Progressive Thinking

MADISON - Do a Google search for the words “Republican presidential debates” and “circus” and you get close to 2 million results. Search for “Republican presidential campaign” and “train wreck” and you get 4 million.

Off the national stage, Republican officials in places like Wisconsin are showing clear signs of worry bordering on panic when it comes to their standing with the public. With good reason. Public approval of the GOP has reached its lowest point in decades. Support for the party hasdropped sharply even among self-described Republican voters.

So far, the Democrats seem content to be the slightly less objectionable alternative. Their strategy largely consists of handing the Republicans plenty of rope and hoping they hang themselves.

There are a lot of reasons why that is a questionable strategy. There is one reason in particular why it is actually a recipe for Republicans winning in spite of themselves. Democrats have lost their mojo in rural areas. They used to know how to appeal to rural voters but evidently have forgotten.

The Democrats have a primarily urban support base that has been whittled down in Wisconsin to not much more than Madison and Milwaukee. The Republicans have a suburban support base. Neither party’s base gets them to 50% in elections, so neither base alone can produce a governing majority. Democrats used to have an urban-rural coalition that produced governing majorities for them, but that alliance has fractured and in its place the Republicans have formed a suburban-rural, rich-poor alliance that has won them control of most statehouses across the country including Wisconsin’s.

Book after book has been written about how the Republicans manufactured this realignment. But it wasn’t just the Republicans’ doing. It had every bit as much to do with what Democrats have made themselves into over the last several decades.

When the Democrats were at the zenith of their power, they were unapologetic economic populists, starting with FDR’s New Deal for the Depression-ravaged masses in the 1930s and continuing right through the 1960s with LBJ’s War on Poverty and Great Society programs. Shortly thereafter, it started to become fashionable for Democrats to describe themselves as socially liberal but economically and fiscally conservative. In practical terms, that meant being for such things as abortion rights, gay rights, gun control and legalization of marijuana while becoming increasingly friendly to Wall Street and royals of global industry. The party has been in decline ever since.

One important reason for the steady erosion of the Democrats’ fortunes is that being socially liberal but economically elitist is exactly the opposite of what most rural people are. They are more socially conservative than your average Democrat, but are feeling vulnerable and exploited and taken advantage of economically.

It is definitely conceivable the Democrats could remain socially progressive and win over enough rural voters to win back statehouses and gain firm control over Congress, but only if they combine lifestyle liberalism with very assertive economic populism. It is not remotely possible to be socially liberal and economically elitist — as they are now — and make any meaningful political inroads in rural areas. Not even if Republicans keep shooting themselves in the foot.

MADISON - The Democrats have been a party in decline for more than 40 years. That’s not to say they haven’t won an occasional battle in that time, but they’ve been losing the war for that long. It’s been a downward spiral ever since the Great Society era drew to a close soon after the dawning of the 1970s.

Forty years of losing argument after argument about which direction the country should head has had a profound cumulative effect. America is more walled off. More locked up. Armed to the teeth. More militaristic, defended to the point of ridiculous overkill. All largely because we are becoming more unequal by the day. That’s what 40 years of trickle-down economics and crony capitalism and deregulation for deregulation’s sake get you.

In its heyday, the Democratic Party was countrypolitan. It isn’t anymore.

Countrypolitan is a slang term most often associated with music. But it can apply to anything — or anyone — that’s a mix of rural (country) and urban (metropolitan). That’s what the Democratic Party used to be decades ago. It is not countrypolitan today and hasn’t been for quite some time now. The Democrats started losing ground when they stopped appealing to people outside the cities.

The Democrats’ decline will continue until they get serious about exploring why rural and suburban people currently are sticking together to support right-wing values and policies, how they could be persuaded to part company, and how rural and urban interests could be reunited.

The Democratic Party has much to gain and little to lose from such exploration. It can’t sink much lower. But lower- and middle-class Americans in both rural and urban areas stand to gain the most. Policies benefiting them don’t stand much of a chance of becoming the law of the land as long as the vast wealth of a few holds policymakers in such an iron grip.

For there to be a chance of commoner-friendly thinking being reflected in government actions, a new coalition of commoners needs to emerge, one that packs enough punch to stagger the reigning political champion — money. Legions of diligent campaign finance reformers are watching helplessly these days as old safeguards against government corruption are stripped away and the floodgates are opened ever wider, allowing more and more money to flood into elections and lobbying. They are powerless to stop political inequality from breeding still more political inequality.

Growing political inequality then produces greater economic inequality and sustained social inequality. And the more government is seen working for just a few at everyone else’s expense, the more the masses despise government. The more government is despised, the easier it is for a wealthy and well-connected few to control.

This vicious cycle is the 99%’s quandary. And the Democratic Party’s.

Preventing our nation from becoming more stratified, more walled off and more fractured depends on breaking the vicious cycle of political and economic inequality. Today’s Democratic Party appears to be at a loss about how to do it or even what to try. Democrats would do well to start by reacquainting themselves with the forgotten countrypolitan formula that worked so well for them from the 1930s through the 1960s.

