge is less “what is our agenda” than it is “given an agenda, how do we communicate this in a way that resonates with people” -- to do that, we have to understand our underlying values & principles and learn to communicate them and put the “agenda” in those terms.

    Easily among the best in interweaving values, communications and policy in my research is Campaign for America's Future's StraightTalk: Common Sense of the Common Good (I would highly recommend downloading the PDF). One difference in the organizations is that Progressive States Network is more focused on state-level than national-level, thus leaving aside national security concerns (perhaps too much?).

    One thing I'd like to see PSN do is to put it's values & principles in talking points for each area ... currently they do that for the policies, but leave the core motivational values & principles in a long narrative.

  • Matt Singer (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Still absolutely loving the feedback. Garlynn, I'm with you on national passenger rail. That's probably not a state policy, though. But you're right -- who is talking about it?

    Global warming is a sleeping giant and it is poised to wake up a bit this year. Between California and the Northeastern states that are already in with both feet and expected action in Massachusetts and the Rocky Mountain West, I'd be real surprised if we didn't see these mountains move. I know I've heard talk of more adventurous global warming measures in Oregon. What's going on out here?

  • BlueNote (unverified)
    (Show?)

    There are, in my opinion, only two legitimate agenda items for progressives. One - STOP THE WAR NOW. Two, adopt universal single payer health care.

    Once we have accomplished both of the above, let's talk about two more. But until the first two are accomplished, nothing else matters.

  • (Show?)

    Thanks for posting this Kari. I'm very interested in sitting down and reading through the platform that they came up with. I'm glad that someone is putting ideas forward for a brighter future of our country. it helps renew my hope that our nation will become a better place.

    As I've said many times, I have been living overseas for the past three years. Watching events unfold in the US has been difficult. I have made the decision to come back next year with my wife. I am hopefuly that progressives will find a voice and turn things around for our nation.

  • (Show?)

    You bet, David. We're going to extract pieces of their agenda and make it a series of conversations here at Blue.

    Lestat - right on. It's hilarious to see someone try and argue that ALL business owners are right-wing anti-government anti-regulation wackos.

    As for SS, I'll answer his silly questions - just for fun.

    How many full-time employees do you have? Two. Plus a bunch of contractors, some of whom are themselves full-time employees of their own businesses.

    How many are "unskilled" or minimum wage-level workers? None.

    Do you provide health care to everyone? Yes.

    What environmental regulations do you deal with on a day-to-day basis? Not many. We build websites. We do, however, voluntarily use an American-made, union-made biodiesel vehicle as our company car, and we're exploring what it would take to go buy carbon offsets and go carbon-free in 2007 and beyond.

  • Matt Singer (unverified)
    (Show?)

    BlueNote -- I have to say I'm right there with you personally. Getting out of Iraq and accomplishing health care for all need to be huge prioties for the progressive movement.

    A couple things to think about, though. Progressives have more power in Oregon than they've had in years. But that state power can only do so much to impact the war in Iraq. As for single payer health care, there are at least very solid movements toward health care for all in Oregon -- I'd recommend jumping into that discussion yourself.

    But just as having too broad of an agenda and too many priorities can prevent you from getting anything done, blinders can prevent us from making progress in places where we have opportunities today.

  • DAN GRADY (unverified)
    (Show?)

    SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!

    I believe in Democracy! I believe in a civil, peaceful, and that a strong nation insures Democracy, and the freedoms Democracy provides which includes free enterprise.

    I know that if you are liberal/progressive, or conservative that the belief in Democracy has been spread over both groups in blood since the start of our nation. I believe we will not have our freedoms, and liberties without a strong, healthy Democracy thus we have a common interest in a strong, competant, and sincere governance.

    We have had over the past 30 years a struggle that continues today as to the extent we as a national government have responsibilities to our fellow citizens, and the most vulnerable in our Democracy.

