Pudfark wrote:Define "pragmatic progressive"
it's a term that I use to describe my position, and I generally use it in discussions with left-leaning types
(you probably don't believe this, but I am a far more serious thorn in the side of such, as I agree with most of their goals and think they are near whacked-out at their routes to them). Here goes:
I believe that government does, in any Industrial/Post-industrial society, have a very major role to play in providing a social safety net. Such a net is crucial when you have a diverse population, with a wide range of wealth, to stabilize the poorer elements of a society and prevent upheaval that sets a nation back.
This would be classic Progressive thought. I differ from most, in that I revere the system of government that the US has, and accept that it is a slow system to change, and designed that way. Thus, I advocate focusing on a few ideas that share massive consensus, and work to educate the public and slowly develop consensus on others. By every reliable measure, the US public overwhelmingly supports:
1. Strong public education
2. Social Security for the elderly and disabled
3. Universal Health coverage that is NOT job-dependant(believe it or not, this one consistently polls at
around 70%)
4. A Foreign policy that relies far less on military intervention and other meddling in the affairs of others.
5. Less dependence on foreign oil, less reliance on foreign goods and services. This would involve both
basic research into new technologies and embracing certain Environmental ideas.
6. Legalization and taxation of marijuana, for both crime reduction and deficit reduction
7. Reform of the tax code, to a far simpler model(Flat Tax is one option).
8. Strong return to the rights of individuals to assemble, speak freely and not be subject to false arrest
in their own nation
9 Deficit reduction,as eventually, a large deficit will be used as an excuse to remove the safety net.
I think Progressives ought to hammer on these issues, and these issues alone(hence, the Pragmatic part) because they can accomplish progress in these areas. Where I differ from most on the Left(especially the farther left one goes) is that I have utterly no time for distractions like Bush conspiracy theories, anti-corporate diatribes, tree-hugging/animal rights stupidity, support for goofball dictators like Chavez or Castro, on any of the other 500 or so nitwit ideas espoused by a handful on the left, and then left unchallenged by most of the others. That sort of idiocy kills the credibility of the basic ideals which will, demonstrably make life better for virtually ALL Americans. But, most on the left are so afraid of hurting the feelings of their peers over these goofy tangents that they kill the overall goal, which is PROGRESS. Seriously, who really doesn't want progress? Would any of you prefer to live under 19th century conditions?
As that Krugman op-ed points out, that is where we're all headed, at least those of us who don't have the benefit of owning lots of land and holding a Trust fund. The idea that small government or lower taxes when you already owe 4 trillion dollars or so is anything other than suicidal to the entire nation is baffling. Why anyone buys the idea that isn't the case eludes me, it never has worked any other way but to have a nation regress into backward status. Want low taxes and no government? Check out Afghanistan, because that's what 20 years of low taxes and no government looks like. Rwanda, ditto, Congo, Sierra Leone, likewise.
Hope that answers your question, Rube.
