George Washington Warned of Those Like Reagan, Norquist, Cruz – Enemies to National Government

October 13th, 2013
FacebookTwitterEmailPrintFriendlyShare

George Washington as Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army
In his farewell address, George Washington gave advice and warnings to help the citizens of the United States keep the Constitution and their liberty. He warned of "overgrown military establishments," political parties, favoritism for a foreign nation, change to the Constitution based on "mere hypothesis and opinion", encroachment of one department of government upon another, undermining religion, piling up debt, unwillingness to pay taxes, and permanent alliances with foreign nations. But Washington's first, and maybe strongest, warning was of "internal and external enemies" that would weaken the citizens' bond with their national government.
The unity of Government, which constitutes you one people, … is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquillity at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very Liberty, which you so highly prize. But … it is easy to foresee, that … much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed ...

We can, I think, find the internal type of such enemies among the leaders of the modern conservative movement, from the "Reagan Revolution" to today's Teabag Party congressmen. Among those in that movement that have acted to weaken the citizens' bond with their national government are:

  • President Ronald Reagan, who, after gaining office by treasonous plot, said, "[G]overnment is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem," and went on to sell public assets dirt cheap, turn CIA propaganda methods against the American public, and run a dirty administration with many officials convicted of crimes, or leaving office after charged with misconduct.
  • Grover Norquist, a Republican leader who said: "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub." Norquist has hamstrung the federal government by getting almost every Republican congressman to sign his anti-tax pledge, which forbids boosting government revenue by raising income tax rates or closing loopholes. And Norquist has helped damage the regular give-and-take of legislatures throughout the nation by driving the Republican Party to take a hard-line. He said: "Bipartisanship is another name for date rape." And: "We are trying to change the tones in the state capitals - and turn them toward bitter nastiness and partisanship."
  • Senator Ted Cruz, a Teabag Party leader, who, near the beginning of his recent 21-hour Senate floor talkathon, said:
    "[T]he problem [in Washington] is bigger than a continuing resolution [to fund the government]. It is bigger than ObamaCare. It is even bigger than the budget. The most fundamental problem ... is that the men and women in Washington aren't listening [to the people]."
    And what did Cruz (but not the polls) say that the people want "the men and women in Washington" to hear? It's: "Stop Obamacare." Thus, by his logic, stopping the nation's healthcare law also becomes bigger than funding the government! And so Cruz backs the teabag-led Republican House congressmen in their strategy to undo the healthcare law, using their powers to shutdown the federal government, and to forbid it to pay its bills-come-due, as bargaining chips.

Of fevered factions, such as the teabag Congressmen, that would damage the regular functioning of democratic government, George Washington gave a special warning:

... The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish Government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established Government.

All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests.

Post Script

George Washington did not expect that his advice would be strongly followed, but hoped that it might be helpful to his compatriots from time-to-time.

In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression I could wish; that they will control the usual current of the passions, or prevent our nation from running the course, which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations. But, if I may even flatter myself, that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good; that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism; this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare, by which they have been dictated.

Sources

Read the rest of this entry »
FacebookTwitterEmailPrintFriendlyShare
Print this article. Print this article.

How Helen Keller Learned Speech, Enjoyed Song and Niagara

August 20th, 2013
FacebookTwitterEmailPrintFriendlyShare

Phonetics is the study of the sounds of human speech, from formation by the speaker to reception by the listener. Some examples of formation are: the "K" sound, which comes from the back of the mouth as the back of the tongue contacts the soft palate; the "P" sound, which comes from the two lips put together; and the "N" sound, which comes when the front and sides of the tongue seal against the alveolar ridge sending the voice to resonate in the nasal cavity. A deafblind person, having no hearing to receive the sound nor sight for lipreading, might use tactile lipreading to receive the sounds being formed. Helen Keller, though adept with a manual alphabet, favored this method, laying fingers on the speaker's throat, lips and face. By imitating the vibrations and movements she felt, and after much hard practice, she learned to speak with her own voice. She wrote:

... In reading my teacher's lips I was wholly dependent on my fingers: I had to use the sense of touch in catching the vibrations of the throat, the movements of the mouth and the expression of the face; and often this sense was at fault. In such cases I was forced to repeat the words or sentences, sometimes for hours, until I felt the proper ring in my own voice. My work was practice, practice, practice. Discouragement and weariness cast me down frequently; but the next moment the thought that I should soon be at home and show my loved ones what I had accomplished, spurred me on, and I eagerly looked forward to their pleasure in my achievement.

