Tweet
[Welcome editor, Nate Loewentheil, contributor, Andrea Batista Schlesinger of the Drum Major Institute, and Host, Jim Lardner, editor and Senior Fellow at Demos - bevw]
For as long as many of us can remember, progressives have been heaving against the locomotive of the radical right. Now, thanks to an inspiring election and a collapsing economy, we can begin to think about what we’re for instead of what we’re against.
The policy ideas in Thinking Big: Progressive Ideas for a New Era are practical (in the sense of being imaginable within the foreseeable future), but, at the same time, bold and transformative (in the sense of pointing our country down a clearly different road). These are proposals linked, as Nathaniel Loewentheil and Deepak Bhargava write in their introduction, “to a picture of the nation and the world we hope to achieve, a vision that energizes our ideas and builds the political will for meaningful change.”
Here’s a glimpse of what you’ll find in this densely packed little book, available in electronic as well as print form through Berrett-Koehler:
- Andrea Batista Schlesinger and Amy Traub call for passage of the Employee Free Choice Act, both to “restore workers’ power to band together and improve their own lives” and also to get America back into the business of building a large and stable middle class, which “turns out to be the foundation of our wellbeing as families, as communities, and as a nation.”
- Jim Harkness and Alexandra Spieldoch propose a global food security initiative as part of a “renewed commitment to international cooperation.”
- Miles Rapoport and Stuart Comstock-Gay advance a set of democracy-reform proposals designed to “capture the transformative energy of a remarkable political year, and build it into our politics for the long term.”
- Roger Hickey lays out a health care plan that would incidentally “revive faith in the ability of our national government to do big, important things in service of the common good.”
- Van Jones and Jason Walsh propose an environmental jobs initiative that would create whole new industries and enduring infrastructure.
- Dean Baker imagines a responsible and efficient financial sector that would necessarily be a small and not so humongously profitable financial sector.
- Deepak Bhargava and Seth Borgos call for neighbor and worker representation on corporate boards as part of a wide-ranging effort to restore community values to their rightful, central place in our politics.
This book is a project of the Progressive Ideas Network, a loose alliance of advocacy groups and think-and-action tanks working to bring about a new progressive era in the United States.
Let me introduce myself: I’m a senior fellow at Demos (which belongs to the Progressive Ideas Network), and I co-edited the book. So welcome, firepups. Welcome also to Nate Loewentheil of the Roosevelt Institution and Andrea Batista-Schlesinger of the Drum Major Institute, who will be joining us to talk about Thinking Big: Progressive Ideas for a New Era.
128 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Nate and Andrea, Welcome to the Lake.
Jim, Thank you for Hosting today’s Book Salon.
Glad to be here.
Hi Guys.
Nate, Why don’t you tell us about yourself and the Roosevelt Institution.
Sure. My name is Nate Loewentheil; I’m from Baltimore, Maryland, and helped found the Roosevelt Institution just a few years as an undergraduate in college.
Hi Nate, Hi Andrea. Good to have you both here.
How did you come to select this particular group of writers?
The Roosevelt Institution is a national student organization. We work to engage college students in progressive policy through public policy work at the local and state level.
Thanks for having me. Nate, in your piece on public investment, you propose a system of “universal ongoing public education that builds off of and expands our community college structure.” How would that work?
Hi Jane. This group of authors represents a sample of a set of organizations that came together about a year ago for form a new coalition, the Progrsesive Ideas Network.
Hi Nate!
How’d you come up with this collection of authors and issues? Did you gather the people and then have them pick an issue, or was it “here are the issues we’d like to hit — who should be approach to write about them?”
The idea was to create partnerships and strengthen relationships among ‘Idea Sector’ organizations to help bring new ideas to the policy debate and add strength to progressive voices.
I think progressives also need to start addressing the goods that are markets globally that are produced at slave wages or child labor, that are produced without safety regulations where workers losing a digit or a limb is not uncommon, and where the industry is allowed to pour their bronchitis in my kids air and their cancer in my wifes water.
this includes our goods I might add where we shred the tops of mountains contaminating water tables for acres and for generations, where we are forced to work without health care and where some are not payed enough to put healthy food on the table or their kids through college
goods produced with from this kind of industry needs to face a “usage fee” (that’s what I want to call this tariff since the term “tariff” carries too much baggage
And Andrea, I guess you and Cokie Roberts are working opposite sides of the street:
http://www.sj-r.com/opinions_c…..bad-policy
My favorite part:
Care to comment?
