"Centrist Progressive" tries to bash Democratic Socialism. Fails epically.

[DetlefK]

TL;DR
Government can't do anything right, which is why each city should become a city-state unto itself.



https://www.thedailybeast.com/hey-democratic-socialists-more-big-government-wont-fix-what-ails-us?ref=home

Don’t look to Washington to remake American society from the top down. And don’t assume that real political change can only come through massive expansions of federal power.

Yet many young progressives are falling into that trap. Beguiled by the radical ring of “democratic socialism,” they are pushing an unabashedly statist agenda—nationalized health care, “free” college tuition, federally guaranteed incomes and jobs, and heavy-handed regulation of private enterprise. Only with a “bold” program of centralizing power, they insist, can Democrats forge new majorities and return to power.

Oh Yes, because who wants a healthcare-system that's equal in quality but cheaper?
Who wants an education-system that's equal in quality but cheaper?
Who wants an education-system that gives brillant and transformative people the opportunity to be brillant and transformative, even if they are born poor?
Who wants minimum-wage?
Who wants a stable economic baseline against the tides of capitalism?
Who wants to regulate a capitalist system that is concentrating economic power in the hands of few?

Who wants to take the centralized power away from the oligarchs, billionaires and lobbyists and their bought lackeys and put the centralized power into the hands of elected and accountable officials?

Such suggestions WILL NOT attract voters.

For one thing, it comes with a stupendous price tag—at least $42 trillion over 10 years, according to one plausible estimate.

If you don't count the savings.

At a time when the federal government barely seems capable of conducting routine business, charging it with the sweeping transformation of our economy and society is a pipe dream. The problem isn’t just partisan paralysis, it’s that Washington’s governance model—hierarchical, rule-bound and controlling rather than collaborative—is obsolete in the digital age.

Trump and record-breaking republican obstructionism and filibusters. Dude, why can't you say out loud what you are talking about?

Katz and Nowak highlight “networked governance” that taps a broad array of civic actors—including universities, philanthropies, non-profits, and business groups as well as multiple local jurisdictions—to get things done. Local knowledge, cross-sector collaboration and unlocking private capital are key to the New Localism’s success.

Multi-billion dollar business-interests vs city-hall. Who would win?

Most obvious is the political impasse in Washington. The inability of our national leaders to forge consensus or compromise, especially on the most urgent challenges facing the country, has given rise to a new truism: the more dogmatic and tribalized our politics, the less productive our federal government.

And rather than trying to create a political culture NOT rife with partisan strife, it's better to turn against the concept of centralized government, because government can't do anything right.

What’s more, Washington is dead broke. Economic growth no longer generates a fiscal dividend that can be used to launch new public initiatives. That’s because the cost of maintaining the government’s cumulative commitments exceeds expected tax revenues.

Dude. Public debt is not a problem.

What these new economic units or “city states” need from Washington is not stovepiped programs, micro-prescription and standardized solutions, but more flexibility and resources to repair our economy and social fabric from the ground up.

Rather than emulate European-style statism, U.S. progressives should offer voters an indigenous and decentralized vision for effecting radical change. By driving decisions closer to the people, going local would buttress participatory democracy and help progressives remove the taint of elitism that hobbles them in middle America.

Ok, the problem is not that the US is divided into 50 States where each State has it's own laws and programs, not caring about the needs of the nation at large.
The problem is that US is not divided into EVEN MORE territories with contradicting laws.

How are the people of "middle America" supposed to switch from a policy driven by their need to "own the libruls" to a world-view where they listen and ponder the serious possibility that they have been wrong and that the progressives have been right all along?

[yardwork]

1. You're arguing with a Republican.

[George Eliot]

2. Statism again? US richest country on planet Earth.

That's an old argument. Honestly, why don't people get it? It is disgusting. I'm sorry but the deplorables really are. First time I've said it.

Will Marshall is president and founder of the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), a centrist political think tank. Is anybody else sick of centrists appropriating words fraudulently?

[Garrett78]

3. What should and shouldn't be within the purview of the federal government.

There's this paragraph:

...they are pushing an unabashedly statist agenda—nationalized health care, “free” college tuition, federally guaranteed incomes and jobs, and heavy-handed regulation of private enterprise. Only with a “bold” program of centralizing power, they insist, can Democrats forge new majorities and return to power.