"My little sister will understand me now," was a thought stronger than all obstacles. I used to repeat ecstatically, "I am not dumb now." I could not be despondent while I anticipated the delight of talking to my mother and reading her responses from her lips. It astonished me to find how much easier it is to talk than to spell with the fingers, and I discarded the manual alphabet as a medium of communication on my part; but Miss Sullivan and a few friends still use it in speaking to me, for it is more convenient and more rapid than lip-reading.

Helen Keller and Anne Sullivan demonstrate tactile lipreading.

However, with her great joy in speaking, later came great disappointment in not being able to do it normally. When lecturing, an interpreter stood beside Keller to repeat her sentences for the audience to understand.

It is not blindness or deafness that brings me my darkest hours. It is the acute disappointment in not being able to speak normally. Longingly I feel how much more good I could have done if I had acquired normal speech. But out of this dark experience I understand more fully all human strivings, thwarted ambitions and the infinite capacity of hope.

Helen Keller speaks of great disappointment. (Speech begins at 1:49)

Keller was also able, by laying fingers on the face, to enjoy song, as she did with Enrico Caruso. The New York Times reported:

Caruso ... sang with power that brought tears to the eyes of other Metropolitan singers who were in the room. And as he sang his voice grew husky with the pathos of the song.

"Though I cannot see your face, I can feel the pathos of your song." said Miss Keller.

And Caruso said, with his lips against her hands: "In your fingers I can feel your soul. In your blue eyes your soul is shining."

Miss Keller almost collapsed, so powerfully had the voice of the tenor stirred her.

Keller answered those that wonder how she could enjoy music and natural beauty that most take-in by hearing and sight.

We went to Niagara in March, 1893. It is difficult to describe my emotions when I stood on the point which overhangs the American Falls and felt the air vibrate and the earth tremble. It seems strange to many people that I should be impressed by the wonders and beauties of Niagara. They are always asking: "What does this beauty or that music mean to you? You cannot see the waves rolling up the beach or hear their roar. What do they mean to you?" In the most evident sense they mean everything. I cannot fathom or define their meaning any more than I can fathom or define love or religion or goodness.

Sources

Read the rest of this entry »
FacebookTwitterEmailPrintFriendlyShare
Print this article. Print this article.

Mark Twain’s Autobiography Honors Helen Keller

July 21st, 2013
FacebookTwitterEmailPrintFriendlyShare


Helen Keller and Mark Twain, 1895 (MTP)
Mark Twain felt he had to write an autobiography, but didn't feel right doing it. He found the literary form too rigid, and drudgery to write year-by-year, cradle-to-grave. After several false starts, he at last found a way that suited him:
Finally in Florence in 1904, I hit upon the right way to do an Autobiography: start it at no particular time of your life; wander at your free will all over your life; talk only about the thing which interests you for the moment; drop it the moment its interest threatens to pale, and turn your talk upon the new and more interesting thing that has intruded itself into your mind meantime. Also, make the narrative a combined Diary and Autobiography. In this way you have the vivid things of the present to make a contrast with memories of like things in the past, and these contrasts have a charm which is all their own. No talent is required to make a combined Diary and Autobiography interesting. And so, I have found the right plan. It makes my labor amusement—mere amusement, play, pastime, and wholly effortless. It is the first time in history that the right plan has been hit upon.

To spare the feelings of some that he wrote about, and to give himself the freedom to write honestly, Twain -- also known by his birth name, Samuel Clemens -- left an instruction that the book not be published in whole until he was 100 years dead. And so it happened -- in 2010 the first of three volumes of the autobiography came out, issued by The Mark Twain Project, which is stationed at the University of California. The entire work is published online HERE.

