A Progressive Vision for Oregon
By Salvador Peralta, a member of the Democracy for Oregon steering committee and chairman of the Democratic Party of Yamhill County.
As our good friend, Jefferson Smith, likes to say "Oregon is a place where progressive ideas are born".
One of the better progressive ideas that I've heard lately, is the notion that progressivism is really just an alternative to the partisanship and stalemate that are the status quo in Salem and DC.
This is not a new idea. Jefferson would be the first to tell you that some of the best public servants we have elected in Oregon have embodied an ideal of third-way progressivism.
Consider Mark O. Hatfield, a deeply devout evangelical Christian who served as Oregon's Governor and Senator for more than two decades.
Hatfield believed in the sanctity of life, and knew that America, by spending greater resources to build a more just and equitable future, would become more secure than if it were to build a future based on mounting debt and continual warfare.
That's progressive thinking, and doubly so when you realize that 70 percent of today's evangelical Christians favored war with Iraq.
Hatfield spoke to the conscience of an evangelical movement that is often more consumed with power than with fellowship these days, and which has lost track with many of the fundamental tenets of faith.
Oregon elected Tom McCall, a conservationist Republican Governor who protected Oregon's beaches, stood up for working people against big corporations and wealthy interests, and preserved Oregon farms by adopting land-use laws that encourage high urban density.
The result today, is an Oregon population that is less harmed by rising gas prices than any other state in the nation because we have the shortest commutes in the nation. The result is that the number of family farms has grown in Oregon while family farms have disappeared at a rate of 40,000 per year in the rest of the country.
In 2003, Oregon was the only state in the union to have an increase in the number of small farms, which grew at a rate of 12 percent.
Governors Hatfield and McCall are the embodiment of the idea that "progressive" does not necessarily mean liberal, and that there is a third-way in politics.
At Democracy for Oregon, we support economic policy that promotes local entrepreneurship such as small businesses and family farms. We believe in setting high standards for the quality of our air and water. We believe that land use policy should promote greater densities of urban populations, and that it's important to protect the water and property rights of farmers.
Our opposition to war is rooted in our faith. We value life, but we respect the rights of our fellow citizens to make their own decisions in life's most difficult circumstances.
We reject political cronyism and blind partisanship, and believe that all people should be held to an equal standard justice, and treated with respect.
We believe that citizens should be secure that their right to vote is intact, we support exporting Oregon's vote-by-mail system, and in importing fair election reforms that will promote grassroots democracy and reward public participation in the political process.
We ask that you join us in restoring, to the People, ownership of Democracy in Oregon and America. DemocracyForOregon.com
|
June 13, 2005
Posted in guest column. |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Jun 13, '05
Sound great, but I don't hear any action items. What do you propose TO DO to get voter turnout over 1/2? If you just want to talk about it, how about some talk about how our local progressivism is going to survive the Supreme Court's deciding that anything of consequence is inter-state commerce? What's to keep corporate interests from complaining that our land use laws are at variance with future congressional legisltion, affect inter-state commerce, and don't have to be followed by out of state developers?
A strong case can be made that this country can now be best described as fascist. In the face of that, isn't simply talking about an agenda contributing to the problem?
Jun 13, '05
While this is a feel good post, it reflects progressive's notoriously large blind spot for labor issues. What about standards for families just trying to get by, just earn a paycheck and some decent benefits? What about trying to solve the problems with America's pension system where CEOs are rewarded for dumping pension's (or as they say "liabilities") while at the same time keeping their's. It always seems like there is a movement amongst progressives to "lead the pack" without ever checking to see if the rest of us can even keep pace. Try meeting people where they are at. Try remembering that labor issues are progressive issues, not an afterthought.
Jun 13, '05
McBain,
"progressive's notoriously large blind spot for labor issues"?
I don't know what progressives you hang with, but most I talk with and read are very concerned with labor issues. There are times when some progressives will disagree with the union position on particular issues, for instance, on the environment or on making a utility publicly owned, but the economic situation of working [and those who would like to be working] people is a crucial progressive issue.
10:47 a.m.
Jun 13, '05
Sound great, but I don't hear any action items.
Egads don't get us started! Didn't you read to the end of the post? Come on over to Democracy for Oregon dot com and you will start 'hearing' a loud roar of action items! Can you start a DFA group in your town? Contact us. Want to subscribe to an eNewsletter for progressive action across the state? Subscribe at DFO.com. Want to fight back against the blather David Blowhard, Lars, and the others? Sign up for the national and Oregon Rapid Response networks! Want to collect signatures for real election reform? It's a click away at Demedge.org. Want to learn how 3 elections in a row have been stolen? See OregonVRC.org!