Andrea, you call for passage of the Employee Free Choice Act, which would make it easier to organize unions – basically, it’s a majority card-check system. Why is EFCA important? And how do we get 60 votes in the U.S. Senate for that one?
Hi Peter, It was really a mixture of both. We knew we wanted to cover a broad range of topics, and we needed organizations that could combine broad discussions of values with specific policy ideas.
Some of us have thought that President Obama is a pretty conversative, not very progressive politician. How difficult do you think it will be to move him in a more progressive direction?
I also think a really big idea would be to make union membership the default by law and workers would have to vote themselves out of a union rather then the other way around
I just wanted to take a moment to acknowledge Nate’s role in this. He is a year out of college, and managed to turn this book project into reality, corralling (sp?) lots of busy and cranky institutional heads along the way. We have a talented young leader and thinker on our hands here.
Welcome to FDL Nate, Andrea and Jim.
I have not had a chance to read the book but based on the intor may I say
Given the recent reports that banks receiving bail-out funds have used some of those funds to lobby against EFCA; given the recent reports of how the lack of funding for the FDA led to folks being poisoned by by eating peanut butter products; given the recent reports of mercury being in high-fructose corn syrup; given the number ond levels of theft reported in the financial industry where the insiders knew that something illegal was most likely going on, just not the insider trading they imagined; are we potentially in a perfect storm of occurrences that might allow for the progressive agenda to at least advance somewhat?
I spent the weekend at my parents’ home, where my dad blamed the unions for the current situation of Detroit. I knew before how powerful the corporate lobby has been in changing our understanding of unions – but, it’s moments like those that crystallize it.
For example, we specifically did not address foreign policy because none of the groups involved had the right kind of depth on the topic.
But the organizations of the book–Looking Ahead, Realizing Values and Taking Action–was a very conscious effort to provide our perspective on what Progressive needs to be doing during the current political moment–combining all three approaches to change.
I think that we would be making a mistake if we viewed the EFCA battle as simply one of getting to 60 votes. Now is a moment to change/solidify hearts and minds around the importance of labor as a counterveilling force to corporate power in our economy. I hope that President Obama not only signs a bill when it gets to him, but actually gets on the road and uses the power of his bully pulpit to make the case for why unions are important.
I think Obama is going to slowly push in a progressive direction. I honestly believe he is doing his best in a difficult political environment and keeping very close to the pulse of the American people. I have been thinking a lot about his approach teh last month–did he mess up with this whole bipartisan thing, or was it strategic? where is going to move?–And I think Frank Rich’s column today is right on: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02……html?_r=1
I think Cokie is suffering a bit of conventional wisdomitis. Such arguments are a bit of a bore. Millions of Americans would jump at the chance. Now is EXACTLY the moment to do what the organized corporate lobby does NOT want. I believe it’s them suffering the public relations nightmare.
Still, guaranteed retirement accounts, a clean energy corps, community representation on corporate boards – I don’t hear too many people in Washington or MSNBC or the News Hour talking about these things. What can folks out here do to change the conversation “in there”?
I definitely think we’re close to the perfect storm, but it will still take time to push a progressive agenda. All of teh comparisons to FDR and the 100 Days are deceptive in this way; Government is so much larger, so much more complicated, with so many more players and interest groups, that it is essentially impossible to move legislation as quickly.
I think what we need to do to help the process is highlight progressive victories as they do happen and discuss them in terms of the values they highlight. For example, the SCHIP bill covered immigrant children; that was a huge victory that sets the stage for future progressive changes.
Thanks, Andrea.
The emphasis on values — care of your neighbor, democracy as a value, etc. — is a great re-framing of the debate. As a progressive pastor, the notion that the right has a monopoly on “values” disgusts me, and I’m glad to see this getting addressed.