So, by design, this diary-autobiography, filled with rich depiction and dashed with wit, rambles -- for 265 pages in volume one. Twain tells of his brush with subconscious plagiarism; of Ulysses S. Grant's answer that the "march to the sea" was neither his nor General Sherman's idea, but the enemy's doing, for surprisingly leaving the way open; how his daughter Suzy and his wife were best friends; how proud and happy he was to get a big laugh from telling his first humorous story; how his first two minutes on the lecture circuit spent in total stage freight steeled him against it ever after; and many more stories. But where did the editors stop, and with what story and words do they leave the reader?

The last story begins with the prior night's meeting of an association to uplift the adult blind, at which Twain served as chairman, and for which he held high hopes:

It will do for the adult blind what Congress and the several legislatures do so faithfully and with such enthusiasm for our lawless railway corporations, our rotten beef trusts, our vast robber dens of insurance magnates; in a word, for each and all of our multimillionaires and their industries—protect them, take watchful care of them, preserve them from harm like a Providence, and secure their prosperity, and increase it.

Helen Keller was to have spoken at the meeting, but, due to illness, could not attend. Next, Twain tells of the first time he met Keller, when she was 14:

Mr. Howells seated himself by Helen on the sofa and she put her fingers against his lips and he told her a story of considerable length, and you could see each detail of it pass into her mind and strike fire there and throw the flash of it into her face. Then I told her a long story, which she interrupted all along and in the right places, with cackles, chuckles, and care-free bursts of laughter. Then Miss Sullivan put one of Helen’s hands against her lips and spoke against it the question “What is Mr. Clemens distinguished for?” Helen answered, in her crippled speech, “For his humor.” I spoke up modestly and said “And for his wisdom.” Helen said the same words instantly—“And for his wisdom.” I suppose it was a case of mental telegraphy, since there was no way for her to know what it was I had said.

Keller sent a letter for Twain to read at the meeting. Twain recounts how he had introduced the letter to the assemblage:

... I said that if I knew anything about literature, here was a fine and great and noble sample of it; that this letter was simple, direct, unadorned, unaffected, unpretentious, and was moving and beautiful and eloquent; ... I said I believed that this letter, written by a young woman who has been stone deaf, dumb, and blind ever since she was eighteen months old, and who is one of the most widely and thoroughly educated women in the world, would pass into our literature as a classic and remain so. I will insert the letter here.

And the last words in volume one of the "Autobiography of Mark Twain" are not Twain's, but Keller's:

At your meeting New York will speak its word for the blind, and when New York speaks, the world listens. The true message of New York is not the commercial ticking of busy telegraphs, but the mightier utterances of such gatherings as yours. Of late our periodicals have been filled with depressing revelations of great social evils. Querulous critics have pointed to every flaw in our civic structure. We have listened long enough to the pessimists. You once told me you were a pessimist, Mr. Clemens; but great men are usually mistaken about themselves. You are an optimist. If you were not, you would not preside at the meeting. For it is an answer to pessimism. It proclaims that the heart and the wisdom of a great city are devoted to the good of mankind, that in this the busiest city in the world no cry of distress goes up, but receives a compassionate and generous answer. Rejoice that the cause of the blind has been heard in New York; for the day after, it shall be heard round the world.

~ ~ ~

NOTE: The prior verion of the article had the wrong assumption that the whole work had been published and that Twain had chosen to end it with the Helen Keller story. Volume two is due out October 1, 2013, and volume three in 2015.

~ ~ ~

Also: Helen Keller in Her Own Words

Sources

Read the rest of this entry »
FacebookTwitterEmailPrintFriendlyShare
Print this article. Print this article.

U.S. Constitution Survey De-Teabagged

July 7th, 2013
FacebookTwitterEmailPrintFriendlyShare

A week or two ago I got in the mail from a Hillsdale College its survey on the U.S. Constitution, and found it to have a misleading, teabag bent. So, I edited it for relevance and clarity. (Hillsdale's text is in gray; My text is in yellow. Changed text is in italics.)