    The question for me becomes can a Democracy sustain itself with large disparities between the wealthy and the poor. Is a middle class a requirement to having a free society?? Have we had examples of prosperous, civil, and a free society with a ruling wealthy class over a vast impoverished underclass??? I think not as the greatest human experiement would not be happening since it was these kinds of disparities between citizens that inspired it's existance to begin with!

    I believe a sincere evaluation of Republican resurgance to power since Reagan has reflected the loss of the balance that maintained a healthy, active, and thriving middle class. I believe that the rapid losses of the middle class has been a contributing factor to the loss of civil liberties, and freedoms, as well as our nations overall worsened health. We are decaying from the middle outward, and where as the rich will undoubtedly be the last to feel the effects, should conditions be left to worsen their price will be quite severe indeed, history is unmistakened on the subject.

    Happy Thoughts;

    Dan Grady

  • someonesane (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Boy, for such a self-righteous bunch that claims to pride itself in recognizing nuance and resisting the urge to generalize, some of you sure don't hesitate to assume stereotypes or leap to unwarranted, erroneous conclusions and whatnot. For example, I'll wager I'm less a fan of Ayn Rand and her Objectivist philosophy than most here are devotees of Karl Marx's theories on class struggle. (For what it's worth, though -- piece of trivia for ya -- Hillary Clinton at one point acknowledged admiring Rand's work herself. Of course, it's rather obvious she leans towards Marx when political push comes to shoving laws restricting freedom down our throats.) And honestly, I don't think I've ever voted Republican for a significant political office in my life: I'm waaaay to into opposing war and respecting individual freedom to do that.

    Wow, Kari. Two employees? You're a regular captain of industry, aren't you. In the spirit of respecting your privacy I'll refrain from inquiring how much of your business derives from shifty politicos and other shady operators suckling from tax-dollar spigots and slurping at government slop buckets.

    But I gotta know this: Why all the hired contractors? Can't afford to pay the bennies on fulltimers? And isn't "contracting" just another name for "outsourcing"? Or does the disparaging import of that term kick into effect only when the jobs end up putting money in the grubby hands of swarthy foreign hordes? I find it highly instructive how nationalistic the left can get on economic matters when it suits their cause du jour.

    So anyway, I guess the point and the question is whether all or maybe only the vast majority of business owners are members of the "enterpriser" designation in the Pew survey classification (flawed a study as it is.) Of course, when I made my earlier comment it was, as someone else noted (though I'd cast a vote for Hillary before I'd choose the word), "snarky." But honestly, what percentage of small business owners in Oregon would do away with, say, the state-mandated minimum wage if offered the chance? Remember, in 2002 the measure to increase it passed by a meager 33,000 votes statewide. How many farmers, ranchers and timberland owners, especially outside the Willamette Valley, are fed up with smart growth and radical environmentalism (Anybody ever hear of Measure 37?). And while I suppose free universal health care probably sounds as good to a business owner as it does to anybody else, they're probably much more cognizant than the average person that very little of value in this world actually is "free," least of all good medicine and life-saving technology, so any claims or promises by government worshippers that they're going to make it so are foolish pipe dreams destined, like most state-run schemes, to abuse, oppression, controversy and breathtaking waste.

  • (Show?)

    In the spirit of respecting your privacy I'll refrain from inquiring how much of your business derives from shifty politicos and other shady operators suckling from tax-dollar spigots and slurping at government slop buckets.

    At the risk, perhaps, of indicting so many of the faithful patrons of the Grand Old Party?

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    How many farmers, ranchers and timberland owners, especially outside the Willamette Valley, are fed up with smart growth and radical environmentalism (Anybody ever hear of Measure 37?).

    SS--how many of the people suing against Measure 37 have been farmers worried about what defelopers would do to their livelihood? Wasn't there just some decision on a destination resort in Newberg which would provide lodging without taking up farmland? And about Prineville/Crook County and Measure 37 (as I recall, those folks said "we won't relax our standards, how much compensation are you expecting?") --are those folks all supporters of Measure 37?

