The progressive platform
For a while now I've been chafing at the lack of a conceptual model for the progressive platform. The conservatives have one: values. Now, you may not much like their values but you have to admit you know what they are, and therefor you know how they're going to act on things.
So, what? The progressives lack values? The obvious answer is no. The not-so-obvious problem is that we take the view that the world is not an simple place which can be easily reduced to a bullet list of "values," so we think it's below us to do so. This completely misses a major point in communications: if you can't establish a clear, simple underlying set off principles you're going to have to rely on your audience's ability to compose all your points into the grander message on their own. And trying to do this with everything it takes to run a country is darn near impossible.
Hence the progressives' chronically muddled message. Take for example the defense of gay marriage. Generally, progressives support this idea. Explaining why it's a good idea involves discussions of the 14th amendment, regulation and reconciliation of interstate laws, the legal definition of marriage, rights and benefits tied to that definition, and parsing state and federal jurisdiction. On the one hand, these arguments are correct and do a good, detailed job of justifying the issue. On the other hand, it doesn't play in Peoria.
So a lot of progressives say, That gay marriage thing is a liability and let's just get rid of it. I say, It's a perfect opportunity to demonstrate that we have principles. The principle in question is Justice. Justice for all and equality before the law. Use it as a platform. Show that we have principles and we never waver from them, even when it's difficult. Make the other side try to argue against Justice instead of a confused, detail-ridden argument.
So, here's the idea that I'm working on: to propose* a set of principles that define the progressive platform. I'd like to cull it down to five (the mind likes odd numbers, and five is something that people can easily memorize), but for now my working model is as follows.
[EDIT: I nearly forgot to credit the following for getting me out of my mental armchair and committing this to real live electrons:
* When I say propose, I mean to the handful of people who regularly read this. I have no idea where it's going, except that if I bother to actually write this stuff down and put it an at least minorly public view, it'll make me think through it rather than just toy with it in my mind during my bus ride or as I'm falling asleep.
** Yes, I actually think about these things. And yes, I want it to not just be some abstract mental exercise for Blaque. And no, I have no idea how that's going to happen. And most especially no, I'm not going to run for office.
So, what? The progressives lack values? The obvious answer is no. The not-so-obvious problem is that we take the view that the world is not an simple place which can be easily reduced to a bullet list of "values," so we think it's below us to do so. This completely misses a major point in communications: if you can't establish a clear, simple underlying set off principles you're going to have to rely on your audience's ability to compose all your points into the grander message on their own. And trying to do this with everything it takes to run a country is darn near impossible.
Hence the progressives' chronically muddled message. Take for example the defense of gay marriage. Generally, progressives support this idea. Explaining why it's a good idea involves discussions of the 14th amendment, regulation and reconciliation of interstate laws, the legal definition of marriage, rights and benefits tied to that definition, and parsing state and federal jurisdiction. On the one hand, these arguments are correct and do a good, detailed job of justifying the issue. On the other hand, it doesn't play in Peoria.
So a lot of progressives say, That gay marriage thing is a liability and let's just get rid of it. I say, It's a perfect opportunity to demonstrate that we have principles. The principle in question is Justice. Justice for all and equality before the law. Use it as a platform. Show that we have principles and we never waver from them, even when it's difficult. Make the other side try to argue against Justice instead of a confused, detail-ridden argument.
So, here's the idea that I'm working on: to propose* a set of principles that define the progressive platform. I'd like to cull it down to five (the mind likes odd numbers, and five is something that people can easily memorize), but for now my working model is as follows.
- Heritage
- Honor
- Liberty
- Security
- Community
- Justice
[EDIT: I nearly forgot to credit the following for getting me out of my mental armchair and committing this to real live electrons:
- a couple of conversations with xacto;
- a book he lent me; and
- K's amazing feats of dedication in confronting the aftermath of Rita and our current abject failure to care for own infrastructure.
* When I say propose, I mean to the handful of people who regularly read this. I have no idea where it's going, except that if I bother to actually write this stuff down and put it an at least minorly public view, it'll make me think through it rather than just toy with it in my mind during my bus ride or as I'm falling asleep.
** Yes, I actually think about these things. And yes, I want it to not just be some abstract mental exercise for Blaque. And no, I have no idea how that's going to happen. And most especially no, I'm not going to run for office.