ISSUE SUMMARY:

Hillsdale College teaches that the Constitution of the United States (written in 1787) is the reason America grew so quickly to become the freest, most prosperous nation in history.

Hungeski says that the Constitution of the United States (last amended in 1992) is the framework for a strong, pragmatic central government that helped We the People make a prosperous nation with much freedom to lead a fulfilling life[*].

QUESTION #1: What is your level of AGREEMENT or DISAGREEMENT with this proposition?

  • Strongly Agree
  • Agree
  • Disagree
  • Strongly Disagree
  • Not Sure

ISSUE SUMMARY:

Some politicians and intellectuals today argue that the U.S. Constitution is outdated, and should therefore be treated more as a set of guidelines, but should not be strictly followed. Liberal Supreme Court Justices (including, Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg and Breyer) see the Constitution this way, more as a set of guidelines that need not be followed strictly. The more conservative Justices on the Supreme Court (including, Scalia, Thomas and Alito) see the Constitution as the supreme law of the land that must be followed strictly

Some politicians and ideologues today argue that the U.S. Constitution is rigid, and should therefore be treated more as a set of strict rules for the 18th century, but should not be truly followed for life today. Right-wing Supreme Court Justices (including, Scalia, Thomas and Alito) see the Constitution this way, more as a set of strict rules for the 18th century that need not be followed truly for life today. The more centrist Justices on the Supreme Court (including, Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg and Breyer) see the Constitution as the supreme law of the land that must be followed truly for life today

QUESTION #2:

Where do you stand in this debate on how closely the U.S. government should follow the Constitution?

  • I agree with the conservative Justices on the Supreme Court. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Government should follow the Constitution strictly, as law.
  • I agree more with the liberals on the Supreme Court. The U.S. Constitution is an outdated document. We should treat it as a set of guidelines, not strictly as law.
  • I oppose the Constitution. I don't think government should look to the Constitution at all for guidance.
  • Not Sure
  • Other

Where do you stand in this debate on how truly the U.S. government should follow the Constitution?

  • I agree with the centrist Justices on the Supreme Court. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Government should follow the Constitution truly, as law for today.
  • I agree more with the right-wingers on the Supreme Court. The U.S. Constitution is a rigid document. We should treat it as a set of strict rules for olden times, not truly as law for life today.
  • I oppose the Constitution. I think we should bring back the Articles of Confederation.
  • Not Sure
  • Other

ISSUE SUMMARY: The Tenth Amendment of the Constitution states as follows: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

In other words, the Federal government was set up to do very specific duties that only a national government can do such as: provide for a national defense, regulate interstate commerce, set up a federal system of justice, establish a currency and ensure domestic tranquility. Almost all other responsibilities of government are supposed to be handled by state and local governments, or by families and individuals. Hillsdale contends that if Congress actually followed the Constitution, including the Tenth Amendment, our federal government would be about one-third the size it is now.

In other words, the Federal government was set up with powers to do very important duties that are national matters such as: provide for a national defense, regulate interstate commerce, set up a federal system of courts, establish a currency, ensure domestic tranquility, establish justice, and promote the general welfare. Almost all other powers of government are over local matters to be handled by state and local governments, or by families and individuals. Corporations are given no powers. Hungeski imagines that if Congress and the Supreme Court actually followed the Constitution, including all of the amendments, Wall Street would be about one-third the size it is now.

QUESTION #3: What is your level of AGREEMENT or DISAGREEMENT with this proposition?

  • Strongly Agree
  • Agree
  • Disagree
  • Strongly Disagree
  • Not Sure

QUESTION #4:

How closely do you think our Federal government is following the Constitution today?

  • Not At All
  • Very Little
  • Some
  • Closely
  • Very Closely
  • Not Sure
  • Other

How truly do you think our Federal government is following the Constitution today?

