Today’s column is my attempt to get away from pigeon-holing labels like “left” and “far left” and “DSA” and “centrist” and ”moderate” and “conservative”. These tags tend to be attached by people across the political spectrum to support (or denigrate) policies they want to promote (or dissuade).

NOTE: I have no interest in being affiliated with the No Labels organization which claims to be “centrist”. My point of this exercise is to show that much of what people in our country believe is actually pretty “progressive”, but these beliefs suffer from being denigrated by those who are against true… progress. Including No Labels (just look at their “leaders”: Susan Collins?! Max Miller?!. What. a. Crock.

Example: Medicare for All is a policy of the “far left”. Placing the “far left” label on an economic policy immediately distorts the view of that policy.

My goal is to try to distill and lay out – without unnecessary and definitionally-biased labels - my views on what our society should strive to be and how to get there - which I believe are the views of many in this country (but obviously nowhere near all), whether they are labeled as liberals, progressives / base Democrats / moderates / centrists or even conservatives.

 

NOTE: This list is not exhaustive by any means, and is not in any particular order of importance:

Freedom. So long as they are not harming or threatening harm to others (see John Stuart Mill’s Harm Principle), every person should have the freedom to: live the life that is right for them, worship the religion of their choice or not worship religion at all, live with whom they want, love whom they want, marry whom they want, read what they want, say and do what they want.

 

Freedom. So long as they are not harming or threatening harm to others (see John Stuart Mill’s Harm Principle), every person should have the freedom to: live the life that is right for them, worship the religion of their choice or not worship religion at all, live with whom they want, love whom they want, marry whom they want, read what they want, say and do what they want.

Society. In a society, individual freedom is not unlimited. Sometimes, we must sacrifice for the common good. Taxes. Property - zoning laws, building codes, environmental rules. Driving – seat belts, speed limits, DUI laws. Jury duty. Business – consumer protections, labor, safety, financial and environmental regulations. Even speech – fraud, incitement, direct threats, defamation.

 

Religion. Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. Religious freedom means individuals can believe what they want and refrain – as individuals – from being forced to do something against their religion. Religious freedom also means individuals are free from being coerced by others (and institutions/organizations) to act or believe in a certain way by those who believe in a different religion. The United States does NOT have a “state” religion. Companies who do business in the United States’ commercial marketplace must abide by laws against discrimination and selective engagement that might conflict with the religious beliefs of their owners.

 

Government. Government is NOT inherently evil – it is only as good or bad as the people we elect to run it. Government exists to organize our society and to do the things collectively for the common good that we cannot do individually. Government should ensure freedom (see above), lawfulness, public health and safety, equality of opportunity for all, protect against all discrimination and provide basic support for those less fortunate among us.

 

Taxes. To borrow a phrase from someone else: “Taxes are not a punishment. They’re the fuel in the engine of the republic, a positive affirmation of and direct investment in our values, and a system of incentives and disincentives to shape our collective vision of the good. Taxes are how we build the world for each other.”. Much as we all dislike the IRS, it is America’s accounts receivable department. Ideally, it is indispensable to ensuring that we ALL pay what we owe. Higher taxes on corporations and the highest earners - like what we had in the “heyday” of the 50s, 60s and early 70s - is a must. See this post for more.

 

Energy and the Environment. Clean air, clean water and a livable climate are literally the foundational elements for healthy life on earth. There is no rational reason not to move from dirty and expensive fossil fuels to cleaner and cheaper renewable energy sources that will provide a more sustainable economy and environment for current and future generations.

 

Inequality. Over the long arc of human history, gross inequality without true opportunity for upward mobility is one of the main reasons for sudden, violent societal change. It would take 250,000 years earning and keeping $1 million/yr to be worth the $250 billion+ that several of our tech overlords are worth today. No one should have that much money and influence.

 

Economic Fairness and Opportunity. Economies exist to provide the greatest benefit to the largest number of people in their sphere, and not simply to enrich an elite few. Our economy should ensure that people who work hard (at ANY job) can afford to live a life of dignity and raise a family.

There are multiple tools in our economic toolbox to achieve these goals. Free markets are only one of them. Others include government safety net programs like Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. Also Federal Reserve action. Every country with a market-based economy actually has a combination of capitalism and socialism.

 

Corporatism. Corporations are statutory entities created by law. They are not mentioned anywhere in the U.S. Constitution. Corporations in the United States were originally formed with limited lifespans and tight controls for public-service entities, basically in order to provide a legal identity separate from the individuals who comprised it. Corporations do NOT have constitutional rights and are not “persons”. Corporations should NOT be able to privatize profits and socialize losses. They should pay a living wage instead of foisting costs off on government programs in an effort to increase their profitability.