Nate, in your piece on public investment, you outline a “Get on the Bus” initiative. Buses have a bad rep – old, slow technology. Why invest in buses? Can they be much different?
I’ll second that. I know Nate and he is an impressive organizer, energetic and very smart.
Jim, that’s a good question. The conventional answer would be to write to Congress, make phone calls, pressure the Federal government, etc. I think that’s one way to go. But I also think there’s a lot of incredibly important work to be done at the local level. DMI is a great example of a group that has a national impact with a great deal of focus in a specific place–in this case, New York City. The Federal government looks to states and cities for examples of successful programs, and there’s plenty that can be done to further a progressive agenda at the local level. This is particularly true because of all of the money that is about to flow from the Federal government to states and cities–we need to make sure that money is targeted in useful ways.
I think the questions of whether Obama is a progressive President, and whether now is the perfect moment in which to advance a progressive agenda, are related. I do think Obama believes that government can play a positive role in people’s lives. I believe that he is willing to take on the flawed thinking that guides the conservative right, as he showed in his masterful press conference last week in taking on tax cuts. I think that he will appoint competent agency heads who will willingly accept their charge. And we will see more from them in the next few weeks on a new regulatory framework. Whether all of these things lead to a majority of American people identifying with a progressive approach to government depends as much on those steps as it does on his — and our — willingness to organize not just around those policy victories, but a broader commitment to changing the way power is allocated in our politics and policy. It’s on us as much as it is on him.
Andrea, how did the 2008 election change life at the Drum Major Institute. What are some of your priorities of the moment?
Absolutely, Peter. We spent a lot of time thinking through what values to emphasize, and throughout the books we really emphasize the notion of community and democracy; I think these are pretty good places to start. Pulling on the work of the Center for Community Change, I think we need to start pulling the general moral tone of the country away from individualism and towards a sense of interdependence and shared fate.
Hi Jim, my Get on the Bus initiative came from a belief that we need to both be thinking big but also taking small steps that build towards the future. Improving the image of public transportation in this country is critical if we hope to begin limiting dependence on individual motor vehicles.
That sounds like something a president can help do.
Well, Jim, let me first say that this book salon is my final act as ED of DMI… at least for the next several months. I begin a leave of absence on Monday to do big ideas and strategy for Mayor Bloomberg’s re-election campaign. But… as far as DMI goes, I’d say that we the elections of 2008 were exciting because we saw a concerted effort to speak to middle-class Americans about how their interests were best represented by a progressive agenda. We’ve been working on that – and in those words – for a long time, back when the left had essentially ceded the middle class to the right, or just pandered to them (ala Third Way).
One of my concerns with the stimulus bill is that all of this infrastructure spending is going in to building new roads–which really just reinforces (in many senses) the existing transportation system–a system that is unsustainable and encourages sprawl. Part of the problem is that the environmental movement is focused on green jobs (for good reason) and is unwilling to bring these kinds of discussions to the table.
But right now we are focused on three things: going local. SO much attention is on DC, but a lot of the questions that matter to us will be decided at the local level. So we will be busy on our work to advance a progressive urban agenda. Secondly, we’ve worked for a long time on highlighting and lifting up the stories of progressive policies that are working, right now, to improve lives. We will be working throughout the country to tell those stories and inspire replication. And, lastly, we are training young people from diverse communities to enter policy careers. We need new blood in government!
What do you mean – unwilling to bring what kind of discussions to the table?
I would be interested from hearing from any one else on teh chat about their views on Obama presidency to date–what is he thinking? where is he headed? was the effort at bipartisanship sincere or a political stratagem to embarrass the Republicans?
One of the biggest obstacles I see to advancing the kind of “thinking big” agenda described in this book are the Blue Dogs like Jim Cooper of Tennessee. The title alone will cause the Blue Dogs’ teeth to set on edge — “big govt is the problem because it runs up a huge debt — we can’t afford all these programs!”
That said, I think the “community and democracy” emphasis is the best way to pivot the discussion against the Blue Dogs. “We’re a nation that takes care of each other. In the military, folks say they never want to leave their injured buddy behind. After a disaster, neighbors reach out to care for each other without a second thought. This is the kind of “thinking big” that will make a real difference in the world . . .”