This "blaming the messenger for not giving an action item" is a bit of a laugh. Sal just didn't have room to list all the things we need to be working on every day! But luckily, he said it all in one word at the end. DemocracyforOregon.com. So there's your action item(s) for you Harold. :-) Let me know where your DFA group will be meeting and I'll spread the word for you!
Take your Country Back at http://www.DemocracyforAmerica.com & http://www.dfa.meetup.com
Jun 13, '05
Tom,
While I would agree that if you engage progressives on labor issues they are in the right spot. However, specifically this post and at times my experience has been that progressives in Portland or elsewhere will forget about labor. Its not a matter of agreeing with a union's position on issues, rather, it is about actively supporting wiorking people. I'm not trying to say progressives are bad but, look at the post and tell me where labor fits in?
At a time when the Bush administration and private sector employer have declared all out war on workers, when most non-union workers believe that they will get fired for trying to form a union, progressives need to support organized and unorganized labor.
My main point is that a progressive vision for Oregon needs a labor component explicitly spelled out. I think we can both agree that progressives will support someting like that. I just wish that they had not left it out (and I believe this was unintentional).
Jun 13, '05
Below is the statement I was using to point out the blind spot.
At Democracy for Oregon, we support economic policy that promotes local entrepreneurship such as small businesses and family farms. We believe in setting high standards for the quality of our air and water. We believe that land use policy should promote greater densities of urban populations, and that it's important to protect the water and property rights of farmers.
Our opposition to war is rooted in our faith. We value life, but we respect the rights of our fellow citizens to make their own decisions in life's most difficult circumstances.
This, is the vision statement I am refering to by the by...
We reject political cronyism and blind partisanship, and believe that all people should be held to an equal standard justice, and treated with respect.
We believe that citizens should be secure that their right to vote is intact, we support exporting Oregon's vote-by-mail system, and in importing fair election reforms that will promote grassroots democracy and reward public participation in the political process.
We ask that you join us in restoring, to the People, ownership of Democracy in Oregon and America. DemocracyForOregon.com
Jun 13, '05
Great post Sal.
REally importat to point out the "progressive" is not a synonym for "liberal." Indeed, the first progressives were REPUBLICANS. Teddy Roosevelt and the crew.
The Democratic Party is a critical part of a progressive coalition. But with only 38% self-identifying as Democrats, it shouldn't be the only member of that coalition. We need to reach out to people who self-identify as Greens, I's, and progressive Republicans.
I think it's a good reminder.
11:46 a.m.
Jun 13, '05
McBain--
Believe me, there's no blind spot on labor issues over at DFO. Sure, Sal didn't specifically mention it in his posting. However, there are many, many other items that didn't get listed as well. Had he listed them, the posting would have gone on for days.
We are definitely paying attention to labor and working to build a relationship with them so that we will know what all their issues are and can work together on them. At our Summit we had numerous labor unions represented, with several of their leaders presenting breakout sessions.
But a huge part of this is getting people involved in the conversation we're having. That's why we have our Meetups each month-- it gives people a chance to come out, see what action items we're participating in, speak on other issues, etc. And we always welcome participation over in our blogs and forums. We're still working on formalizing our organization (we're at the Steering Committee stage), but we're not letting that get in the way of taking action.
As someone who was laid off in February, 2003 and hasn't been able to find a permanent job since, I can assure you that I wouldn't even dream of letting this group overlook that issue.
Jun 13, '05
DFOs- Maybe I'm just not "down with it", but I don't consider a link to a URL at the end of a post to be an action item. I checked out your website and the Lloyd Center war protest is more to my way of thinking what an action item is. My main point was that signature drives, efforts to get out the vote and writing the media just aren't working, and it's become too late for that. Last election the turnout among young voters was no better than in the previous election despite a lot of hard work. Back then I was urging folks not to speak to a Gen-Xer until they had shown their voter registration card. That's what I call an action item. It's great the NY Times paid attention to a write-in campaign, but the mainstream media is prepared to lose viewship to tow the establishment line. There were some great voter initiatives last election, months and in some cases years of leg work, only to be eclipsed in the last few weeks by big money sponsorship of TV ads that weren't covered critically by the media and went unanswered. Those initiatives lost.
