Which candidate is a Pragmatic Progressive?

[TheReligiousLeft]

I thought that Pragmatic progressivism would be a good way to counteract Compassionate Conservativism. Which of our 9 candidates could call themselves a Pragmatic Progressive? Further what would it mean to be a Pragmatic Progressive?
Thanks for the thoughts.

[La_Serpiente]

1. Too late

the DLC already stole "Progressive Internationalism"

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=252146&subid=108&kaid=85

don't you just hate it when fundies steal liberal ideas? It's quite sickning.

[TheReligiousLeft]

2. Arg... Well, none the less, if any of the candidates were to use the

title who would they be?

[a_lil_wall_fly]

25. La_Serpiente...LOL on the banneer

You are bashing on Ugly Kid...oopps bad me no true disrepect on Sen Joe Liberman.

But I like the banner :D

[dpbrown]

3. Dennis Kucinich

Nice slogan.

[TheReligiousLeft]

4. Thanks(nt)

[Bucky]

5. My candidate is the pragmatic progressive and your candidate sucks

[TheReligiousLeft]

6. Who's your candidate?

For that matter who's my candidate?

[a_lil_wall_fly]

26. TRL.....

Bucky needs too get nuetered again.....


comic strip bucky hehehehe

[Bucky]

30. My candidate is the only real Democrat running. Yours is a Republican-lite

[mikehiggins]

7. Clark

I think that would be a pretty apropos description of Clark's history and position. I don't know if anyone would agree with me insofar as using it is concerned but it does seem to fit.

Wes Clark, a pragmatic progressive
"do what's right...whatever it takes."

[goodhue]

8. easy question

Dennis Kucinich clearly presents a pragmatic progressive vision. He even labels it as such, if you were to ever here him speak about it. His practical policy prescriptions make a lot of common sense.

http://www.kucinich.us/issues/10key.php

This is what a Kucinich administration would work to deliver for America:

<1> Universal Health Care with a Single Payer Plan
<2> Full Social Security Benefits at Age 65
<3> Withdrawal from NAFTA and WTO
<4> Repeal of the "Patriot Act"
<5> Right-to-Choose, Privacy, and Civil Rights
<6> Balance Between Workers and Corporations
<7> Guaranteed Quality Education, Pre-K through College
<8> A Renewed Commitment to Peace and Diplomacy
<9> Restored Rural Communities and Family Farms
<10> Environmental Renewal and Clean Energy

[LuminousX]

9. You've defined the progressive, now where is the pragmatism?

[dpbrown]

10. For one, Kucinich got Diebold to back off - no other candidate tried

That's pragmatic leadership.

Kucinich won one for democracy, by putting links to Diebold's memos on his own governmental website, forcing Diebold to put up or shut up - they folded, because they were bluffing.

Kucinich called their bluff and won, meriting more coverage for the fight for fair voting.

He's doing his job in Congress first and running for higher office second.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[LuminousX]

11. I'm not arguing with the good works

I'm stating that you outlined his progressive agenda, an unargueably progressive agenda, but you didn't outline how he plans on achieving those results in a pragmatic fashion.

He is far from pragmatic in his approach to the all or nothing healthcare. Revoking NAFTA and WTO and damning American made goods to ungodly tariffs isn't too practical and is more Pat Buchanon than Thomas Jefferson, but we'll save that argument for a different thread.

Worthy goals without a qualified plan is just a pipe dream.

[no name no slogan]

12. But he HAS plans

Scrapping NAFTA would not damn American made good to "ungodly tariffs".

Was the trade situation in North America really that bad before 1993? Were our goods subject to "ungodly tariffs" in Canada and Mexico?

Because when NAFTA is revoked, we'd simply return to our previous bi-lateral trade agreements that existed pre-NAFTA. The borders would not seal up, international trade would not ground to a halt. As the US is the world's largest economy, it's doubtful that our trading partners would suddenly want to stop trading with us if NAFTA and the WTO went away.

And seeing as we are the world's largest economy, we hold an incredible amount of sway with the other countries of this world. We are in a power position to negotiate with most of them: we could use this power to negotiate for better conditions for their workers, better environmental regulations AND possibly even greater political freedoms for their people.