And then there's this one toward the end:

This isn’t a matter of eviscerating the federal government, as conservatives would like. Washington must continue to do what it is best suited to do: set fiscal and monetary policy; defend civil rights and liberties; make rules for immigration, environmental protection, and other cross-border issues, and take the lead on diplomacy and defense.

The author doesn't explain why the federal government is not suited to address health care and college tuition, while it is suited to address those other concerns.

As for "guaranteed incomes and jobs," is he talking about the minimum wage? Or is he talking about a universal basic income? Is he opposed to, say, a federal green jobs program? Wouldn't that be one way for Washington to address climate change, while at the same time providing employment to veterans and others?

And what "heavy-handed regulation" does he have in mind exactly? Some examples would be good.

[George Eliot]

16. Good points and analysis.

His points are centrist. They are what Democrats have always supported. But words have meanings. Democrats usurped "liberal" and now are usurping "progressive." As a progressive, I take umbrage. No one needs to tell me what I think. As for minimum wage - we've always had it and Democrats supported it. But the percentage of the amount of the increase declined. Also, years following Reagan certainly didn't keep up with inflation. Regarding healthcare, we are commensurate with third world countries.

These are exactly the distinctions between liberal centrists and progressives. Even college tuition and student loans have become profits for business and that isn't even centrist but extreme right. And progressives made that an issue in 2016 as well.

Words matter.

[SkyDancer]

4. Anybody who is arguing against single payer

health care at this point is either a troll or a Republican.

I'm getting really sick & tired of these shills standing in the way of progress & who are more concerned with cost than people's lives which speaks volumes of just how greedy and selfish these ass clowns are.

It's disgusting.

Also, I am getting sick & tired of centrists trying to co-opt the progressive label.

[dansolo]

8. I'm getting sick and tired of socialists trying to co-op the progressive label.

If it was up to people like you, the ACA wouldn't have been passed. And the single-payer advocates were the ones who helped to fuel the anti-ACA narrative, which has made it easier for the Republicans to sabotage it.

[SkyDancer]

14. The ACA would have passed with people like me

WITH A PUBLIC OPTION!

Single payer advocates fueled the anti-ACA sentiment? LMAO! Yes because it was Harry Reid who said that the "ACA is a stepping stone to single payer."

Sen. Harry Reid: Obamacare 'Absolutely' A Step Toward A Single-Payer System

Soooooo about that.

[ismnotwasm]

10. I'd rather see a public option

I’m neither a troll or a Republican.

[SkyDancer]

15. And you're against single payer because....????

[Hortensis]

5. This isn't bashing. Don't make a wedge issue out of

progressivism itself. This expands and informs discussion.

In this article, an expert in progressive government is explaining that we can and should develop progressive solutions to appropriate problems through state and local governments, as well as by our federal government. This is opposed to concentrating them all in Washington, DC as centrally designed, centralized solutions to be applied out across a wildly varied nation.

It's a point that needs to be made because almost all discussion is about giant federal programs, which is too narrow for our big reality. A toolbox with only one size of screwdriver: Big!

America is a decentralized nation. We have one federal and 50 semiautonomous state governments, hundreds of county governments, and sundry others. (Just try to bring your centralized dictatorship on, Trump, and see how it flies in Texas, Minnesota, California, etcetera!)

So Marshall makes the point: That employing progressive government at all levels of government is just good sense. Not least because a hundred million Americans are highly suspicious of centralized national government and more trusting and supportive of government closer to home. Targeted answers where each works best, solutions for problems, advances for opportunities,

Btw, when a church runs a soup kitchen or a club sends a group out to clean up the yard of an elderly person who can no longer do it herself, THOSE are progressive actions. Progressivism already is everywhere at all levels. Build on it.

[DetlefK]

6. He's essentially advocating a gig-economy, but on a municipal level.

Katz and Nowak highlight “networked governance” that taps a broad array of civic actors—including universities, philanthropies, non-profits, and business groups as well as multiple local jurisdictions—to get things done. Local knowledge, cross-sector collaboration and unlocking private capital are key to the New Localism’s success.

He thinks the key is to isolate players even more from each other. While this will increase flexibility, it will also decrease the political power.

Small, agile, fast. But what will it mean for the big picture?