I don’t know that this will convert folks like the Blue Dogs, but it *will* reach some of their constituents.
I also think, quite frankly, that one way to respond to the Blue Dogs is to positin them as fundamentally political and unconcerned with the actual impact of their policies.
Sorry, that was vague. I think that teh stimulus bill encourages and builds upon a transportation system geared towards cars and suburbs–separating where people live and work. This, as a pattern of development in a broad sense, is a huge problem in terms of climate change–not just driving to work, but the general inefficiency of suburban lifestyles. The infrastructure bill throws tons of money at building new roads, but there is not discussion of what kinds of roads, where they lead, etc. This is because the environmental movement in general is getting strongly behind green jobs, and by extension, the labor movement, which was strongly in favor of the stimulus package. So no large environmental organizations were pointing out this aspect of the stimulus package for political reasons.
The bipartisanship pitch seems kind of odd for sure, considering what the other party has come to. In the campaign, though, Obama linked the idea of reaching “across the aisle” to a twin effort to subdue the influence of wealthy and powerful. Where has that gone? (Serious question.)
I remember listening to Harold Ford at Kos make excuses for his record on issues like the bankruptcy bill by saying – well, hey, I had to get elected in Tennessee. It was as if he had no understanding that votes like the bankruptcy bill would actually have an impact on people’s lives. We need to stay focused on the impact of policy on lives to neutralize the political inside baseball that lets people off of the hook for bad ideas because supposedly it is only those ideas that will lead to their electoral victory.
Great point, Peter. I think Chris Hayes’ article in The Nation this week does a great job of undermining the Blue Dogs by letting them speak in their own voice about their ideology. For example, when it comes to the stimulus package, they are worried about debt, but when it came to the TARP package, Jim Cooper told Chris that he believed “it was an emergency.” As if then it was an emergency and now we’re in the clear. See http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090302/hayes
Agreed.
“Blue Dogs, you’re not opposed to motherhood, apple pie, and communities of people bonding together, are you?”
Or, even, Blue Dogs, you’re not against what it will take for us to educate our children, improve our health care, empower our workers, are you?
I can’t say for sure, Jim, but I would say that the embarrassment over the tax problems (mostly because his appointees earned so much money after leaving government) did not help.
To me it seems really important for the president and others to counter this mindless endless assault on government and “spending.” To remind us of some of the hugely important things that government has done for us in the past, and to point out that public spending, like private spending, can be good or bad depending where the money goes.
I think it’s terrific that the President insisted on bipartisanship. I think the outcome was revelatory, and judging by opinion polls, BHO won this round. Though if you listen to people like Sirota, we will soon see a bipartisan populism, with GOPers voting with progressive Dems against TARP, TARP 2 and its future descendents.
I think it started out sincere, but the GOP took “bipartisanship” to mean the same thing it’s meant over the last eight years: “You Dems agree with what we’re proposing, and we’ll call it bipartisan.”
For that matter, for the last two years the GOP has said “this is bipartisan” when only Joe Lieberman voted with them. Thus, I’d say their understanding of the term is a bit skewed.
Great point, Jim. We’ve got those free market advocates where we want them. They can hardly juxtapose the ‘bad’ government spending with all of the brilliant investing of the free market right now–it’s a critical time to drive this message home.
Christy has a great post up next door along those lines: “And What Has the Government Ever Given to Us?“
[Hint: Monty Python.]
Andrea, you’re totally against TARP? Because it was badly intentioned or badly executed? I wonder who would have done a better job–I think we’re confronting enormous uncertainy and unknowns, and that it was important that government come up with some response. The response may look bad in retrospect, but I am not so sure it absolutely could have been done better. I’m open to argument, but the knee-jerk reaction worries me…
I guess I’m hearing some sentiment here for a return to the eloquence that our president is said to have shelved lately in favor of a more meat-and-potatoes approach to the art of persuasion.
Aloha, Andrea, Nate and Jim! Mahalo for taking the time to spend it here at the Lake…!
Andrea… …where my dad blamed the unions for the current situation of Detroit.