MADISON - The answer is asking the right questions.

I distinctly remember a strong independent streak. I remember when there were Republicans who supported abortion rights and Democrats who were anti-abortion. I remember a Republican in a red vest who signed the nation’s first statewide gay rights law more than 30 years ago. I remember a famously frugal Democrat who lampooned wasteful government spending. Now your average politician does whatever wealthy donors want for fear of losing their financial backing and whatever party leaders demand for fear of being punished with a primary election opponent.

How did so many of us come to see teachers as public enemies?Whenever a teacher told my parents I messed up in school, they always took the teacher’s word over mine. Always. Behind every story of a life well lived, there always seems to be the inspiration and guidance of a very special teacher or two. Whatever the war is, if teachers are the enemy, you are fighting for the wrong side.

How come we need so many gates and locks and walls? How’d so many scaredy cats take up residence in the home of the brave?Growing up on the farm, we didn’t have locks on our doors. After landing in Normandy on D-Day and fighting in the Battle of the Bulge and the Battle of Remagen, my dad put down guns and swore he’d never pick one up again. If he heard sounds of trouble in the middle of the night, he’d grab a baseball bat and march into the darkness to restore order. Now we have gated communities with home security systems and video surveillance.

Why have we become so suspicious and fearful of strangers? My mom always had a fresh-baked cake or pie on hand in case someone came calling. Extending hospitality to strangers was a duty. I get why little children are told not to talk to strangers. I don’t get why so many adults think they shouldn’t either.

When and why did we become so quick to judge and eager to condemn others? We’re all human. We all make mistakes. But we grow less and less willing to cut anyone some slack. In his book One Summer: America, 1927 author Bill Bryson wrote there “may never have been another time in the nation’s history when more people disliked more other people from more directions and for less reason.” It’s starting to feel like the 1920s again in that regard.

What happened to neighbors helping neighbors? In my book Blue Jeans in High Places I write about a neighbor who put aside his own work to come to our aid as we struggled to harvest corn in muddy fields, mere weeks after his father hung himself from a rafter in a shed upon learning the bank was foreclosing on the family farm. That kind of manifestation of reverence for the common good seems increasingly hard to find in this age of greed and self-absorption.

How’d we let ourselves get so addicted to entertainment? As our collective hunger to be entertained continues to grow, our thirst for news and knowledge and human interaction is diminishing. For evidence, look no further than the evolution of television programming in America. TV feeds us what we are hungry for. Today’s menu is nothing if not an alarm bell.

What happened to saving for a rainy day, picking up after ourselves and putting things back where we found them? Somewhere along the line, a whole lot of us decided to reject those teachings from our childhood. We want it all, and we want it now. Buy today, pay tomorrow. At the same time, we are growing increasingly disconnected from the land. We don’t see ourselves as guests on this planet, we see ourselves as owners. That arrogance not only threatens Earth, it imperils the human species.

Why and how have so many of us come to feel so helpless in the face of political corruption and economic inequality, and somehow unworthy to be agents of change? Our country has faced impossibly difficult-to-solve problems and mammoth crises many times before, and past generations of Americans consistently rose to the occasion and came up with solutions and brought about a better day. They were less educated than we are, had less money than we do, and had far fewer means of communication. Yet they proved smart enough, showed themselves to be plenty enterprising, and found ways to make their voices heard. Time after time, through the sheer force of will, they made America a better country.

Why not us, why not here, and why not now?

MADISON - Look up the word conservative. Webster’s says the word means “tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions.”

On today’s American political landscape, the people who best fit that definition are those who describe themselves as progressives or liberals. For quite a few decades now, the ones wearing those largely interchangeable labels have been principally devoted to maintaining the status quo. They’ve focused on keeping the 81-year-old Social Security program and 50-year-old Medicare system safe and sound. They’ve tried (quite unsuccessfully) to protect the worker rights established by the 80-year-old National Labor Relations Act and the 77-year-old Fair Labor Standards Act. They resisted changes to the 1933 Glass-Steagall Actregulating banking, only to see the law gutted in 1999, which they believe caused the collapse of the U.S. economy in 2007 and the ensuing Great Recession. Their calls to restore Glass-Steagall’s protective wall between commercial and investment banking have been ignored ever since.

Contemporary progressive or liberal thinking is firmly rooted in the 20th Century. Over the past several decades, the list of new ideas or policy innovations for the 21st Century coming from the left is a terribly short one. Even the signature Democratic policy reform in recent memory – the Affordable Care Act – was borrowed from the right-wing Heritage Foundation and was known as Romneycare in Massachusetts before it became Obamacare nationally.