 

Healthcare. Health is really all individuals have. Without it, individuals cannot truly enjoy “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. Access to healthcare IS a human right. Our society should provide access to basic, quality affordable healthcare for everyone. Like every other developed nation in the world, that means universal coverage and standardized costs.

 

Money in Politics. We currently have a political system of legalized bribery. Money is NOT speech in a legal and political sense. Corporations and other artificial statutory entities can’t vote and therefore should not be able to infuse money into our political system. Public financing of campaigns is a must. To paraphrase (and bastardize) Abraham Lincoln, we currently have a political system of billionaires, for billionaires and by billionaires. Nothing will change until we get big money out of our political and policy-making system.

Voting. Simply put, we should be working to make it easier for all who are qualified to be able vote. Mandatory voter registration for all citizens is a good policy. Voter disenfranchisement should be treated as harshly as voter fraud (BTW, voter fraud on an organized level is basically non-existent).

Immigration. Immigration is - and always has been - the lifeblood of our country. Without minimizing the tragedy and horror of supplanting the true native Americans, immigration and assimilation has been perhaps the leading reason for our country’s economic and cultural strength and resilience. The U.S. has been called a melting pot for a reason. Border security is important. So is the social, cultural, and economic growth we experience from responsible immigration.

 

There’s more but that seems like enough for today.

I don’t know and don’t care what label people put on the issues/ideas I’ve written about above. Is affordable healthcare for all “liberal” or “conservative”? Depends on the prism through which it’s viewed. From a human argument (people simply deserve to be as healthy as possible), you might say it’s “liberal”. From an economic argument (healthier people are more productive), you might say it’s conservative. Is mandatory voting progressive or conservative (or, likely, both!)?

Progressive/liberal policies and positions ARE more popular than whatever passes for “centrist” and MAGA policy prescriptions these days. Let’s talk about them and stop unnecessarily handicapping ourselves by referring to them with prejudicial labels.

We defend the values and policies, not the irrelevant descriptors. Let’s proudly play on our home field and re-enter voters’ Circle of TrustTM.

We Are The World

Reply

Avatar

or to participate

Avatar

TBone Dinosaur3 months ago

I just saw your skeet on Kevin Kruse's Bsky, J.W. 😎

Avatar

TBone Dinosaur3 months ago

When I was younger, I thought everyone held these values because they're just second nature common sense to me. When I started working at a Wendy's, a clothing outlet factory, a dental practice, a couple insurance offices, a used car rental place, and finally various law offices, I was shocked to find out I was different than most of the people everywhere in Delco.

My young and dumb self truly thought this was all just common sense!

Avatar

TBone Dinosaur3 months ago(edited)

Times they are a changin' - Delconians are a lot more liberal now than when I grew up and came of age. You can even notice it in the local rag's headlines and stories.

Avatar

TBone Dinosaur3 months ago

TNR has an article on Mace's Islamophobia getting a 1st Amendment smackdown from CNN's Omar Jiminez yesterday. A much needed smackdown.

Avatar

John S.3 months ago(edited)

The principles are sound, but the lingering question is what will our Democratic politicians DO with them?

As if it weren’t enough that we are in the fight for our country against Trump, we are also locked in a battle between fighters and the establishment. Because what it really boils down to is Restoration vs. Reconstruction.

Restoration: Trump is an aberration. Remove him, restore norms, rehabilitate institutions, and return to competent management.

Reconstruction: Trump exposed and exploited structural failures. Removing him is only the beginning; the institutions, laws, incentives, and concentrations of power that enabled him must be rebuilt.

Restorationists like Schumer and Jeffries crave “normalcy” because they still consider the pre-Trump system to be fundamentally sound.

Reconstructionists recognize that “normal” produced Trump twice—and that restoring it would preserve the conditions for a third iteration.

Avatar

TBone Dinosaur3 months ago

Brother, you SAID it!

Avatar

Joe is Wypoxic3 months ago

I like that framing John! May steal it...

Avatar

John S.3 months ago

Feel free! 😊

Avatar

C P3 months ago

I think it's worth pointing out that the biggest liberal successes have typically been both. Lincoln created a nation radically different from the one that had existed before the Civil War, but he worked very hard to portray himself and his side as the true heirs to the founding fathers, restoring the kind of America they meant us to have, while the slave owners had run completely amok and were trying to destroy their legacy. (And in all honesty he was kind of right). Same thing again seventy years later; FDR and the New Dealers portrayed themselves as restoring the country to its people, after the mad robber-barons had tried to buy it all up for themselves and destroyed it in the process. Even MLK framed civil rights as an attempt to "redeem the promissory note" written by earlier Americans.

Avatar

C P3 months ago

The big thing is exactly what it is we're trying to restore. Restoring the "no kings" spirit of 1776, if there is such a thing, is absolutely a thing we should be portraying ourselves as doing. Even restoring the Constitution is something we should portray ourselves as doing, because Trump absolutely has taken a wrecking ball to it.