I work for a general contractor that constantly bemoans the Carpenters’, Electricians’, Plumbers’ unions, ad nauseum… It’s a shame that he despises their hard earned pay levels…
Nate, Do you tackle the current Housing crisis in your book…?
Well, are you accusing me of knee-jerkism after I called you the best of the next generation? Jeez. Here’s our take: http://www.themiddleclass.org/…..-act-2008. Our critique was quite reasonable, I think: if the problem is fundamental instability in the economy provoked by the collapse of our housing market, let’s deal with the housing market.
Beautiful verse over there. A few nights ago I heard Jon Stewart in a similar vein responding to some of the Republican attacks on elements of the stimulus bill. It was absolutely outrageous, he said, for the bill to include spending on regulatory agencies. He then said he was going to take a break for lunch – a peanut butter and Chinese toy sandwich.
Glad to be there.
Dean Baker’s chapter (From Financial Crisis to Opportunity) talks about financial re-regulation, but we don’t tackle the housing crisis head on.
Dean proposes a formula to let people remain in their homes as renters, regardless of their ability to afford a modified mortgtage.
But that being said, Seth Borgos from the Center for Community Change has a great chapter on how to incorporate ‘community values’ in to our public policy, for example through ‘Stakeholder capitalism’ which puts community members and workers on to corporate boards.
I think Obama’s trying to figure out where to be eloquent and where to be meat-and-potatoes. He/Axelrod/Rahm seem to be worried about the GOP slam that all Obama can do is give a fancy speech, so some of the meat-and-potatoes is trying to push back against that.
His speech in Springfield at the Lincoln banquet was quite eloquent, on precisely the kind of “community values” things we’ve gotten into here, and I think Obama needs more of it even as he hits the details and policy stuff.
I guess my concern is that I don’t really know enough about the structure of our financial system to be sure we don’t need to bail out banks. I don’t think there has been enough conversation about the way in which the banks are not just an industry–they are an integral part of the infrastructure of our economy.
Part of the problem with teh lack of oversight of the hedge funds, for example, is that through their investment relationships with traditional banks, they became part of this infrastructure (in particular, the creation of money through lending) and yet went unrecognized as such.
This is not my nature, being from Brooklyn and all, but I think that the President is hitting the right notes. With the exception of momentarily forgetting that we shouldn’t have different standards for cabinet appointments and regular people, he’s been doing a good job.
One thing I wanted to see were more illustrations sooner of what the stimulus money would pay for. I could see Obama putting his incredible video team to work showing the projects that could both employ people and improve our schools, roads, transit systems, etc. This would have been powerful.
That is an awesome idea. Have people gone to the new whitehouse.gov? It’s amazing–an incredible portal for people to see their government and potentially powerful tool is well used.
I will take the opportunity to plug a Demos report on this subject, which I wrote. It’s called “Beyond the Mortgage Meltdown” – available at http://www.demos.org/pubs/housingpaper.pdf
But one of my concerns is that the government won’t be able to report on the effects of the stimulus package in any concrete way (apart from macroeconomic indicators). There is nothing in place to measure actual job creation or anything like that–no real system for tracking the impact of the dollars.
I wonder if people feel equipped/inspired to talk about the big ideas? So much of the coverage of and conversation about DC is on the politics. Do we think there are enough spaces to have the conversations that Thinking Big attempts to provoke?
This is where pushing the story from the bottom up will be critical.
Here in metro KC, we’ve been hearing warnings from every local school system about the coming major budget problems they are facing. Once the details of the stimulus plan shake out, and schools figure out what kind of help they will be able to expect from both the federal and state governments, we need to make sure that folks understand the role that the stimulus package had in preserving educational opportunities.
The effects of these stimulus dollars will be immediate and easily measurable. “We have already announced plans to cut XX positions for next year, but now we’ll be able to bring back YY of those people thanks to this package.”
Put enough stories like this together, and folks will start to recognize that there is real meat to this stimulus package.
Well a good part of the political discussion is needed in order to change the theme form the Reagan years “Government is the problem” and re-directing it back to the days where there is a recognition that government has a valid, strong role and can be a help.