  • Not At All
  • Very Little
  • Some
  • Truly
  • Very Truly
  • Not Sure
  • Other

ISSUE SUMMARY:

The Obama Administration is now building 159 new government agencies to administer ObamaCare and is hiring 16,000 new IRS agents to enforce ObamaCare. When radio host Paul Smith asked liberal Congressman John Dingell (D-MI) why it will take the government until 2014 to fully set up the ObamaCare system, Dingell said this: "It takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people." Source: News Talk WJR Radio with Paul W. Smith 3/23/2010

The 14th Amendment plainly says: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." But Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said that women have no equal rights under the Constitution: “Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn’t. Nobody ever thought that that’s what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that.” Source: ‘The Originalist’ – California Lawyer, January 2011

QUESTION #5:

 Do you think our government should be more concerned with "controlling" the people (as Congressman John Dingell believes)? Or do you think the primary responsibility of government is to "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity", as the preamble to the Constitution says?

  • I agree with Congressman Dingell. The primary purpose of our federal government should be to "control the people."
  • I agree with the preamble to the U.S. Constitution and America's Founders -- that the primary responsibility of the federal government is to "secure the blessings of liberty."
  • Not Sure
  • Other

Do you think that women should not have equal rights under the Constitution (as Justice Scalia believes)? Or do you think "any person" has a right to "equal protection of the laws", as the 14th Amendment to the Constitution says?

  • I agree with Justice Scalia. Women have no equal rights under the Constitution.
  • I agree with the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and well-settled law -- that equal rights apply to "any person."
  • Not Sure
  • Other

ISSUE SUMMARY:

Hillsdale contends that the fastest way to solve America's economic problems and restore America's position as the world's #1 economic power is for our federal government (including Congress and the President) to start following the Constitution again.

Hungeski says that the fastest way to solve America's economic problems and restore America's middle class is for our federal government (including Congress, the President and the Supreme Court) to start following the Constitution again, and ban corporate personhood and corporate meddling in politics.

QUESTION #6: What is your level of AGREEMENT or DISAGREEMENT with this proposition?

  • Strongly Agree
  • Agree
  • Disagree
  • Strongly Disagree
  • Not Sure

ISSUE SUMMARY:

Hillsdale contends that America is in such dire straits because voters don't know enough about the Constitution and the case for liberty to insist on electing leaders in our government who also know and appreciate the magnificence of our Constitution and heritage of liberty. So Hillsdale has launched online courses on the Constitution that all Americans can take from the comfort of their home. So far, more than 325,000 Americans have signed up for these courses. Hillsdale is aiming to have 1,000,000 Americans taking this course in the next few weeks, and many millions more Americans taking this course in the months ahead. Rush Limbaugh calls Hillsdale's online "Constitution 101" course "unprecedented."

Hungeski says that America is in such dire straits because voters don't know enough about the Constitution and the case for the freedom to lead a fulfilling life to insist on electing leaders in our government who also know and appreciate the Constitution and heritage of the freedom to lead a fulfilling life. So Hungeski is providing this LINK to the Constitution so that all Americans can read it from the comfort of their home. So far, an unknown number of Americans have read the Constitution. Hungeski is aiming to have 1,000,000 Americans read the Constitution in the next few weeks, and many millions more Americans reading it in the months ahead. The ACLU says, "The Constitution is for the 100%!"

QUESTION #7:

How supportive are you of Hillsdale's "Constitution 101" online course to educate millions of Americans on "the blessings of liberty" and on the case for making America great again by restoring the Constitution as the supreme law of our land?

How supportive are you of Hungeski's "Read the Constitution" LINK to educate millions of Americans on "the blessings of liberty" and on the case for rebuilding the middle class by using the Constitution for We the People?

  • Very Supportive
  • Somewhat Supportive
  • Not Supportive
  • Not Sure

QUESTION #8:

Will you make your best freedom-saving donation right now to help Hillsdale buy $1 million in advertising so that every American can know about the online Constitution course that's now open FREE to all Americans . . . so we can increase enrollment from 325,000 citizens now taking this course to more than 1,000,000 citizens (or more) taking online Constitution courses in the next few weeks?

Will you make your best freedom-saving link share right now to help Hungeski spread the word so that every American can know about the "Read the Constitution" LINK that's now open FREE to all Americans . . . so we can increase the number of citizens that have read the Constitution by more than 1,000,000 citizens (or more) reading the Constitution in the next few weeks?