The media WILL cover anything that affects the normal routine, so I'm talking about 60s style sit-ins, and highly visible boycotts, basically halting business as usual. Critical Mass is a good example of what I'm talking about on the positive side. All that's largely been criminalized and I think we need progressives to get out there and speak with their bodies and feet, telling the media when they finally cover those actions that we are not criminals. "Criminality", the oldest social knee-jerk reaction to ostracize people. Hitler originally ran on a law and order ticket, not killing all the Jews. If we want to talk big, why not officially welcome all the statutory criminals into the party. That's not sarcasm; I'm serious.
I haven't attended Dem sponsered events since I was a Hart delegate. They just seem to be engaged in the systematic abuse of a process invented for that abuse, but I will check out the protests at Lloyd Center. I live in SE Portland, so I assume you have an established chapter here. I have an open question, though, that I've wondered about reading the Dean threads and this one. Do you think it's the case that Biden and Kerry- as two delimiters- represent the Dems, or is it the case that a small minority has hijacked the party. I'm operating on the perception that they DO represent the Dems, and that there is no major party representing everyone else. Personally I've split my time between the Libertarians and Pacific Greens, believing that for a long time to come any national, Democratic candidate will head towards the "center" when the election turns national. I say so called center since it's really pretty much to the right. How is, say, Kerry, any different than a Blue Dog Democrat? The point was made in another thread about Democratic Catholics. Most don't live like the Vatican would have them live, so why hasn't there been a cultural schism that would lead to an American Catholic Church that accurately represents their beliefs? Are the evangelicals a minority aberration or what Xtianity is today? Early Xtians refused to leave the Temple even when the Jewish establishment added prayers for their demise, until the Romans came in to kill Jews. Then, they suddenly found a separate identity and a new day of the week to worship. Isn't that what the current Dems are doing? Unfortunately, I think the guys with the swords are at the door.
Jun 13, '05
Maybe this will turn the italics off the posts...
2:58 p.m.
Jun 13, '05
I don't think people meant the URL was an action item. They were saying that the URL was given so that you could come over to the site and see some of what we're doing. We're working on some redesigns of the website, with more information regarding the actions placed on the site. It's actually something I'll be spending much of the evening working on once I get home.
In response to the Dean item...
I honestly think that a small population has taken over the Party. They've run the DNC for some time now, which leads to their type of candidate being elected to Congress-- it's hard to get elected in a primary if the DNC supports the other candidate.
I think the greater population of the Party wanted things to change, but with the DNC we had, it wasn't possible. Now anything is possible.
I've been frustrated with the Party for quite some time now. However, I've stuck with it and try to change the Party from within. Even when I stop participating in the county party, I stay involved with the state Party. And of course not being actively involved in the county party doesn't mean you can't be involved locally.
We do have some groups in SE Portland. Visit http://dfa.meetup.com to find the group closest to you. I don't know them all right off hand, so I couldn't tell you which was the closest. We're actually about to move away from Meetup, but the information will all be on the DFO website when that happens.
4:02 p.m.
Jun 13, '05
Hi Harold,
There is no shortage of things for progressives to work on this summer, and Democracy for Oregon, by keeping folks informed about volunteer opportunities, is carrying a great deal of water for the progressive side.
In terms of specific ideas...
This summer, I'll have people out at street fairs and festivals across the state of Oregon (Ashland, Bend, Corvallis, Eugene, Portland, Salem) to promote a slate of issues for several players on the progressive side: Voting Rights Voalition, AFSCME, Fair Elections, and Ospirg are all groups that have contributed materials.
The idea is to use the booths as a framework for promoting a progressive agenda during the off-year election, and to build up a stronger network of progressive (not partisan) volunteers heading into the 2006 election.
I'm also working on a campaign finance reform initiative that we can use to dramatically reduce the influence of corporate and big money donors on our political process in Oregon. Visit fairelections.net for information on how to get involved in that effort, or give me a call (503)435-7118 to discuss it.
As for the Democratic Party...
One of the main reasons why Democracy for Oregon and America exist is that people like yourself have become alienated by both major political parties that all too often represent the interests and values of corporate America at the expense of working people. Many people don't see 3rd parties as a viable option and are instead turning to groups like DFO, DFA, ROP, or the Bus to provide another mechanism for promoting political change.
There are thousands of us, if not millions, out there who see the problems we are facing, who don't see leaders in either party offering any viable solutions (Dean is changing some of that so far as the Dems are concerned), and who are chomping at the bit for someone to show some leadership and stand up for change.
And that's the role that I see Democracy for Oregon and America filling in some small way for 2005 and 2006.