So I guess it needs to be a two prong idea, of changing the political discussion by showing how and why the changes are needed and can be help to all.
It would be great to get mayors and governors telling these stories and tracking these results.
Great point, Peter. There is definitely a huge role at the local level for telling sucess stories–we may not be able to get an exact count, but we can show how much it is helping real communities around the country.
I think one way to solve this problem is something I said earlier about showing how and where legislative victories drive larger value changes. Seth Borgos from Center for Community Change has been pushing this idea–when we have a victory, let’s talk about it in terms of the bigger ideas and broader changes it presages.
Clearly no, there aren’t. How do we create more such spaces?
Well, I think it’s not just about the spaces but about the discipline to have those conversations. I struggle throughout the day not to get sucked into the non-stop coverage of President Obama’s every move. (He laces his shoes, he eats french fries on the plane, etc.). I think that as technology changes, we will have to insist on taking the time to reflect. For me, that’s what this book is about. Taking the time to ask bigger questions that don’t respond just to the political moment. ANd that’s why people should buy it!
Mahalo, Jim! I like what one of the true Progressive Reps in our Congress, Marcy Kaptur, has for an answer to the mortgage crisis… ‘Squat’…! ;-)
I know several superintendents who will be more than happy to be telling that kind of story — including at least one hard-core republican. He and I were talking about the stimulus package, and when I brought up some of the comments made by the GOP, he just shook his head.
Made me think that if this guy could revoke a few high school diplomas for members of congress, he’d be a very happy camper.
Hey, Andrea. I really like the work DMI does. I actually put some lunch money where my mouth is and bought a ticket to last year’s benefit…
I read recently that you’ve taken a leave to work for a local campaign. How do you see advocacy of scalable city-based initiatives working in that setting?
I would note that Andrea has done some really important thinking about the way that technology changes our methods of thinking and debate–we need to be careful to create space not only in the public sphere but in our own lives to think about broader issues than OBama’s consumption of french fries (or media spin, or daily legislation, etc).
Who, specifically, do you see this book aimed at? Progressives who are too caught up in their little slice of the big picture? Moderates who are trying to find a new path though the sound-bite, he said/she said political discourse? Conservatives who need to have their stereotypes of progressives (”they hate America!”) challenged?
I think my intention, for what it’s worth, was to target the progressive movement and encourage them to think more in terms of values. I really worry that we don’t have a broad vision for teh future of the country, the next great revision of the social contract, and we won’t get there unless organizations and thinkers (especially those in think tanks) start spending some time considering big questions. But we also need to keep those people connected to communities–which is why the Center for Community Change’s work was so central to the book.
Hi Julia. Thanks so much for supporting the work of DMI!
Well, I see my next steps in the campaign as including scouring the country for innovative model policies and figuring out what can be replicated in my hometown. I also think that there are many innovative things that NYC is doing that deserve more attention. Either way, I think it’s important for progressive policy folks to push their agenda within campaigns and government, as well as from the outside. Did that answer your question, Julia?
…Conservatives who need to have their stereotypes of progressives (”they hate America!”) challenged?
Amen, Peterr! You’re always short and sweet… I’m sure your flock appreciates it…! ;-)
There are a lot of ideas in this book. Nate or Andrea, do you see any as door-openers – relatively achievable steps that can smooth the way to more difficult ones?
Well, clearly we view the EMployee Free Choice Act as a door-opener that could pave the way to policies that prioritize workers over corporate profits.
Unions can have huge political impact, I’ve read. John Kerry trounced George Bush among union members in 2004; I believe he even got most of the votes of union members with Republican views on gun control and gay marriage etc.
I would go back to your point earlier, Jim, which is changing the debate about government investment. New bridges and schools will go a long way towards changing our view of government.
I think there’s also a huge opportunity for us to change the tone of our international presence, and this is an issue that Jim Harkness addresses eloquently in his chapter. Progressives need to start owning the idea of ‘re-engagement with the global community.’ This is particularly true because the financial crisis is bigger than the US–its really global.
You lost me there Andrea.
Mayor Bloomberg had his two terms, let him step aside and someone else take the lead. There are plenty of competent people around. He has defied the will of the people who voted for term limits.