For example:
What will happen if each city makes their own healthcare-policy?
Their own minimum-wage policy?
Their own environmental policy?
Their own regulations with respect to predatory forms of capitalism?

Do you really think that we can implement progressive policies when each city has to fight Big Pharma and Big Telecom and Wall Street and the Koch brothers on its own?

Your church's soup-kitchen won't look so good when a big company rolls into town and promises jobs in exchange for taxpayer-money and being exempt from regulations.

[Hortensis]

7. :) Not instead of, in ADDITION to.

We can have a national healthcare program and state programs for other things. As we do, but better. After a few percent of the 100 million voters who think they want to stop it come to their senses.

Itm, this man's life is devoted to promoting progressive government. We can learn from what he and other deep progressive thinkers know. Think of progressive government not as one simple crisp goal, Medicare for the REAL All, suddenly threatened by shades of gray, but that PLUS many other progressive goals to be achieved.

As for,

For example:
What will happen if each city makes their own healthcare-policy?
Their own minimum-wage policy?
Their own environmental policy?
Their own regulations with respect to predatory forms of capitalism?

Det, our state and local governments already have the rights to do these things and many do. What would be wrong with a state or local government EXCEEDING/PROVIDING ADDITIONAL healthcare, minimum wage limits, environmental regulations, business regulations?

Those are precious rights we have to protect. One of the first things authoritarian governments do after taking power is to limit/eliminate the authority of lower governments in order to consolidate power. The fascists/authoritarian types behind and in the Republican Party don't have that much power yet, but the Republican Party already does it as much as possible. They DO pass predatory and restrictive laws that prohibit all laws and programs that try to get around them to serve the people. I was just reading about yet another one the other day.

Our founding fathers very carefully centralized some governmental functions and left others dispersed to the states. They refused to centralize power within the central government itself to protect us from tyranny. The government they gave us is an intrinsically progressive structure within which we can achieve it all, or as much as possible in the real world.

[DetlefK]

11. It never ceases to amaze me how you US-Americans secretly hate your own government.

Has it ever occured to you that the solution to a tyrannical government is not to shrink government but to change it in a way so it cannot become tyrannical?

Imagine an electoral system without an Electoral College corrupting the will of the people.

Imagine an electoral system where voter-rolls are updated in real time and nobody can be disenfranchised from voting by the whims of local politicians because everything is spelled out crystal-clear on a federal level without whens, buts and ifs.

Imagine an electoral system where rabid partisanship is political suicide because there are more than 2 parties because elections are not winner-take-all.

Imagine a judicial system where the judges aren't beholden to the party that put them into power.




Instead of demolishing government, how about repairing it?

[Garrett78]

12. The problem is there are many states that won't provide additional. They'll provide far less.

My issue with Marshall, as I stated in an earlier post, is that he is cherry-picking what he thinks should and what he thinks shouldn't fall within the purview of the federal government. With his only explanation being that which crosses borders.

When it comes to health care (which includes reproductive health) and public education (including post-secondary) and wages and voting (including a ban on gerrymandering), the federal government needs to set a minimum that ensures affordable access and a living wage and voting rights for every single person in the country. If local governments go above and beyond, great. But those things can't be left up to local and state governments. I don't take the view that the people of such and such red state deserve what they get.

[Hortensis]

13. Of course. That's where national comes in.

As it has ever since the reforms of the first progressive era. I don't agree with a lot of what Marshall says or with those who disagree with all he says.

I do agree with you -- except that there is no chance we (Democrats) would eliminate national programs and dissolve basic standards for things like healthcare and minimum wage. That would be ANTI-progressivism, and there is almost no such thing as a liberal who isn't also progressive.

Heck, even most trumpsters are support RAISING these national standards. For worthy people like themselves, at least.

But protecting and expanding progressive government where needed can be effectuated in many ways, all of them building on a foundation of national standards, whether run out of DC or Sacramento. Where taking advantage of the great resources of state and local governments would work better, we need to be able to do that.

This is old stuff, though. We're not inventing anything new here. The choice is not, and never has been, between the kind of rigid, either-or options lack of examination leads some to imagine are all we have.

[RhodeIslandOne]

9. Another crash, and America will flock to a new way

Even the ones who've been raised on the "If you work hard enough" bullshit.

[George Eliot]

17. No **it! Time for a revolution.