The Evils of Racism, Poverty, and Militarism

Martin Luther King Jr. (MLK) was always an important historical figure when I was in grade school. We certainly talked about him and the history of the civil rights movement, and I began to get this mental image of a great community leader that lead marches for civil rights, for the fair and equal treatment of black people. The famous "I have a dream" speech was emphasized, with his vision of black children living with white children in an integrated world.

However, when you start listening to the full speeches and not simply the snippets they play in school and documentaries, you catch glimpses of a wider philosophy. Sure, equality was a huge part of MLK's dream, he was indeed fighting for racial equality and a just system. However, MLK himself admitted that racial inequality was not the whole story; there was also a huge economic inequality component. He spoke of the need to address poverty before we could really tackle racial inequality. He also spoke of the need to establish democracy with real representation to address inequality, and how militarism and colonialism around the world was both a threat to democracy and allowed the cycle of poverty to continue. Those were dimensions of the argument that I was not as familiar with.

After seeing references to this on social media, it became clear I needed to go to the source and learn as much as I could about what MLK actually stood for, and not simply the media-friendly narrative. I picked up a copy of "Where Do We Go From Here?: Chaos or Community", which was published in 1968 as the last book written by MLK before his assassination. It's not a very long read (about 200 pages), but really shows just how eloquent MLK was and how much he believed in nonviolent resistance as a way to influence society.

While MLK's first goal is obviously to end racial inequality, he quickly moves into the need to address economic inequality. He saw economic inequality and militarism as a root cause of racism, that the three were inseparably related and so must be tackled together by coalitions of both blacks and whites in order to effect real long-lasting change.

He spent a significant amount of time in the early chapters outlining how the economic system and the government works against black people. He described how more blacks were deployed to war in Vietnam than whites, how blacks were denied access to higher education because it wasn't affordable, how blacks paid higher rent for subpar housing compared to whites, how most blacks held "menial" low-paying jobs, the unemployment rate was nearly twice what it was for whites, and few elected officials were black. He felt that much of the racism was actually economic racism, that many whites had poor opinions of blacks because of a conception that blacks were poor and uneducated. He was convinced that tackling the sources of economic inequality would go a long way to elevating the status of blacks in society and countering such racial stereotypes, and that more blacks needed to be involved in the political system.

He described that blacks since the end of slavery faced economic disadvantage in the US. As he put it on page 84:

It was like freeing a man who had been unjustly imprisoned for years, and on discovering his innocence sending him out with no bus fare to get home, no suit to cover his body, no financial compensation to atone for his long years of incarceration and to help him get a sound footing in society; sending him out only with the assertion: "Now you are free". What greater injustice could society perpetrate?

He describes poverty as "white America's most urgent challenge today", and describes how we spend so much money on warfare and exploring space but cannot commit even a small fraction of it to eradicating poverty and blight in the poverty-stricken areas of cities. In fact, MLK is very explicit about what he wants on page 95:

The white liberal must affirm that absolute justice for the Negro simply means, in an Aristotelian sense, that the Negro must have "his due". There is nothing abstract about this. It is as concrete as having a good job, a good education, a decent house and a share of power.

What struck me as interesting about this excerpt and the surrounding text was how long MLK talked about the "white liberal". He specifically complained that many white liberals that considered themselves allies of the civil rights movement would support only gradual change for blacks (gradually increasing wages, gradually integrating the schools, gradually improving housing, etc.), and he was concerned that these white liberals did not truly understand the plight of black people. They cannot wait for things to be gradually phased in; asking for the poor to wait a bit longer to afford food or decent housing or an affordable education shows either a lack of understanding of how serious the problem is, or exposes the apathy at creating a truly just society. Either way, such "allies" were not true allies and in many cases were hindrances to the movement.

This argument reminds me a lot of today's Democratic party that on the surface says it is for all of these wonderful liberal progressive ideas, but then doesn't back them up. They support universal access to healthcare, except only as expensive employer-provided insurance (leaving out those between jobs, or not working full time, and having expensive premiums and copays and deductibles even if you do) and not as a national single payer system that establishes it as a right. They support a $15 minimum wage, but want to phase it in slowly in the year 2025 so as not to "hurt" business owners. You can vote and have democracy, but only if Democrats continue to have "super-delegates" that overrule your vote. They are afraid Trump will start war and yet overwhelming vote for increased military spending. MLK considered this type of "white liberal" to be his worst opponent, because they would smile and shake your hand as they stabbed you in the back; at least you knew that the conservatives didn't like you, whereas Democrats would work with you on developing policy only to back out last minute once elected and expected to follow through.