Shame on you for supporting a billionaire who brought the RNC to NYC and has set his police force on the people in every demonstration in the last 8 years.
Shame on you.
One that Demos believes in fervently is election day registration – EDR. Several states have recently adopted it, and it made a significant difference in 2008, bringing out many new voters in North Carolina, for example.
I was wondering which of the PlanNYC initiatives you see as having the best chance to go national.
In Andrea’s defense, Mayor Bloomberg is going to win the NY election and needs progressive voices to counsel him. Andrea is a fierce advocate for working and middle class people and is going to bring enormous energy and a critical perspective to the administration.
The inability of the left to understand how power works has astounded me over the last two weeks. I’d prefer not to make this conversation about my next steps, and instead focus on this book. But thanks for your comments. Your advice is quite clear and strategic: progressives should sit on their hands and not try to shape the next mayoralty. Very constructive.
Next question?
I think the debate over the stimulus bill is only a foretaste of the difficulty that progressives will face in advancing this kind of agenda. The White House appeared anxious to ditch progressive elements of the program at the slightest sense of GOP outrage, yet got little if anything in return.
I don’t see much here that would be a door-opener and “relatively achievable” with the current attitudes in DC.
Does anyone have a less gloomy view of the stimulus outcome?
Mark Shields made the point the other night that most of the bill at least directs money to ordinary people rather than corporations.
Well I think you’re already seeing other cities exploring congestion pricing as a way of investing in transit and getting people out of their cars. While it hasn’t happened in NYC, I think it’s reflective of the kind of policies that big cities will have to explore to reduce their footprint.
I try not to be of the “It’s all part of Obama’s grand plan” school of thought, as I don’t find it too productive, but I do think the Republicans came out of this debate looking foolish and I do think Obama plans to move forward with an aggressive agenda.
For example, the bill (despite cuts) still vastly expanded spending on transportation and education. It’s always difficult to cut back such spending in the future, and so I think we could see this bill as laying important groundwork for the future.
I recently saw Karen Kornbluh, former Policy Director for Obama, give a talk in Washington, and she discussed the difference between chronic problems and acute problems that have to be addressed by Obama. I think the stimulus package addresses the acute problem–financial crisis–most directly, but also sets the stage for some important reforms.
That was a very interesting moment in NY when the political debate seemed to have room for something like “congestion pricing.” Do you see any more such moments brewing?
I also think that our expectations for Obama were so high that we were inevitably going to be disappointed–in fairness, he did just pass an enormous spending package a month in to office, and indications are that he plans to move forward immediately on other initiatives.
It’s not the outcome, but the process.
Obama, it strikes me, was more concerned with passing something — anything — by consensus as opposed to passing a bill that has the best chance of doing the most to help the economy. The GOP, knowing this, used it against him relentlessly to water the bill down, stripping out things they hated and inserting more and more tax cuts. The desire for consensus gave the GOP huge leverage, and they used it to great effect — then voted against the whole thing anyway.
What worries me is whether this will become the new pattern for the next four years.
As well as the high expectations, a lot of folks projected their own desires and beliefs onto Obama helping to create the unrealistic expectations
It occurs to me that not everyone may be familiar withPlanNYC.
Briefly, it’s a local government initiative here in New York for things like open space, clean water, housing, transportation, air quality and green programs (one of the goals is to plant a million trees here in the city)
Great point. Part of the reason I shy away from the “Obama can do no wrong” narrative is that he is an absolutely masterful politician; he managed to convince both progressives and moderates that he was firmly on our side.
Good point, Peter. I would point to the transition process as a good example of this, in some ways. He opened up government to ideas (change.gov) but in reality none of those ideas will go anywhere–he convinced us all that we were having input, but really it was somewhat superficial. Access does not equal influence.
Which brings us back to Jim’s question @ 88.
What do you see as a door-opener and a relatively achievable next initiative?
The GOP has been screaming and distorting EFCA for quite a while, so that’s not going to be it.
Well, we kind of know what’s coming next – more elaboration on the bank bailout and a foreclosure-prevention plan. Both very important. But then what? Anyone have any thoughts or insights on what should be and/or are likely to be the early big domestic policy initiatives with a long-term arc?