The problem is that so much of what Schumer and Jeffries want to "restore" doesn't have a damn thing to do with any of that, and instead is just a bunch of self-imposed bureaucratic red tape to justify their inaction. The First Amendment is an important principle that's worth restoring; the fucking filibuster is not. Roe v. Wade is worth restoring: the nine-person limit and lifelong appointment to the Supreme Court are not. S&J et al put far more effort into defending norms of comity that exist only in their own heads than they do the actual constitution, and that's what "restoring" would be absolute bullshit.

Avatar

TBone Dinosaur3 months ago

Yesterday I saw a Bluesky argument because you have to pay dues to join the DSA like you do for a union.

I bet they didn't know about the benefits of being an official DSA member:

Any DSA member can get a free 1-year print subscription to In These Times. No credit card. No strings. Just great journalism. Sign up with the QR code in the image or going to www.inthesetimes.com/dsa

https://bsky.app/profile/bloomekatz.bsky.social/post/3mrqyfdtjbk2g

Avatar

TBone Dinosaur3 months ago

Wiki: While a commonly held mistaken view holds modern trade unionism to be a product of Marxism, the earliest modern trade unions predate Marx's Communist Manifesto (1848) by almost a century (and Marx's writings themselves frequently address the prior existence of the workers' movements of his time.) The first recorded labour strike in the United States was by Philadelphia printers in 1786, who opposed a wage reduction and demanded $6 per week in wages.

Avatar

TBone Dinosaur3 months ago

I have proud photos standing under and pounting up at the plaquard in Philly that marks that, taken during Occupy Philly.

United we stand!

Avatar

mister mixAuthor3 months ago

Good post. It's a real feat of the donor class and those in their service that this set of very common sense, reasonable positions is often called "radical" or "leftist".

Avatar

Scott H3 months ago

Taken in toto, it's sad to see just how successful the dismantling of the New Deal has been.

Purely from a philosophical level, it's appalling. The God of Neoliberalism rules and we see where that's taken us.

Avatar

C P3 months ago

The voting thing's even simpler for me: "people should choose their representatives, representatives should not choose their people."

Avatar

Scott H3 months ago

The voting issue writ large should also include federal standards vis a vis gerrymandering.

For details, hit the Princeton Gerrymandering Project site:

https://nervous-noyce-f2ebc6.netlify.app/

Lemme emphasize, I don't believe in blue states not going tit for tat ala gerrymandering as long as the current wild west attitude toward it exists. Federal legislation, meaningful legislation is required to solve this 200-year-old problem in our democracy.

Avatar

C P3 months ago

My above line is usually brought up WRT gerrymandering, but the way I meant it was actually about vote suppression. Politicians do not get to set one more hoop after another after another for the voters to jump through until they're satisfied that the voter has proved themselves worthy of choosing the people governing them.

As for gerrymandering, agree completely. Tit for tat is sadly the only way to proceed until it can be resolved at the federal level.

Avatar

TBone Dinosaur3 months ago

That's why I always say I want a representative government. No taxation without representation! It's even on DC license plates!

Avatar

TBone Dinosaur3 months ago

people should choose their representatives, representatives should not choose their people

Avatar

Joe is Wypoxic3 months ago

Totally agree Scott. Had to limit the post due to length but this is a critical issue. TBone said it earlier in the comments: people should choose their representatives, representatives should not choose their people.

It really defies common sense (and legal sense) that elected officials can design districts based solely on how it helps them (and their fellow party members) get elected and/or solely on making sure certain, ahem, races are not proportionally represented.

And, yeah, tit-for-tat until this gets fixed federally.

Avatar

Sepideh M3 months ago

Colorado has an automatic voter registration system where people who qualify are pre-registered to vote when they have encounters with the DMV and are at least 15 years old.

Avatar

Kay W.3 months ago

It’s funny because the National Voter Registration Act (1993) was bipartisan legislation and registering at the DMV was the REPUBLICAN demand in the law. Republicans (rightly) understood that automobile owners would be suburban/rural, so therefore more GOP. Democrats insisted on registration at county unemployment and Job and Family Service offices. Republicans then completely abandoned all efforts to make voting easier, including “motor voter”, which is the nickname for the NVRA. The last federal bipartisan voting legislation was HAVA, in 2002. 2002 is when Republicans decided they needed fewer people voting.

Avatar

Sepideh M3 months ago

I took a young person in my household to register for his learner's permit, and I was surprised that he was also preregistered as a voter when his permit arrived. I am not ready to be as old as I am.

Avatar

Scott H3 months ago

Heh heh, welcome to the club.

Avatar

r po3 months ago

First you teach them to ride a bike, and then you teach them to drive a car, and then they ride away, and that's the way it is. Sometimes I miss it tho.