We aren't trying to replace the parties, but rather to provide a framework and an outlet for people who want to work both inside and outside the party system to promote progressive, public-interested, reform in Oregon and America.
Jun 13, '05
Fair 'nuff. I have to admit that I've been surprised in the past at how a lot of what is initially labelled as "wacko progressive thinking" gets recycled later into the mainstream candidates' platforms.
8:05 p.m.
Jun 13, '05
And again all things progressive end with in-fighting. Stop being so nit picky people and let's get to work.
10:58 p.m.
Jun 13, '05
I hate this post. Progressive is not always a synonym for liberal, but when it's not, most usually it means left of liberal. "Third wayers" like the Democratic Leadership Council of course have tried to hijack it. I don't know enough about DFO to say if this is quite the same scam, but the very language of the opportunistic "third way" is not a good sign.
Neither "moderate" nor "third way" is a synonym for progressive either. Hatfield was liberal on some issues, conservative on some. Same with McCall. But do we really have to look to the past? How different is Ron Wyden?
McBain is completely correct about the exclusion of labor issues and working class interests from the DFO material. This certainly was not an accidental oversight. It is a chronic symptom of "third wayism," reflecting the way it kowtows to big business interests.
Third-wayism tries to further narrow the already tiny effective political spectrum in the U.S. Restricting our choices even more narrowly to the center-right does not further democracy. It entrenches a tyranny of the so-called center, even when centrist ideas are not always best, and indeed have no clear content, merely a program of splitting differences that shifts with the political spectrum.
Progressive generally means liberal or left of liberal. T. Roosevelt had to break with the Republican Party to really run as a Progressive in 1912 (his statement that he was "as strong as a bull moose" following a failed assassination attempt gave the party its popular name). Roosevelt beat out the Republican Taft, but not Woodrow Wilson running as a Democratic "progressive." The Socialist candidate Eugene Debs also won 6% of the vote, with his highest percentage coming in Oklahoma. In 1912 the electorate voted 70% for presidential candidates to left of the then status quo. The main issues concerned the power of big money over politics and of corporations over workers and farmers.
Both Roosevelt and Wilson were notably racist, btw.
Be that as it may, take a look at T.R.'s 1912 platform.
In general it prefigures the New Deal. It cannot be said in any way to represent a "third way" between liberalism and conservatism as those terms commonly came to be understood after the New Deal. Rather, it is foundational of that 20th century redefinition of liberalism in the U.S.
Arguably, though, the "Bull Moose" platform tends further toward European-style social democracy than even New Deal liberalism did, when the latter is taken as a whole, rather than defined by focus on its most progressive (i.e. left-oriented) leaders or constituencies such as the social-democratic CIO labor unions.
Consider the following quote:
We demand that the test of true prosperity shall be the benefits conferred thereby on all the citizens, not confined to individuals or classes, and that the test of corporate efficiency shall be the ability better to serve the public; that those who profit by control of business affairs shall justify that profit and that control by sharing with the public the fruits thereof.
That's a great standard, one that deserves to be revived by progressives, but it's no "third way" claptrap.
12:43 a.m.
Jun 14, '05
First off, please do not use DFO and the DLC in the same sentence unless you're discussing how different they are. We are in no way trying to make the Democratic Party go further to the right, which is what the DLC has been doing.
Secondly, being progressive does not necessarily mean being liberal, nor being left of liberal. Being progressive generally deals with having policies and actions that are fair to all and exist from the good of the whole, not the few. The Bus Project puts it the best way when they say "Not left, not right, but forward. Not bigger government, not smaller government, but better government."
Jenson said: McBain is completely correct about the exclusion of labor issues and working class interests from the DFO material. This certainly was not an accidental oversight. It is a chronic symptom of "third wayism," reflecting the way it kowtows to big business interests.
This is absolutely not the case. As stated before, you can't possibly list every single one of the issues that we're working on in a blog post. Sal's blog post dealt with some of the issues. But they are in no way the only issues we're working on. We've been working on building a relationship with the unions, including SEIU, AFL-CIO, and AFSCME. All of them participated in our Summit and we look forward to working with them more in the future.
One such action that we're working on in conjunction with labor unions is United Food and Commercial Workers International Union's "Wake Up Wal-Mart" campaign. There's a link with some of the information currently on our website.
I sure would like to know how we're involved with, promoting, supporting, etc. big business. Last time I checked, we were supporting protests, actions, and strikes against big business. We not only use open source software for this website, but we actively promote others using it as well as other big business alternatives (Drupal, Civic Space, and Mozilla). We also participate in the troubleshooting, testing, and devleopment of the software.