I am curious if the plan to move forward with the WTC freedom tower will be scraped in light of the fact that there is an over abundance of commercial space in Manhattan and there is an absence of affordable housing. Why rebuild the WTC in light of the depression wall street brought upon us?
There won’t be any initiatives because when the light is shone on the mess in the banks there economy will totally collapse. That seems to be inevitable.
Real estate values will all sink to less than half of what they are now, all the investment in real estate will be worthless.
I would look towards green jobs and energy investment.
I would be excited if it was about our energy grid.
I am worried that it will be on social security (”entitlement”) reform.
Yeah, the “entitlement reform” is the one that seems to be lurking in the background. I saw a number of articles where the discussion was that was one of the reasons for Gregg at Commerce, to be a front/fall-guy on that.
It seems to be there are all sorts of education initiatives that are critical, would create jobs, and could be long term….schools could even take steps to assure student health….and nutrition. Make a parent-school alliance again.
Systemically, it would make sense for health care to be the early big policy thing, as it is intimately tied in with a lot of the social and economic pressures that make the current mess so problematic.
Politically, though, it’s a huge hurdle to take on, and not at all a door-opener. My guess would be that Obama will look for something on which he can get real GOP cooperation, to show that bipartisanship *is* possible — which means it will be something small, something innocuous, and something more about optics than substance.
If there’s substance to the program, it will be controversial, and I don’t see the WH wanting to double down on controversy right now.
Entitlement reform – there’s a deflating prospect. In one blow, that would take a lot of the excitement and hope out of our new era.
I’m late, I’m late, for a very important date! Been skimming comments. You three are really fast at the keyboard!!
Some of us have antiquated Dem infrastructure in our cities and states. Okay, in our nation as well.
How do “civilians” bestir dinosaurs into action? If this is outlined in your book, please forgive. Haven’t seen it yet. I’ll take my answer offline, as they say.
We dodged a bullet on public transportation with the stimulus package funding transit initiatives over the next two years. What would help a lot would be connecting the city to the mainland for freight shipping by train – right now pretty much everything that comes to the city and Long Island comes by truck because our local transportation authority is protecting Jersey ports.
Yea, Van Jones and Nate!
Hi Barbara. Thanks for joining. I think progressives need to start taking on conservative democrats at the local level–particularly in primaries. I think that’s basically the only way to shift power structures. Gloria Totten at Progressive Majority is doing great work on that.
Agreed. By the way, but not sure if you saw this piece I co-wrote with REp. Nadler on L.A.’s clean trucks program:
http://www.drummajorinstitute……hp?ID=6892
Another reason to lift up stories of what works. L.A. is showing that it’s possible to both improve the quality of jobs and the air. This is the kind of thinking we need from our cities, and from DC.
As we come to the end of this lively Book Salon,
Nate, Andrea, Jim, Thank you very much for stopping by the Lake and spending the afternoon discussing your new book and progressive ideas.
Jim, Thank you for Hosting today’s Book Salon.
Everyone, if you haven’t bought the book yet, here is a link.
Thanks all.
Thank you, Beverly. This was great fun. And thanks to everyone who stopped by to ask questions and share their ideas. I’m really grateful.
Likewise. Bye.
What Bev said.
And Andrea, good luck with your new job. Shaping the mayorality of NYC will be a herculean task.
The problem is that the Obama Administration will be a Brake on the Progressive Movement.
As a general rule of thumb … If a CNN viewer thinks something is too liberal, Obama will not favor it.
Obama seems constitutionally averse to leaving the center. When he told a liberal crowd in California that some Americans cling to their guns and faith, he was scamming the audience. He himself is pro gun and pro faith and pro-taxpayer funding of religious activities. He won’t even say the recipients can’t discriminate against other religions. Obama will be a four year rolling disappointement to Progressives.
The only chance the Progressives have is to obstruct his center tendencies – and side with Republicans when he is fearful of moving off center.
Obama is very responsive to pressure. Time to play Progressive Hardball. An immediate way is for his 10 million mailing list to bail on him. Let him try to win back Progressives.