We are currently squandering our power in this arena by doing what's right by the transnational corporations, as opposed to what's right for the citizens of the world. Do we, as a nation, really want to continue the "race to the bottom" so that more corporations can get richer?

He is far from pragmatic in his approach to the all or nothing healthcare

Throwing more of our hard-earned tax money at a healthcare system run for the profit of others is hardly "pragmatic", IMO. It's waste of the highest degree, especially considering we can fund a universal, single-payer healthcare system for a fraction of what we currently pay today.

Most people in this country support a single-payer universal health care system run by the government-- 70% of the according to a recent Pew poll. What they DO NOT support is piecemeal "changes" to the system like the recent Medicare bill, or the "managed care" sham Clinton tried to pass in 1994. People know darn well who's getting rich off of their misery, and they're sick of it, literally.

With public support for a single-payer system at an all-time high, what's NOT pragmatic about supporting or enacting it? Kucinich has already had a number of co-sponsors sign on to his single-payer bill in the House-- and don't House members run for re-election every two years? Don't you think they'd be receptive to the majority of their constituents who wanted a single-payer bill to pass?

[LuminousX]

15. HOW is he going to pass his Healthcare plan in a Puke Congress?

Are they suddenly going to cave into his massive charisma?

What is his practical plan?

I've not seen what tactics he is planning on using. He has not indicated it at all. It is a pipedream. Dean and Gephardt have clearcut plans on how each step could be a bipartisan step working towards the inevitable goal of singlepayer healthcare. Bah! Fruitless to argue with pie-in-the-skiers.

[bread_and_roses]

16. Pie in the sky?

With so many Americans supporting Nat Health, what is pie in the sky about it? And the question is not how it will be accomplished with the Congress now sitting, but how will we ever get it accomplished without a President speaking out and demanding it? Please do not refer to Clinton's plan, it was a horrible, incomprehensible attempt to provide health care while salvaging obsence profits for the Insurance Industry...which can't be done. Any candidate not calling for National Health is in my book pandering to the Insurance and Pharmacuetical companies, since they are the only one's to benefit from the the current unsustainable mess. And activists have been working on "incremental" progress for many years...and we see just how far they've gotten...nowhere.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

18. The pie:

Truman had Health Care for all as part of his campaign plank.

The sky:
55 years later....

[bread_and_roses]

20. 55 years later

every poll I've seen indicates majority support for National Health Care. So the question has to be, why are some of our candidates not calling for it? The candidate does not have to "promise" it, all s/he has to say is that s/he hears what the people say, will propose it, and will work to accomplish it. Again, given the popular support, what keeps some candidates from saying that?

[a_lil_wall_fly]

28. Truman was ahead of his time on this issue

I wish he was able to get more of that issue dealt with :D

[dpbrown]

24. First, the best plan means even failing is better than the rest offer

Second, times are different now than they were when Clinton's plan came through.

Third, Clinton's plan wasn't universal single-payer.

Fourth, the insurance companies sabotaged Clinton's plan.

Fifth, the doctors are on board in a big way.

Sixth, progressives have a much better activism system than they had just a short time ago.

Seventh, "he" doesn't do it, Congess does it, and we help by telling Congress what we want.

That's how legislation is always made, it's how it's made now, and it's how it's going to be made when Kucinich is President.

It's a straw man argument to say it's the President's sole responsibility to make sure every bit of legislation gets through. It's not. It's the President's responsibility to put forth plans, build coalitions, twist arms, and be a leader.

Kucinich is a leader in spades.

Diebold is just the most recent example, but taking 120 some Representatives with him in opposing Bush, Gephardt, and Daschle on the BFEE PNAC military obnoxiousness is another.

Neither Dean nor Gephardt are even in the ballpark of getting toward universal health care. They both propose only throwing more money at a failed system and making health insurance company executives even richer without changing the rules of the game that work under the principle that the people most likely to need insurance are forced out of the system under the lie that flushing them out will make it cheaper for the rest of the insured.