  • Yes
  • No

~~~

U.S. Constitution

Amendments 1-10 to the U.S. Constitution

Amendments 11-27 to the U.S. Constitution

Sources

Read the rest of this entry »
FacebookTwitterEmailPrintFriendlyShare
Print this article. Print this article.

Progressivism: The Practical Center

July 4th, 2013
FacebookTwitterEmailPrintFriendlyShare


National Progressive Convention, Chicago, 1912
(Analysis.) When we think of the full political spectrum, from pure socialism on the left to unbridled capitalism on the right, we find progressivism at the center – not the left, as is commonly thought. Under socialism, the people own the means of production, and get the benefits of that production. The people's government plans and manages the production, but, with that power, may become overbearing and self-serving. Under capitalism, corporations own the means of production, and compete to create better products at less cost. The corporate management maximizes profit for the owners, and may form monopolies or mega-corporations that make people pay dearly for products, even basic needs. With progressivism, like capitalism, corporations own most of the means of production, but, like socialism, the people get much of the benefits of that production. Progressivism always aims for the common good, but, unlike socialism or capitalism, its policies are not ideological, but practical. Progressives choose policies based on what has been shown to work, and on scientific study.

In U.S. history, progressive policies took hold when capitalism brought much pain to, and became threatened by, the people. Near its end, the Gilded Age heaped depression on top of dangerous working conditions and skimpy pay. The occurrence of strikes rose from 1000 per year in the 1890's to 4000 in 1904. By 1911, a "rising tide of socialism" saw hundreds of socialists elected to public office. President Theodore Roosevelt was among the leaders that saw the situation as did the progressive Milwaukee Journal: "[Conservatives] fight socialism blindly ... while the Progressives fight it intelligently and seek to remedy the abuses and conditions upon which it thrives." So the "Progressive Era" began and brought us such gains as workplace safety standards, food and drug purity standards, the national park system, control of corporate monopoly growth, guards against plutocracy and aristocracy via progressive taxation, and, in some states, a total ban on corporations in politics.

During the Great Depression of the 1930's, with one-fourth of the work force idled and many thrown out of home, tenants and the jobless organized, self-help movements formed, and general strikes stopped business-as-usual in several cities. Wage cuts prompted sit-down strikes against the rubber manufacturers in Akron, and after the long sit-down strike against GM in Flint was won, a wave of such strikes swept the nation. From this state of affairs came President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, which brought us such gains as the Social Security system, unemployment insurance, minimum wage, the 40-hour work week, child labor limits, protection of the worker's right to unionize, a firewall between Wall Street speculators and regular banking, bank deposit insurance, and Wall Street watchdogs. Also, there came a sharp rise in unionization and the golden age of the American middle class.

That golden age ended around 1980 with the onset of the "Reagan Revolution," which brought a sharp fall in union membership, and a trend of weakening and reversing progressive gains. Corporations grew bigger and, by a growing system of legal bribery, got more power in government. Lawmakers flattened progressive income and estate tax, and tore down the wall between speculators and regular banking. President Reagan also helped form a big right-wing propaganda system that bent the D.C. "conventional wisdom." In 2008, these trends climaxed in the Bush Crash and the Great Recession, which, once again, threw many persons out of work and home. And while established progressive safety net programs, such as unemployment insurance and food stamps, cushioned the fall, street rebellion against the capitalist system still arose -- this time in the form of the Occupy Wall Street movement. And while a law to rein-in Wall Street passed, banks are jamming up its implementation, and risky derivatives trading and too-big-to-fail banks still go on.

Today, as we still sit in the throes of the Great Recession with a battered and shrunken middle class, faced with climate change, and renewed Wall Street corruption and corporate power, progressives still fight for policies such as Medicare for all, a carbon tax, a stock transaction tax, ending corporate tax breaks for oil drilling and moving jobs and profits overseas, infrastructure funding, and breaking up too-big-to-fail banks. Today, as much as ever, we need to aim for the common good with proven, practical governance – that is, we need the progressive way.

Sources

Read the rest of this entry »
FacebookTwitterEmailPrintFriendlyShare
Print this article. Print this article.