The cost of housing and basic needs like food were a particularly strong concern for MLK, and those costs provide a great example of how the economic system disadvantages blacks and keeps them in poverty. On page 123 he describes how the system works:

... my neighbors pay more rent in the substandard slums of Lawndale than the whites must pay for modern apartments in the suburbs. ... The situation is much the same for consumer goods, purchase prices on homes and a variety of other services. Consumer items range from five to twelve cents higher in the ghetto stores than in the suburban stores, both run by the same supermarket chains; and numerous stores in the ghetto have been the subject of community protests against the sale of spoiled meats and vegetables. This exploitation is possible because so many of the residents of the ghetto have no personal means of transportation. It is a vicious cycle. You can't get a job because you are poorly educated, and you must depend on public welfare to feed your children; but if you receive public aid in Chicago,  you cannot own property, not even an automobile, so you are condemned to the jobs and shops which are closest to your home. Once confined to this isolated community, one no longer participates in a free economy, but is subject to price-fixing and wholesale robbery by many of the merchants of the area.

I think this is a very insightful paragraph that illustrates how capitalism works against the poor. Essentially, the "free market" people like to go on about collapses in poor areas. If you cannot afford a car and there is no good public transportation system, you must find a job nearby and shop at stores nearby. When the owners realize you have no other choices, they can price gouge (that "12 cents higher" translates to around $1 more per item in 2017 dollars due to inflation; so imagine every item in the store being $1 more than they are now, it adds up! especially when you are on minimum wage and every dollar counts), leading to much larger prices in the poor areas than surrounding areas. If you cannot afford transportation, then you must rent or buy a house near your job, and again you will be price gouged and pay a higher rent or higher sale price than suburban whites that can "shop around". Add on top of it that banks often charge much higher interest rates on loans for poorer people with lower wages, and poor blacks end up paying much much higher rates than whites for much lower quality products. It is also true that welfare and other programs require you to own very little; I was briefly on Medicaid and was required to submit information about my bank accounts and value of any property including a car; if the total was above a certain small amount, you were denied assistance. If you save up at all when you don't have a good job, you stop qualifying for aid and fall right back into poverty, keeping up the cycle. For suburban whites that don't understand these problems, it is easy for these economic problems to develop into a racial stereotype and feed racism.

These economic problems only serve to create a cycle that keeps the poor in a state of poverty with little hope of getting out, which further feeds racism. MLK argued that a radical transformation of society was required for us to break this cycle. As he says in his book (page 142):

For the evils of racism, poverty and militarism to die, a new set of values must be born. Our economy must become more person-centered than property- or profit-centered. Our government must depend more on its moral power than on its military power. Let us, therefore, not think of our movement as one that that seeks to integrate the Negro into all the existing values of American society. Let us be those creative dissenters who will call our beloved nation to a higher destiny...

In other words, we shouldn't seek to be part of a morally corrupt system, but work to reform and overthrow such a system in favor of one that puts people first. He specifically calls for the development of economic power among the poor via nonviolent resistance in order to force the system to change. The Green Party's slogan of "people and planet over profits" is an echo of what MLK says here, and it is no coincidence that the Green Party's Green New Deal includes an economic bill of rights to tackle poverty while also including provisions to end militarism by cutting our bloated imperialistic military budget. Some of the early state Green Parties (before the national Green Party US was founded) were founded by veterans of the civil rights movement, and so in a real way I think the Green Party is a political successor to MLK's vision.

Is there evidence that MLK would support a Green Party, or some type of "third party" political solution? MLK points out there are several paths to currently-untapped economic power, and lists that workers' unions and community organizations including churches are important allies. However, he also points out that being involved in politics is another source of power in the community and that it is important for poverty activists to be involved in democracy and bringing attention to issues. On page 158, he specifically endorses independent parties:

We will have to learn to refuse crumbs from the big-city machines and steadfastly demand a fair share of the loaf. When the machine politicians demur, we must be prepared to act in unity and throw our support to such independent parties or reform wings of the major parties as are prepared to take our demands seriously and fight for them vigorously. This is political freedom; this is political maturity expressing our aroused and determined new spirit to be treated as equals in all aspects of life. The future of the deep structural changes we seek will not be found in the decaying political machines.

MLK was not only supportive but encouraged people to stand together unified behind new alliances to break the "decaying political machines". While some today might say the reform wings could work, we've seen in the 50 years since MLK that reform efforts in the major parties consistently fail (in fact, such reform efforts have been unable to even slow the rightward drift of both parties, much less pull them to the left on policy), and MLK himself even expresses disappointment at the number of Democratic politicians that attended the marches with him saying they supported civil rights that then later turned against political movements once elected and voted against putting civil rights into law. Based on his statements in this chapter, I believe MLK would warn us to be wary of establishment "machine" politicians pretending to be our friends, and encourage us to support "independent parties" like the Green Party to demand changes rather than continuing to support major party "machines" that resist reform.