Dean's plan, in fact, would leave 10 million people uninsured. That's 25% of all the people who are uninsured now. That's practical? And he'll spend all Bush's tax money to do it, unfunding anything that used to be funded with those tax dollars and risking being tarred as a tax-and-spend liberal. That's practical? And the insurance companies will still be motivated to keep people uninsured. That's practical?

Only universal single-payer creates one pool from which all patients are drawn, levelling the playing field, changing the rules, and making the incentive of the system keeping people healthy instead of making executives rich.

If we're not able to usher in a new society based on the goal that keeping people healthy is profitable, economical, and worthy of the interest of a government supposedly of the people, by the people, and for the people, then capitalism is broken.

It's "pie in the sky" to fool oneself into thinking that we can bribe already rich executives running deathly ill "health" corporations into covering more people infinitely by shoveling more of our tax dollars into their bulging pockets.

The system for doling out health care in this country has to change. Not in the long-term, not after dumping more tax dollars into the pockets of the rich.

Now.

Only Dennis Kucinich has a plan that achieves that.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[jkg4peace]

31. What a stupid fight

[a_lil_wall_fly]

27. Mr Brown....

"He's doing his job in Congress first and running for higher office second."

That is what he is doing...I'm pondering does DK get any sleep!!!!

[dpbrown]

36. As I understand, very little sleep

He says his diet and lifestyle help him to cope with as little as five hours per night.

[no name no slogan]

13. Well, since there's only two true progressives in the race...

I'd have to say it would be Kucinich. He's already introduced progressive legislation in the House (and has signed on many co-sponsors to boot), so at least 40 or so of his House colleagues find him pragmatic. He not only has the progressive vision, he also has the programs to back up the rhetoric.

[OrAnarch]

14. pragmatic...kucinich?

Im not sure he has a pragmatic bone in his body...

hehe, after all he is still running. :) j/k

[coralrf]

23. Kucinich demonstrated his pragmatisim

on Hard Ball. The pragmatic inability to silence a winger media whore when all the cards are in your hand. This guy is about as pragmatic as a papier-mâché toilet.

[diamondsoul]

41. What did YOU want him to do?

Punch the idiot in the mouth?

Unbelievable! The fact that he doesn't stoop to "winger" level BS is reason to slam the man. DECENCY is a flaw folks!:eyes: :puke:

[jkg4peace]

32. Kucinich is the most pragmatic

You can't be serious that it is more pragmatic to have 40,000,000 people go without health insurance, pay twice as much as any other country for it, and have the worst health outcomes of any developed nation? What is pragmatic about supporting that? Why do we have to bow down to the freaking insurance companies who have been ripping us off blind for decades? Please explain...

[no name no slogan]

40. Have you even READ his platform?

other than what the other anti-DKers post on DU, have you ever actually READ or STUDIED his platform? Seriously, I find that most of the slammers don't have the first clue about what's really in it.

What's NOT pragmatic about using our power, as the world's largest economy, to encourage our trading partners to uphold workers' rights, a healthy environment, and living wages?

What's NOT pragmatic about eliminating wasteful pentagon programs (like Star Wars) that cost us billions of dollars annually?

What's NOT pragmatic about putting our unemployed to work, rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure that's suffered from 20+ years of neglect, to help us to greater efficiency?

What's NOT pragmatic about providing TRUE universal, single-payer healthcare to ALL Americans, at a cost that's over 5% LESS than what we're paying now (and leaving 41 million uninsured, to boot)?

What's NOT pragmatic about stopping the corporate pillaging of the planet, and ending our dependency of finite resources like fossil fuels?

Contrary to what so many DK bashers want to believe, "pragmatism" is not about being corporate-friendly, or kissing the arse of the rich and powerful. It's standing up for the rights of people over power, of standing up for the little guy, of taking unpopular stands on issues that you know are right.

Pragmatism does not mean selling out to the highest bidder. It means doing what's right for EVERYONE.

[TheReligiousLeft]

17. Who is the other progressive?

Just wondering.