This is not to say that self-proclaimed conservatives and progressives have swapped places, with conservative forces becoming the engine of innovation for the 21st Century. If today’s progressives seem stuck in the 20th Century, conservatives of this day and age seem bound and determined to return us to the 19th. They not only are intent on rolling back the New Deal reforms enacted on the heels of the Great Depression, but also are working in places like Wisconsin to demolish century-old laws ranging from civil service protections against cronyism and political patronage to prohibitions against corporate political spending that were inspired by the trauma of the economic depression in the 1890s brought on by the excesses of the Gilded Age.

A big problem in American politics today is the absence of true progressive impulses. We have conservatives who call themselves progressives, and retrogressives who call themselves conservatives. The right is determined to turn the clock all the way back to the 1800s in so many ways, and the onslaught-weary left is willing to settle for keeping us in the 1900s. Missing is a forward-looking vision for what America can and should become in the 21st Century and the drive to get us there.

The Supreme Court has imposed a fictitious alternate reality on American democracy, telling us to think of property as part of “we, the people” and see massive sums of money spent on elections by large corporations as “free speech.” We, the people, need to stand up in defense of democracy.

MADISON - Much too much is made of red voters and blue voters and red states and blue states, as if they make up two separate Americas (they do not) and their differences are forever irreconcilable (they are not). But for the moment anyway, there is no denying that partisan divisions have intensified in recent years and that America is more politically polarized than at any time in the last two decades.

Against this backdrop, it can be a challenge to find values and attitudes that unite Americans of every political persuasion. But people of every imaginable stripe stand on common ground when it comes to the broadly shared exasperation with money’s dominion over democracy. Four out of five Republicans agree with four out of five Democrats and a supermajority of independents that the U.S. Supreme Court messed up bad when it ruled in 2010 that unlimited political spending is a constitutional right. Five years after the decision, it is as unpopular than ever. In fact, rather than slowly fading from memory the court’s decision in the Citizens United case is becoming the symbol of how the economy and the government have been rigged in favor of a privileged few at the expense of everyone else.

It’s helpful to remember that Supreme Court rulings come and Supreme Court rulings go. Our nation’s highest court once ruled that people could be property. It took not only a presidential proclamation but a bloody civil war and amendments to the Constitution to relegate that shameful decision to its rightful place in the trash bin of history. Today’s Supreme Court blesses oligarchy with the similarly warped logic that property can be entitled to the constitutional rights of a person. In time Citizens United will be tossed in the dumpster too.

Undoing the harm this ruling has done already and continues to do should not need to involve warfare but could very well require a constitutional amendment if the Supreme Court in the fairly near future does not come to its senses and overturn Citizens United before a 28th amendment is ratified. How this all plays out and how promptly this inevitable outcome is brought about largely depends on legal creativity bordering on hubris.

It’s been written that Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation declaring 3 million slaves free was “based on a highly contentious, thin-ice reading of the presidential war powers.” Ample evidence suggests Lincoln knowingly and dramatically exceeded his legal and constitutional authority, and the nation is so very fortunate that he did.

American democracy needs a modern-day equivalent of the Emancipation Proclamation. Whether in the form of an executive order, or an act of Congress, or measures enacted by states or local communities, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United must be defied. The constitutional right of unlimited political spending invented by the court in its Citizens United decision must be exposed for what it truly is – the legalization of bribery.

Elected representatives of the people anywhere and everywhere should knowingly and dramatically exceed what the Supreme Court says is the limit of their legal authority and declare our government free from its current state of indentured servitude to billionaires and corporations. Whenever justices dictate injustice, legal ingenuity is required. Executive orders should be issued and laws should be passed declaring that giving more than $200 to anyone holding or pursuing public office or any group helping to elect a politician is a bribe and therefore a felony.

In throwing down this gauntlet, the Supreme Court’s warped logic in Citizens United is countered with this alternative reasoning: If you wish to demonstrate your support for politicians, their parties or surrogates, giving $200 is demonstration enough. Giving $200 or less does not distinguish you much from your many fellow citizens who are likewise giving small amounts or the much larger number who give nothing at all. But go past the $200 threshold and that puts you in the top one-quarter of 1% of the population. That makes you stand out, separates you from the crowd, and makes it start looking like you might want more than just the honor of participating in a democracy.

Lincoln-style hubris is needed because we are beyond the pointwhere campaign financing can be reformed. It can’t be reformed because we no longer have campaign finance in America. We have legal bribery and there’s no reforming bribery. It has to be outlawed.

All laws and respect for the rule of law in general are demeaned and ultimately undermined when any law ceases to be rooted in reality. The reality is that Americans – Republicans, Democrats and independents alike – see big political donations for what they are, namely bribes. The law of this land needs to reflect that reality. Instead, the Supreme Court has imposed a fictitious alternate reality on us, ordering us to think of property as part of “we, the people” and see massive sums of money spent on elections as “free speech.” Just as a past court ordered all Americans, including President Lincoln, to accept that people could be regarded as property.

Lincoln defied that court. He was said to be on thin ice legally when he did. The ground held beneath his feet.

In defense of democracy in our time, we need to be willing to stand on what we’re told is thin ice. Two hundred dollars is plenty. Anything more is a bribe.