So what does MLK's political vision look like? His goal is to end poverty, so what policies are best to support that vision? We see elements of more leftist ideology in his statements about an economy that puts people over profits. Right-wing ideology generally assumes that the profit motive is the most powerful engine of change and therefore puts trust in the "free market" as the goal. Everything is about small government, minimal regulations in order to "encourage competition" in the market, which is really just individuals competing for profits. MLK however sees a vision where we democratically control our economy and put taking care of people as our primary goal rather than obtaining profits. MLK quotes on page 172 from Henry George's 1879 book "Progress and Poverty" (a national bestseller at the time it was published that heavily influenced the later progressive and socialist movements in America, and a book on my todo list to read eventually):

The fact is that the work which improves the condition of mankind, the work which extends knowledge and increases power and enriches literature, and elevates thought, is not done to secure a living. It is not the work of slaves, driven to their task either by the lash of a master or by animal necessities. It is the work of men who perform it for their own sake, and not that they get more to eat or drink, or wear, or display. In a state of society where want is abolished, work of this sort could be enormously increased.

In other words, the creative work that improves our lives and improves civilization cannot be done by economic slaves struggling to have their basic needs met. We could all have much more fulfilling jobs and lives in general if we weren't under the constant stress of poverty. To illustrate the problem, he also quotes an Asian writer on page 182:

You call your thousand material devices "labor-saving machinery", yet you are forever "busy". With the multiplying of your machinery you grow increasingly fatigued, anxious, nervous, dissatisfied. Whatever you have, you want more; and wherever you are you want to go somewhere else... your devices are neither time-saving nor soul-saving machinery. They are so many sharp spurs which urge you to invent more machinery and to do more business.

If we want to work toward a better society, we must first end "want", or poverty, and begin to use science and technology to improve the human condition rather than improve profits. To this end, MLK describes a number of policies to combat poverty. Perhaps most surprisingly, after an analysis on how piecemeal social programs (housing programs, educational spending, etc.) have not been successful because of a lack of integration among the programs and a lack of government funding support, MLK makes the following statement on page 171:

I am now convinced that the simplest approach will prove to be the most effective -- the solution to poverty is to abolish it directly by a now widely-discussed measure: the guaranteed income.

The guaranteed income is today sometimes known by the term "universal basic income" (UBI), but the goal is the same. We guarantee every American, regardless social or economic status, a basic fixed income. The income can be given directly to Americans (either as a so-called "negative income tax" or via a check similar to social security), or it can come in the form of a "jobs program" that ensures full employment, but either way, we guarantee every American has enough income to end poverty. It isn't hard to imagine this with modern technology; money is a proxy for distributing goods we produce (such as food and clothing), and if technology allows us to produce more than enough for every American (which it certainly does! I have read estimates that 40% of the food grown in American is thrown away; we're producing more than enough food, it's just not making its way to all Americans due to inefficient capitalist pursuit of profits), the problem is more of distribution than production. MLK argues exactly this: we must fix our economic system to improve distribution of supplies to people, and that in itself will put more money into the system and grow the economy toward more and better jobs that are more fulfilling than today's poverty work. As he writes, "The curse of poverty has no justification in our age... The time has come for us to civilize ourselves by the total, direct and immediate abolition of poverty." On page 199, he reiterates: "There is nothing except shortsightedness to prevent us from guaranteeing an annual minimum -- and livable -- income for every American family."

UBI has a complex history, but interestingly enough there was one point in time in the 1960s where it seemed almost inevitable. Even conservatives like Nixon initially supported a UBI as a way of "fixing" capitalism, and from what I understand was on the verge of supporting it in Congress. However, an adviser talked him out of it until more research was done, and Watergate was to follow shortly afterward, and so the issue was unfortunately never revisited. The fact that Nixon and many politicians were supportive (or at least entertained the idea of supporting) UBI shows how far right-ward both major parties have drifted. However, the movement for UBI does seem to be increasing in recent years.

The Green platform (Section IV.D) calls for universal basic income:

We call for a universal basic income (sometimes called a guaranteed income, negative income tax, citizen's income, or citizen dividend). This would go to every adult regardless of health, employment, or marital status, in order to minimize government bureaucracy and intrusiveness into people's lives. The amount should be sufficient so that anyone who is unemployed can afford basic food and shelter. State or local governments should supplement that amount from local revenues where the cost of living is high.