We're still in the formation stages of our organization, so we're not to the point where we can be undertaking a lot of action items. We'd like to have our bylaws, board, and 501c4 in place so that we can start taking on bigger projects and actions. At that point we'll have the steps in place for the organization to choose what actions we'll participate in-- right now there isn't a procedure for members to vote on such endorsements.
Apparently you don't understand that those of us working to build DFO are working class. Personally I've been without permanent work for more than two years and have to rely on food stamps more than once. Before I picked up a bit of contract work recently, my family was at 133% of the federal poverty level. So please don't try to say that we don't care/understand about the working class and labor issues.
It's quite apparent from your comments that you know very little about the organization, as you are jumping to several conclusions that are completely untrue.
Jun 14, '05
Wow. I just read the 1912 Progressive Platform. Now that is a political platform. It is simultaneously a call to arms and a plan for action. An excerpt:
Political parties exist to secure responsible government and to execute the will of the people.
<quote>From these great tasks both of the old parties have turned aside. Instead of instruments to promote the general welfare, they have become the tools of corrupt interests which use them impartially to serve their selfish purposes. Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people.
To destroy this invisible government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day. </quote>
Jun 14, '05
Bert- WOW! Now that's some terrific archeology and very poignant prose. When folks reference the DLC and how it has its own agenda, I want to point out that it was the people who put Howard Dean at the top of the DNC in spite of their inclination for someone more vanilla. We are re-shaping the Democratic Party. Browsing the DNC website, the bloggers there were all in support of Dean and were appaulled that there were Dem Leaders, or wannabe leaders disavowing his remarks. Do the math, the Republicans are mostly White Christians. The next declaration which the Dems should have trumpeted, rather then makign distance from Dean, is that the Dems are NOT! We have our share of white Christians, but it is not what we are about, not at all.
Jenni - Please report to the nearest science lab. You are the perpetual motion they have all been seeking. No job, but you work full time. I'm amazed and you're my hero.
1:23 p.m.
Jun 14, '05
Gregor--
Thanks for the kind words. I figure that while I work on finding a permanent job that it's a better use of my time to work on changing our state and our country rather than sitting around watching TV.
I have a toddler who likes to be the center of my attention, but I still manage to get a lot done for the Democratic and Progressive cause. I only wish that my heath were better so that I could do more.
We're not the Republican Party. We don't have tons of donors giving tens of thousands of dollars to the cause. We can't afford to just contract out our web work, phonebanking, fundraising, and canvassing. However, what we do have are dedicated volunteers who are worth a hundred times more than any paid canvasser, phonebanker, etc.
Jun 14, '05
Ugh. Please note that I am not trying to defame anyone's work here but, rather challenge some assumptions and declarations that most progressives make.
Here is how I see it. Progressives care about protecting workers' rights. They care about everyone having the same means to get ahead rather than clawing through the corporate world of hypercapitalism. However, do most progressives know what steps are needed to get there?
Let's take the PDC - great for green development, bad, bad, bad on encouraging prevailing wage jobs. In fact they actively work against it.
Portland City Council - good for campaign finance reform advocates but, have we set up a standard for responsible contractors in the city that includes an enforcable living wage. (check out www.losangeleslivingwagestudy.org). In fact, do most progressives know that there are janitors in downtown Portland high rises who make poverty wages and don't have health care. Progressives should care.
Do progressives know how to form a union? Do they know what happens to workers who try? If they did they may be outraged by what happens.
Of course, labor bears some of the responsibility as well. However, good progressives should also make clear attempts to find out.
I realize that this is just a group of amazingly involved citizens. I really love that about the DFO movement (I haven't been too involved but, went to the initial Dean meet ups). But, we have to make sure that progressives have the courage to define themselves based on what is right and what builds power for people over profit.
That's all - maybe calling it a blindspot was a bit over the top but, I think we can all use someone challenging us from time to time. I know that when put on the spot or in uncomfortable situations I grow the most.
Anyhow - end rant.
2:45 p.m.
Jun 14, '05
I would like to thank Salvador Peralta for graciously taking time to communicate succinctly with me off-blog, and to acknowledge his point and Jenni Simonis' that my earlier comments jumped to incorrect conclusions about the organization. I overreacted to rhetoric that overlaps with that of the DLC and Tony Blair at some points, which that pushes my buttons.
