An irreversible progressive majority

I believe American politics swings between right-wing dominance and the big business-leaning middle not because of intergenerational or cyclical political processes, but because the work necessary to forge an irreversible progressive, labor-friendly, peace-minded majority has never been completed. To achieve such a majority requires a change in peoples’ consciousness about a myriad of social, historical and economic worldviews and values. No small task, but we are moving in the right direction. The demographic and political changes that helped Barack Obama become President of the United States and the hopeful political engagement his campaign inspired, has created the conditions for progressive change agents and organizations to systemically diminish the influence of right wing thought, values and historical narrative such that a conservative agenda can never again amass a constituency large enough to gain power.

To accomplish this task will require developing a grassroots popular educational curriculum (or several). In particular this means creating a curriculum about how the economic system of capitalism works, so citizens can support reforms that will protect them from the most egregious behavior and failings of the system. Any system based on greed (maximizing profits) and competition, must be regulated. We have learned this the hard way.

Even well informed people find the workings of capitalism a mystery. It is difficult when so many lack insights into the system they live and work in to advance and win support for far-reaching reforms of capitalism. The remedy is education and dialogue. I do not advocate an anti-capitalist educational program; simply a program that teaches how the system works. Evaluating the system’s moral or economic behavior and consequences should left to participants.

I believe that the next goal for democratic change in America should be to reform the socio-economic system so that we move toward that of European social democracies. Achieving this would provide a broader economic security net that would be financed by a more equitable re-distribution and a better use of the wealth we create. To achieve this will require a new social contract between labor and business, either negotiated or imposed by a significant democratic majority via electoral, civic and institutional actions. [NOTE: In 2007, of a $14 trillion GDP, profits were $1.6 trillion or 13.8 percent. The only reason we do not have fully employment and a good economy right now is systemic, reckless mismanagement of huge profits like this.]

This move toward social-democratic solutions is in its infancy. The developing consensus for universal health care represents the first possibility and most importantly presents an opportunity to inject similar types of solutions for other social and economic problems. Individual solutions, the go-it-alone, work harder and longer approach needs to be replaced by the “we are in it together” outlook that trade unions have long advocated with one word: solidarity. (See the 2006 book by Jared Bernstein, “All Together Now: Common Sense for a Fair Economy.” This is a must read for union leaders and activists as Bernstein is Vice President Joe Biden’s chief economic policy advisor and Executive Director the Administration’s Middle Class Task Force. The phrase “we are in it together” is from Bernstein’s book).

Simply put: A consciousness of social solidarity is required in order to win a more equitable distribution of wealth and the economic reforms that are need to underpin economic security. Embracing such a value would be a first for an American culture that is built on striving for success, competition and individual enrichment and power. A persistent cultural undercurrent in America has for several decades challenged these assumptions by asking the proverbial quality of life question: Do we live to work or do we work to live?

I believe this is one of the central economic and cultural dilemmas of our time that crosses class, occupational, religious and political boundaries. It is a question of meaning. A progressive educational agenda should place this inquiry within the context of how the system works and in relationship with the socio-economic reforms that promise to yield a less stressful, more secure and a better quality of life.

The choices people make to either embrace go-it-alone or in-it-together policies are choices that need to be patiently and respectfully debated. To this end, a progressive educational agenda’s method should be built on dialogue, not persuasion. It should inform, not indoctrinate. It should seek to open debate, not close it.

This calls for accurately presenting opposing perspectives and solutions. The progressive educator’s goal is for people to make informed choices that they have thought through in comparison with other possibilities. Educators should encourage critical, skeptical thinking, regardless of the choices people may make.

Communication via the Internet has already changed the world for the better. It allows for democratic participation, organizing and debate that is rivaled in effectiveness only by face-to-face dialogue. The combination of an easily accessible creative educational curriculum online and grassroots activity are the yin and yang of a more just, democratic and peaceful America.