Note that Greens also support public works programs that would provide full employment. There is must to do in overhauling and updating our infrastructure: transitioning to renewable energy sources, rebuilding roads, water systems, etc., so there are plenty of jobs available. No one should be unable to find some type of useful work, and we can guarantee that with a public jobs program if the private sector cannot create such useful jobs.

Ultimately, MLK argues that since we now live in the "world house" (the global economy), we must recognize that the fate of all nations are now intertwined and we must also combat racism, poverty, and militarism abroad and not just at home. He argues we should spend some of our vast resources at raising other nations out of poverty, that we should withdraw our support and capital from nations and governments that continue to push racism (such as South Africa's apartheid system that existed at the time), and investigate how to use nonviolent methods at a global level to end warfare.

We have ancient habits to deal with, vast structures of power, indescribably complicated problems to solve. But unless we abdicate our humanity altogether and succumb to fear and impotence in the presence of the weapons we have ourselves created, it is as possible and as urgent to put an end to war and violence between nations as it is to put an end to poverty and racial injustice. ... We must shift the arms race into a 'peace race'. If we have the will and determination to mount such a peace offensive...

MLK sees the problems of racism, poverty, and warfare as all stemming from an attitude of military and economic colonialism. Colonialism - and really capitalism in general - sees the world in terms of classes, of groups of people that are somehow "better" or "superior" than others, whether it be because of race, religion, or some other reason. We cannot end racism and poverty fully without confronting the reasons for violence and warfare. They must all be solved together for a real solution.

One of the Green Party's "Four Pillars" is Peace. Greens support ending wars, ending weapons arms races, and working toward diplomatic solutions when at all possible. The Green New Deal calls for drastic reductions in military spending (particularly by closing military bases throughout the world, many of which exist in allied countries far from warzones that are unnecessary for defense and serve only to occupy countries as if they were colonies and prop up the military-industrial complex) in favor of spending the money at home on social programs and infrastructure.

MLK says on page 196-197:

We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing"-oriented society to a "person"-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.

He is advocating for a new economic system that realizes the promise of democracy, and rejects more "classical" views of government, in particular, the struggle of capitalism versus communism. On page 197, he goes into more detail:

We must honestly admit capitalism has often left a gulf between superfluous wealth and abject poverty, has created conditions permitting necessities to be taken from the many to give luxuries to the few, and has encouraged smallhearted men to become cold and conscienceless so that ... they are unmoved by suffering, poverty-stricken humanity. The profit motive, when it is the sole basis of an economic system, encourages a cutthroat competition and selfish ambition that inspire men to be more I-centered than thou-centered. Equally, communism reduces men to a cog in the wheel of the state. The communist may object, saying that in Marxian theory the state is an "interim reality" that will "wither away" when the classless society emerges. True -- in theory; but it is also true that, while the state lasts, it is an end to itself. Man is a means to that end. He has no inalienable rights... [traditional capitalism and classical communism] Each represents a partial truth. Capitalism fails to see the truth in collectivism.  Communism fails to see the truth in individualism. Capitalism fails to realize that life is social. Communism fails to realize that life is personal. The good and just society is neither the thesis of capitalism or the antithesis of communism, but a socially conscious democracy which reconciles the truths of individualism and collectivism.

A true democracy that shares power equally among all its citizens is the most good and just society; any other form of government provides an unequal power distribution (either putting too much power into private business or the state government) and leads to the economic and racial inequality we see. It is more democracy that we should be advocating for, rather than being specifically anti-capitalist or anti-communist.

Compare this vision with the Green Party's economic vision from the 2016 Green platform:

The Green Party seeks to build an alternative economic system based on ecology and decentralization of power, an alternative that rejects both the capitalist system that maintains private ownership over almost all production as well as the state-socialist system that assumes control over industries without democratic, local decision making. We believe the old models of capitalism (private ownership of production) and state socialism (state ownership of production) are not ecologically sound, socially just, or democratic and that both contain built-in structures that advance injustices. 

Instead we will build an economy based on large-scale green public works, municipalization, and workplace and community democracy. Some call this decentralized system 'ecological socialism,' 'communalism,' or the 'cooperative commonwealth,' but whatever the terminology, we believe it will help end labor exploitation, environmental exploitation, and racial, gender, and wealth inequality and bring about economic and social justice due to the positive effects of democratic decision making. 

Production is best for people and planet when democratically owned and operated by those who do the work and those most affected by production decisions. This model of worker and community empowerment will ensure that decisions that greatly affect our lives are made in the interests of our communities, not at the whim of centralized power structures of state administrators or of capitalist CEOs and distant boards of directors. Small, democratically run enterprises, when embedded in and accountable to our communities, will make more ecologically sound decisions in materials sourcing, waste disposal, recycling, reuse, and more. Democratic, diverse ownership of production would decentralize power in the workplace, which would in turn decentralize economic power more broadly.