    Not every small employer (and those make up more of Oregon's economy than big business as I recall) echoes your views. Matter of fact, most of them are taking care of business and may not even know this blog exists.

    I see a lot of "someone sane" talking about political figures and generally about business. But what kind of business is "someone sane" in, how many employees? What part of the state?

  • (Show?)

    Why all the hired contractors? Can't afford to pay the bennies on fulltimers?

    Um, because you don't hire someone full time when you only need them for a few dozen hours a year. Duh?

  • Bert Lowry (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Someone Sane:

    Ah, trolling is fun, isn't it? You should know, however, that when I read comments from a troll like you, I do two things. First, I feel kind of sorry for you. Second, I make a donation to a Democratic group. I think I'll make a dontation to the DPO this time.

    I'm not rich, but I think I have enough money that I can send a check every time you spew nonsense and still stay solvent.

    Kari: how about updating your ActBlue page? You could add a bunch of Dem./Progressive groups. I'm thinking DPO, FuturePAC, SDLF, Bus Project, DFO. Others?

    It would make it easier for me and others to use the Troll Defense Fund. And it gives us a good way to measure the "service" trolls are performing for the progressive community.

  • djk (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Still absolutely loving the feedback. Garlynn, I'm with you on national passenger rail. That's probably not a state policy, though. But you're right -- who is talking about it?

    "National" passenger rail isn't a state policy issue, but high-speed rail can be. Generally, high-speed rail is competitive with air travel over reasonably short distances -- say, 300 miles or less. And short segments of high-speed rail can be handled as state or bi-state projects.

    Locally, for example, Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia could be working together to push for a high-speed rail line from Eugene to Vancouver BC. California and Nevada might work on Los Angeles to Las Vegas, or perhaps California could go it alone on SF-LA.

    Eventually, all those 200-500 mile projects create the beginnings of a national network that can be tied together as a federal project.

    So in that respect, I'd say "high speed passenger rail" should be on the progressive agenda of any state that (a) has two or more major metropolitan areas to tie together, or (b) shares a logical high-speed rail corridor with an adjacent state.

    In Oregon, we should be looking at a corridor from Eugene to Vancouver, Washington -- and not waiting for someone back in DC to make the first move.

  • (Show?)

    Elction Reform - Election Reform - Election Reform

    In the efforts of the clear redundancy that has been my clarion call for the last couple of years, I'd like to remind the progressive community and all who troll that the essence of the democracy is all about accurate, fair and secure elections.

    With the advent of computerized voting, the integrity of the election process has never been in such question, and despite democratic successes this fall, progressives should not be lulled into the false mindset that all is well. It is not.

    The problems that occurred in 2000 and 2004 did occur in 2006; we just didn't feel there impact this time. Voter intimidation efforts were still in high gear; vote flipping was rampant on DREs, and thousands of votes were still "lost" throughout the nation.

    A case in point: In Sarasota Co., FL, the race for U.S. House tallied a 18,000 vote "undervote," almost 15% of total votes. Ballots were cast on paperless DREs, so there is no way to recount or reconstruct the election. Normally figures of aboput 6% are common for undervotes, and in this race in particular, adjacent counties had undervotes at around 3%. The difference between candidates is about 340 votes; the race is undecided and on its way to court. (Interestingly, this is the race for the seat vacated by Kathrine Harris of Bush-2000 fame.)

    It is absolutely critical that the legislative "A" list include election reforms that include paper ballot requirements and mandatory verification of election results (i.e. a statistical sampling of vote tallies that would either verify an election or reveal anomolies.)

    Other top reforms include ensuring the partisan influence of election officials becomes illegal, and making headway in efforts requiring voting machines to operate on opensource software. We need to be assured that the legal system - whether via the state or the feds - is adequately equipped AND encouraged to apprehend, prosecute and convict those that work to defraud citizens of their votes.

    <h2>These reforms are not about red or blue, left or right; they're about ensuring democracy operates properly - for all of us. Hmmmm,I guess that what is progressives are about, eh?</h2>

connect with blueoregon