Salvador P. defended that rhetoric on grounds that it was the way to reach audiences currently not being reached by progressives. I hope he is right and that the overlap doesn't lead to eventual confusion.
It appears that DfO is doing an enormous amount of the right sort of things in action. That suggests that they might have pretty good communication ideas as well for reaching primary intended audiences, to which kibitzers should defer. Possibly there is a secondary issue, if this approach is successful, about coordinating with other progressives who do define themselves as on the left, and who see left and forward as less distinct than Jenni states them.
About labor and the working class, Jenni, first let me say I am in a very similar position to yours myself and can only wish you the best. From the descriptions it seems that work with labor unions and pro-worker groups actually bulks quite large in DfO's work, perhaps to the point of it seeming so assumed that it didn't need stating.
Having I hope sufficiently climbed down off my unjustifiably wrangled high horse, in a more constructive vein, I think it would be beneficial to keep your orientation to working people strongly visible in information pieces that go out to people who may not know your work.
That orientation forms ground that I think can link a lot of people. It extends from rural and small-town people, like those Russell Sadler recently wrote about regarding CAFTA impact, to people in Oregon's many big town-small city regional centers and some of the ex-urbs between bigger municipalities up and down the valley, to people in Portland metro working-class suburbs like Milwaukie or St. Johns, whether in Clackamas, Washington or Multnomah counties, to people in "the big city" itself.
Breaking down the perceived urban-rural barriers (and taking Steve Bucknum's point that that's different from wishing them away) and making visible the very large number of working Oregonians who don't really fit either category very well seems to be in line with the approach you're taking to being "progressive."
Unity in action, as they used to say in South Africa. Apologies for being a rhetorically hung-up dolt, and thanks for the good work.
3:04 p.m.
Jun 14, '05
We're definitely working on making sure that all of the aspects of our organization and its actions are visible. As we're still forming our organization, its documentation, etc., we're still missing many items. I just didn't want people to see it as an intentional oversight-- it's all part of the formation stages of an organization.
We're always glad to hear from others on where we should focus more time, work on, etc. Feel free to stop over at our blogs or forums at any time.
Jun 14, '05
McBain,
Consider that Salvador extended the meaning of progressive to certain Republicans. Hatfield was progressive on peace. McCall was progressive on the environment. Both supported "good government" as opposed to the "rip off as much as you can as fast as you can" government of Reagan and the Bush's. But neither Hatfield nor McCall was much of a labor activist. Let me know when you run into a Republican officeholder who is.
I'd make a distinction between progressive thinking on an issue and progressive identity. It would be difficult to accept someone as a progressive who didn't support the right of workers to effectively organize.
11:05 a.m.
Jun 16, '05
We believe that citizens should be secure that their right to vote is intact, we support exporting Oregon's vote-by-mail system, and in importing fair election reforms that will promote grassroots democracy and reward public participation in the political process.
Why is exporting vote by mail part of your platform?
Oregon elected Tom McCall, a conservationist Republican Governor who protected Oregon's beaches, stood up for working people against big corporations and wealthy interests, and preserved Oregon farms by adopting land-use laws that encourage high urban density.
The result today, is an Oregon population that is less harmed by rising gas prices than any other state in the nation because we have the shortest commutes in the nation. The result is that the number of family farms has grown in Oregon while family farms have disappeared at a rate of 40,000 per year in the rest of the country.
Isn't this part of the post misleading? My understanding is that the genius of the 1970s reforms is that McCall brought together environmentalists who wanted to preserve open land, urbanists who wanted more dense development, and foresters and farmers who were opposed to urban encroachments on their territory.
Fast foward to today. The forestry industry has been devastated. There may be more small farms in Oregon, but I don't know whether that is due to our land policies or whether it is due to market forces (wineries, market interest in organic produce, farmers markets, etc). We have short commutes, but I thought the time of our commute continues to rise rapidly (the lengths may be short but we're sitting in traffic, cranking out those hydrocarbons).
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not sure your A-->B.
And as to this one, We believe that land use policy should promote greater densities of urban populations, and that it's important to protect the water and property rights of farmers. help! How can you simultaneously protext water rights and property rights and maintain the UGB and salmon and ...????
11:12 a.m.
Jun 16, '05
Ok, I answered one of my own questions. Average commute time in Portland was 1.4 minutes less in 2002 than in 2000. I can't easily find longer trends or get any sense whether this change is significant.
http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Products/Ranking/2002/R04T160.htm http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Products/Ranking/2000/R04T160.htm
<hr/>