The Green platform echoes MLK's visions for a more good and just society based on democracy in government and business, and I believe he would highly approve of it.

In order to switch to that democratic system that is more just, MLK describes the need to expand our rights as citizens to the economic domain, as history has shown political rights alone are insufficient to fight poverty due to inequality of power.

...the concept is emerging that beneficiaries of welfare measures are not beggars but citizens endowed with rights defined by law. ... From a variety of different directions, the strands are drawing together for a contemporary social and economic Bill of Rights to supplement the Constitution's political Bill of Rights.

The Green Party's Green New Deal actually calls it's first pillar an "Economic Bill of Rights", which includes a right to full employment for all that want a job (via a green jobs program), a living wage, affordable housing, democratically-run public utilities, single payer healthcare, tuition-free public education, and more, most of which MLK had cited at one point or another in the book as being important goals to end poverty. In particular, MLK wrote that affordable housing and education likely must be addressed first before poverty can end, and in fact on page 214 says:

Housing is too important to be left to private enterprise with only minor government effort to shape policy. We need the equivalent of a Medicare for housing. 

A "Medicare for housing" is an interesting phrase I've never heard before. He doesn't explain what is meant by this term in much detail, but since Medicare ensures the elderly all have access to healthcare, I assume he means an assurance that all poor have access to housing, either via vouchers (like Section 8 housing) or public housing projects.

Having read the book, I was surprised to see how much MLK talked about poverty and war since that wasn't emphasized in my classes growing up. I especially was not exposed to MLK's proposed solutions to the problems such as universal basic income and more spending on housing and education programs beyond simple racial integration. MLK was essentially a democratic socialist in philosophy, though I'm not sure he used that term directly. Given the legacy of the "Red Scare" and any discussion of socialism and communism, and an almost patriotic support of unfettered capitalism, it isn't entirely surprising to me that this aspect of MLK has been suppressed in our public discourse.

So I described a lot of MLK's philosophy on racism and poverty, and how much of what he says overlaps with Green Party values. But how do we put those ideas into action? MLK described the action as nonviolent resistance, and used it with great success in the 1960s. I'll look more at nonviolent resistance in my next blog post.

Be Careful Labeling 2017 Democratic Elections as "Wins"

Initial analysis of 2017 seems to show that many high profile races resulted in democratic socialist candidates winning, even in districts that previously voted for Trump or GOP in past elections. Here in PA and Pittsburgh in particular, we saw an independent candidate Mik Pappas win against an incumbent establishment Democrat (who held the office for 24 years!), as well as Our Revolution and DSA candidate Anita Prizio also winning a seat on the county council. But independents, progressives, socialists, and Greens won races across PA and the nation yesterday. Greens have been elected to more than 44 local offices just this year so far. More ran for office, with some like Jabari Brisport in New York City receiving some of the highest third party votes in decades. In fact, the Green "success rate" (percent of all Green candidates that won their races) was something like 27%, which is pretty impressive for a smaller third party that rejects corporate cash and relies solely on small individual donors in a strongly unfair electoral system.

This is a great start for progressives, and I think shows an upward trend for third party candidates. Imagine what we can do as the Greens grow with more volunteers and candidates! While we should definitely celebrate some early wins against the establishment, I think we also need to pause and be wary about how we interpret these events.

The media is already reporting this as a "blue wave" of Democrats and trying to co-opt the movement. Ex-Clinton campaign staff are already out saying Democrats are winning and that Bernie should be a Democrat or get out of the party because they don't need him. And to some degree, they're right: despite the strong showing from Green/DSA progressive candidates, many more corporatist right-wing Democrats have been elected solely on an anti-Trump agenda. As Draft Bernie points out, the media has been focusing on a few Democrats: Ralph Northam, a conservative that voted for George Bush in past elections, and Phil Murphy, a former Goldman-Sachs executive. As is typical, Democrats think that catering to conservatives and financial elite is OK since they'll get elected anyway just for not being Trump.

We need to watch these newly elected officials, because we've seen this behavior before. Remember a "blue wave" swept Obama into his first term with a majority in Congress, which Democrats then squandered and made sure very little of the progressive agenda was actually accomplished. In fact, some of Obama and the Democratic Congress's first acts were to extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich, expand war in the Middle East, and pass a right-wing health insurance plan that relies on for-profit insurance to deliver care (Obama quickly dropped his earlier proposals for a public option once elected). And in fact he was willing to cut social security and other programs to get a deal, and pushed on that idea throughout his presidency. None of that is progressive at all, and it's really par for the course with Democrats. They (at best) sound progressive on the campaign trail, but as soon as elected, the donors pull the strings to get what they want. The needs of the people come last, every time.

