The present struggles we face today are nothing new; it is a classic refrain that gets repeated in the same old patterns seen throughout history—the fight to get our voices heard by those in power; feeling disempowered when legislation gets watered down beyond recognition of its progressive origins, or doesn’t get enforced properly when regulators look the other way; watching what we’ve worked so hard to gain wither away upon unmitigated greed and recklessness; and watching our losses be socialized, and our gains be privatized. We’ve watched throughout history in our country as the white-collar criminals, those that have raped, plundered, and despoiled our lives in all sorts of industries—coal, financial services, insurance, and more—get a slap on the wrist, while those too poor to afford high-priced lawyers for misdemeanors such as smoking medical marijuana, get the full weight of the law upon them.
It's the same old story in our country, but yet, we keep on fighting the same old story, because it has to be fought and we can't just give up. In that story, there are also the classic refrains of those who have fought successfully, got empowered through the passage of legislation, and enjoyed the fruits of our labor. For every major steps forward, there is always the eventual backslide. That is the story in our country.
"Brother, Can You Spare A Dime?"
They used to tell me I was building a dream, and so I followed the mob,
When there was earth to plow, or guns to bear, I was always there right on the job.
They used to tell me I was building a dream, with peace and glory ahead,
Why should I be standing in line, just waiting for bread?
Once I built a railroad, I made it run, made it race against time.
Once I built a railroad; now it's done. Brother, can you spare a dime?
Once I built a tower, up to the sun, brick, and rivet, and lime;
Once I built a tower, now it's done. Brother, can you spare a dime?
Once in khaki suits, gee we looked swell,
Full of that Yankee Doodly Dum,
Half a million boots went slogging through Hell,
And I was the kid with the drum!
Say, don't you remember, they called me Al; it was Al all the time.
Why don't you remember, I'm your pal? Buddy, can you spare a dime?
Once in khaki suits, gee we looked swell,
Full of that Yankee Doodly Dum,
Half a million boots went slogging through Hell,
And I was the kid with the drum!
Say, don't you remember, they called me Al; it was Al all the time.
Say, don't you remember, I'm your pal? Buddy, can you spare a dime?
And the divide in the middle between the rich and the middle class gets wider, with the middle class dangerously falling beneath the poverty line to join those forgotten on the margins of our society. And our politicians in Washington, D.C., spout all the right rhetoric, and they take action—but not to the extent that it produces actual change in the paradigm of our policies. These politicians are risk-averse in that they feel comfortable tinkering around the edges, but are far too scared or cautious to take on big-scale policies to address our problems. This is known as incrementalism, but it is one that is disjointed—and better known as ‘muddling through.’ It is the same old story that we face with elected officials that we put into office, time and time again, and here comes the same refrain of pushing to hold them accountable, to push for more proactive change, and big-scale solutions in addressing our problems.
There are two main flashpoints here on this website—whether disjointed incrementalism is enough to address the problems facing our society—or whether a bold progressive approach on a large scale, are the correct policy approach to our collective problems. I am on the side of bold progressive action, as I share the view of critics in that disjointed incrementalism is self-serving, also politically expedient, and our problems today are too immediate and large to be addressed on such an incremental scale. One example of disjoined incrementalism is the so-called repeal of DADT, which was anything but in name only, as was covered extensively by the gay community here on Dailykos. Bold progressive action would have been the issuance of an executive order repealing discrimination against gays in the military—just like the previous executive order issued by Harry Truman to desegregate the military.
One recent example of bold, progressive action would have to be the proposal to address the danger of the toxic oil sludge to the wetlands by shifting the course of the Mississippi River. While I do not know if there is serious consideration to the proposal or to the creation of a huge public works project in the Gulf that would employ people—the enactment of such a policy would be a bold, progressive action by those in Washington, D.C. That is a policy that I would extol happily if it was put into action.
Bold, progressive action—namely, change on a broad scale, is what people are looking for, and when public opinion swings for the better—say, to a bare majority opposing offshore drilling. That is the perfect time to seize the leadership mantle, and urge an end to our reliance on offshore oil, by reinstating the moratorium on offshore drilling (which used to be in place from 1982 to 2008). And then asking for broad investments in climate legislation with a greater focus on subsidies towards alternative energies rather than on subsidies to ‘dirty’ sources of energy such as nuclear, coal, and gas.
There are great examples of progressive proposals in reforming our oil addiction. Many progressives have pointed out the continued missed opportunities to take on such a leadership mantle. And with indications that the administration is looking to shorten their six-month moratorium on ‘deepwater’ drilling, that opportunity to reinstate the ban and change our path away from offshore drilling is dwindling shortly. Such is the danger of pursuing an incrementalist path that seeks to take the most politically expedient solution, while being risk-averse to solutions that can bring about better results for us all as a whole.
So, will we repeat the same old story in asking for, demanding, and engaging in activism for bold, progressive change, just as the abolitionists, the suffragists, the civil rights marchers, the feminists, and the labor union marchers did in their time? It is my sincere hope that we will continue to do so, and ignore the demands of those who would have us backslide to incremental change, and being content with incrementalism.
Don't ever stop believing in that we CAN do better, that we CAN reach above what we view as our so-called limitations, and that when so called, our action together as a collective group can move mountains, far and wide, in waking up those in Congress.