It's even harder to believe that Democrats will change much from this election when you consider these progressives are being swept into a larger party that is still set up to squelch progressive voices. DNC chair Tom Perez is fresh off of kicking progressives out of leadership roles in the party and is still out repeating Clinton campaign talking points. Donna Brazile's truth-speaking about the stolen Democratic primary is now being called Russian propaganda, among other things. Most disappointingly perhaps, even Bernie Sanders has dialed back his expectations for the Democratic Party, with a recent email to supporters saying he wanted the DNC to "reduce" the number of super-delegates in the party, rather than previous calls to eliminate the undemocratic super-delegates all-together. The local candidates that won office today are only a few small voices within a giant political machine that is continuing to do as much as it can to crush those progressive voices, and I worry those local candidates will quickly find themselves frustrated by party leadership.

While we celebrate some local wins, let's also be careful not to get too excited about the overall Democratic Party victories as a sign of progressives winning. While progressives certainly had some encouraging victories, they haven't taken the party yet, and Democratic leadership thinks 2018 will be an easy win because of Trump; not only do I think that is a dangerous attitude to have (as we saw in the losses of 2016), but the 2017 elections reaffirm Democratic beliefs that there's no need to change the party because they still win votes by default by simply not being Republicans. I think progressives are really shooting themselves in the foot when they donate their time and energy into the Democratic party by running as Democratic candidates. Exactly as we're seeing, even when progressives win, the Democratic Party machine simply uses it as an excuse to support its agenda and attack insurgent progressives even more. You're emboldening your enemy the more you try to play nice with them and think you need to follow their rules. Martin Luther King, Jr.,'s non-violence movement wasn't to work with the oppressors within the system, it was to peacefully build a new coalition outside of the system that would force the needed cultural changes.

Power never gives up power for free. You generally can't appeal to power's "sense of fairness", because it has none. Democrats will not give up their power, their rich donors, their corporate influence in the party until forced to do so. They will continue to attack progressives and rig elections because it has worked in the past for them. Democrats have to lose big time and see their voter base dry up before they will make changes; only when the voters leave and Democrats are no longer a "sure thing" will the donor money dry up too, and it will take hitting their bottom line before they get the message. Whether you believe we need a whole new party or believe Democrats can be reformed, both strategies I think require a strong Green Party challenger to the Democrats to win some high profile elections and force Democrats to re-think their position in politics.

I'm looking forward to the opportunity for the Green Party and progressive movement in general in 2018. I hope you'll join the Greens too and help us run more candidates and expand our movement.

Why the Democratic Party is Conservative, not Progressive

In a previous entry, I talked about what I believe it means to be a true Progressive, and gave some personal analysis of the Political Compass's way of grouping political thought. Today I'd like to talk more about why the Democratic Party has not always been a great home for Progressives, and especially not recently with candidates like Obama and Clinton.

In order to understand this, we need to look a little more at the history of the Democratic Party.

The Democratic Party grew out of the Democratic-Republican party of Thomas Jefferson and others, which was Anti-Federalist. That's right, the Democratic Party in most of its history was actually for weak federal government, states' rights, and very pro-business. In many ways they were similar to modern Republicans, but perhaps a little more left-leaning than today's GOP.

The big change to the modern Democratic party was essentially during the civil rights movement. Southern Democrats were largely very conservative and still in favor of those original Democratic-Republican ideals -- pro-business and states' rights, which they used to argue against civil rights for African Americans. Civil rights legislation was finally pushed by a few Democratic presidents, leading up to Lyndon Johnson's signing of civil rights into law.

At this point, there was a mutiny -- thanks to the "Southern Strategy" of the Republican Party at the time, the Republicans quickly snatched up a large amount of Democrats that were unhappy with the expansion of civil rights and government programs under Democratic presidents. Meanwhile, African Americans that traditionally voted Republican (due to their loyalty to the party that freed slaves under Lincoln, and other reforms) strongly switched to vote Democratic in support of this legislation. By the '80s, the two parties were completely different, and oddly enough, essentially traded places in their platforms views. The Republicans, that were once founded on ideals of a strong federal government and civil rights, became the modern GOP that is very pro-corporate and states' rights focused. Meanwhile, the Democratic party that at one time was strongly against federal government expansion now supported expanded programs in an effort to establish civil rights and help the poor.

So the modern idea of a "liberal" Democratic party has only really existed since maybe the '80s (Gen X and Millennials, not for the Baby Boomers). Is it any wonder why there's such a split between the generations, with most millennials voting for Bernie but baby boomers voting for Clinton? Many older Democrats that are still loyal to the party still come from the era when Democrats were very pro-corporate and pro-states'-rights -- in essence, "conservative" as we understand it in the modern era. Considering Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas starting in the early '80s, we can conclude he was a Democrat in the old sense of the term; in his younger days when he joined the party, particularly in the south (like Arkansas), the Democratic party was much closer in ideals and platforms to today's GOP. Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, as a young college student had campaigned for Barry Goldwater as a Republican. Goldwater was a controversial figure, but in summary, he was very strongly conservative in our modern sense of the term, and was one of the influential figures that changed the GOP from its old roots to today's pro-business conservative party. Hillary shortly afterward was talked into joining the Democratic party, likely because it was the "conservative" party at the time in the South and would have matched her stances.

So what we see in today's Democratic party, that was very much alive at the convention, was a fight between two factions in the Democratic party. One, is the Progressive faction, that wishes to keep alive the progressive ideals of New Deal Democrats and the Progressive Republicans of history. FDR and Teddy Roosevelt come to mind, with the expansion of social programs and busting of trusts and banks that became too big. This is the platform that has evolved over time and wants to take over the party. Meanwhile, the other faction is the Conservative faction, that still holds mostly true to its original roots as a conservative pro-business party, that largely wants to de-regulate and minimize federal government influence on business. At one point this faction formed the Blue Dog Democrats, a caucus of conservative Democrats in Congress. We see this conservativism in action as the Clintons are largely pro-fracking, pro-banking (did not support breaking up banks and in fact argue for less regulation), and pro-TPP (which is a trade agreement written with large amounts of business influence, that gives businesses a lot of authority over US government laws and regulations). Obama initially campaigned on a large amount of Progressive promises, but in office (especially his second term), he has continued many of the policies first instituted under Bush and the Republicans -- he's prolonged wars, he worked on "Obamacare" which was the Republican healthcare plan from the '90s (Romneycare, anyone?) and removed the public option from his fight, has deported more immigrants than Bush, and has cracked down on federal government whistleblowers more than past presidents. When all is tallied up, Obama and the Clintons are pretty moderate and even leaning conservative on some issues, particularly economics and business; don't let them fool you into thinking they're progressive. Being Progressive is about more than just supporting women and transgender rights (while those are great goals, there's more to being Progressive than just those issues), and even if they are more moderate than today's GOP, that doesn't make them Progressive, that just means our whole political system has shifted too far to the right.

So Progressives don't really have a home anymore. Initially, the Republicans were fairly Progressive, with Teddy Roosevelt even forming the Progressive Party at one point when he was unhappy with the direction of the Republican Party. Then, Democratic presidents such as FDR carried the Progressive torch when they implemented the New Deal, expanded social programs and civil rights. But now, with both the Republican and Democratic Parties moving to the right, what are Progressives to do?

We vote for an actual Progressive, that's what we do. Dr. Jill Stein is Progressive and wants to expand those Progressive ideals of the New Deal with what she calls the Green New Deal -- continue social programs, transition to clean energy, abolish student debt and break up the banks. The Green Party is a home for Progressives in today's era. And much like Lincoln helped establish the Republican Party (factoid: the GOP was actually a 3rd party against the dominant Whig and Democratic-Republican parties of the 1800s!) due to failures in our party system, I think the time has come for a new party to be established. I think that party is Green, and I support Dr Jill Stein. I hope Bernie Sanders also joins us in the Green party, for that is truly his home. We can't be afraid anymore, we can't keep propping up parties that move more to the right as the younger generations yearn to move to the left. If we all vote Green this fall, we will win. As Jill Stein says, if everyone with student debt voted for her, we'd be a winning majority. So let's make that happen in November.

What it Means to be Progressive

Recent conversations with others, in person and in social media, have led me to realize that the term Progressive seems to mean something different to everyone. There's a lot of people out there calling themselves Progressives despite a widening gap between policies. Many of these people are members of the Democratic Party -- and in fact, several on Twitter seem to equate a Progressive with someone in the Democratic Party (in other words, all true Progressives are Democrats in their minds). I'd like to discuss today a little more about what I mean when I say "Progressive".

I have often thought of a difference between personal (individual) freedoms and business (economic) freedoms when talking politics, and I think this viewpoint is summed up well in the Political Compass. They have a free quiz that finds your alignment; you may want to try this first, see where you land, and come back and read my discussion.

Essentially, the simple "Left vs Right" portrayed on the media is of course extremely simplistic and doesn't do a great job of capturing one's political philosophy. Consider the split between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton (both "Left-wingers"), and a similar split between people like John Kasich and Ted Cruz on the Republican side. There's a big difference in policies from these people despite being lumped into the "Left" or the "Right", respectively. Can we break it down more?

Well, if you view Left vs Right as a difference in economic freedoms, this is close to how everyone tends to think of it. Left-wingers economically tend to prefer government regulation of businesses and the economy, while Right-wingers tend to prefer free markets and businesses free of government regulation.

But what about personal freedoms? The freedoms of an individual, rather than a business. Sadly, these freedoms get lumped in with the economic ones very often, meaning we don't get a whole lot of direct discussion on it. The Political Compass proposes that we need to include a measure of individual freedoms along with the Left-vs-Right economic freedoms. So, while economically we have Left vs Right, individually we have Authoritarian vs Libertarian. The difference between the two is similar to Left vs Right: Authoritarians tend to prefer government regulation of individuals and their personal lives, while Libertarians tend to prefer individuals to live free of government regulation.

And now we can start to see more of the difference between our politicians, despite them being the in the same political parties. While most Republicans are Right-wing economically, some are Authoritarian (Ted Cruz's of the world, that want to restrict individual rights for women, LGBTQ+, etc.) and some are Libertarian (Rand Paul, for example). Similar is true between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton on the Democratic side, although the difference is even wider; I'll save this for a future blog post.

With Left vs Right and Authoritarian vs Libertarian, we basically come up with 4 different combinations, which I'll call the 4 Party System of politics. In reality, we do have 4 "major" parties but they don't quite lay out this evenly.

1. Right and Authoritarian -- this means limited government regulation of business and the economy, but generally ok with government growing large and regulating personal freedoms and decisions (not just things like abortion and drugs, but also preventing your ability to unionize and negotiate with business, for example). The Republican party is definitely in this category, but what many don't realize is the Democrats generally are too, albeit not quite as extreme. More on this later.
2. Right and Libertarian -- this means limited government regulation of business, AND people. In other words, you want a very small limited government entirely. The Libertarian Party is in this category, as they generally want a very small government. I tend to think this would lead to it being too small and being a repeat of the Articles of Confederation that almost had our country fall apart, but at least they have a consistent philosophy.
3. Left and Authoritarian -- this means you generally favor government regulation of everything: businesses as well as individuals. A distrust of everyone. The old Russian and Chinese Communist regimes are in this category, albeit extreme examples. There isn't any major or even minor party in the US advocating this currently that I'm aware of; however, I believe some modern Democrats might be leaning a little toward this direction, even if not firmly planted in it.
4. Left and Libertarian -- this means you prefer lots of freedoms and limited regulation on individuals' rights, but generally favor regulation of business and the economy. This is the category that I consider Progressive, at least a modern Progressive. The Green Party is in this category. When I took the quiz, I scored in this category (see the red dot below!), and agree with it pretty well.
    

To me, a Progressive is that Left-wing Libertarian. We heavily support maximum personal freedom and stand strongly against attempts to take away an individual's right to set their own life and destiny. I see no reason to put regulation on individuals; as long as you're not bothering anyone else, why should I care what you do in your home, for example? However, we also tend to be distrusting of the power business can wield over individuals, and believe in effective regulation of businesses and the economy (think of things like: minimum wage, safety regulations, environmental regulations, etc.). Business, especially the huge multinational conglomerates of today, can have massive influence over our rights, our economy, and our environment. Think of the damage done by the BP oil spill, or fracking in general. Think of the economic collapse of 2008 due to unrestrained Wall Street speculation. These are things that affect all of us, and yet, we had little-to-no say so about preventing these problems because business was generally allowed to act as it pleased by our current elected officials (think of how much push back strong regulation on Wall St. and fracking is getting from many of our current elected officials, both Republicans and Democrats!). Progressives view an unchecked free market as disaster, and generally support strong regulations to make business "do the right thing" -- pay living wages, protect the environment, etc. And if a business gets too big and has too much power, we break it up.

In short, a Progressive values and fights for individual liberty, while advocating sensible regulation on business to prevent business from curtailing our individual liberties. We still believe in free markets, but believe some level of strong regulation is required to keep a functioning free market; otherwise, businesses will buy each other out and the system will decay into monopoly that hurts individuals or even the environment. Our friends in the Libertarian party disagree strongly here, obviously, as they think the regulation is the reason the free market doesn't work out; they actually believe bad events such as monopolies result from the government influence via regulation. It's an age-old debate I doubt I will solve tonight, but thinking about the differences helps clarify who I am as a Progressive.

I hope this blog post made it clear what I consider to be a Progressive! Do you agree? Disagree? Let me know with a comment, I'm curious to hear what you think.

I have more to say on the current major parties, particularly the relationship between Democrats and Progressivism, but I'll leave this for a new blog post later.