[no name no slogan]

42. The "other" progressive

platform-wise, I'd have to say Sharpton. IMHO, the others are all various shades of liberal (Kerry, Braun, Geph) to moderate (the rest).

What about Dean? A "grassroots" campaign doesn't necessarily mean a candidate is progressive: Pat Robertson's grassroots helped him in 1988, and he's certainly NOT progressive. Those are nothing new.

[NNadir]

19. Given what one sees written on web sites by persons who identify

themselves as "progressives" I would think the term "pragmatic progressive" is an oxymoron. There is very little pragmatism among these types, and, come to think of it, even less progress. (2% year after year, election after election hardly constitutes progress.)

[GreenArrow]

21. probably has more to do with

the lack of pragmatism of the other 98 percent.

[NNadir]

29. Maybe you should buy a dictionary.

Pragmatism is a word that has to do with accomplishment of achievable goals, usually by generating consensus. By definition in a democratic society if a particular political stance can only consistently generate 2% support, it is hardly pragmatic. Fantastic would be a much better word to use, at least in the connotative sense meaning "disconnected from reality."

Like I implied, the word "progressive" as used by those who describe themselves as such, the people who tell us that Nader won and Kucinich is winning now, is mere doublespeak. "Pragmatic Progressive" is even worse.

It is horrible to see the English language so abused as is in the age of Bush; it's embarrassing to have our "progressives" add to this disturbing trend from the putative left.

[jkg4peace]

33. Wow - Dean supporters really are Bushies in democratic disguise

Don't believe everything you read in a corporate america sponsored poll, sweetie. No one has actually voted yet. You are in for a big surprise. (Oh yeah, there was the moveon.org vote, and you will recall that Dennis came in second. Without any pictures on the cover of Time or Newsweek and virtually no press coverage at all. Certainly no dopey commercials, either. What does that tell you?)

[JohnKleeb]

35. I dont see that person becaues I have him or her on ignore but

I dont lump all Dean supporters like that but I agree they are in for a suprise. I work outdoors in a republican leaning area, more so centrist, not sure exactly but theres quite a few Kucinich supporters including a mom of a friend.

[NNadir]

38. It tells me that reality never intrudes among the "progressives".

It's pretty rough when the only poll you can come in second from any polling organization is an online poll. Is Diebold, BTW, in Denny's district?

I've personally been to Dean rallys with thousands of people well over a year before the election. An example was the Democratic Debates in Philadelphia this July. We had over 4000. Kucinich had one supporter, who graced us by holding up his sign at our rally. (This does indeed mean that Kucinich came in second, since neither Kerry, Lieberman, Gephardt or Sharpton even had one supporter outside the convention hall.)

Wait, I know! Kucinich had 102,334,155 supporters there but they were all in the 7th dimenison. I am indeed in for a shock once they materialize from their insubstantial ethereal spirit form.

Thank you for your pragmatic explanation though! (Shakes head.)

I've made a personal commitment by the way. If Kucinich can come in third in any primary before June, I'll stop dissing him, since it will be necessary to take him somewhat seriously. Third, not first, not second, but third. No matter where he comes in though in any primary, even if he loses to Sharpton and comes in ninth with 0.00005% of the vote, I'm sure you folks will be telling us how he's winning.

[GreenArrow]

39. Gee, nice lesson in semantics.

Your error is in confusing expediency with practicality.

But, FWIW, nothing Kucinich proposes is impractical. All of his plans could be accomplished in short, concrete steps. That a majority of people are not prepared or willing to implement his plans speaks more of an unwillingness to change, and ingrorance and/or fear of alternative options, than any innate lack of attainability in DK's platform. I guess the real question is why people will insist on sticking with so called "pragmatism" that doesn't work, while avoiding solutions that are workable, and that are in keeping with the broader principles upon which this nation was supposedly founded.

You can lead the proverbial horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

[bread_and_roses]

22. All over the country

people say that protecting the environment, good schools, and health care for everyone are priorities. And all over the country, "progressives" are working on these issues, as well as living wages, countering racism, campaign finance reform, and many other issues of local and national importance. What is not pragmatic about these goals? If our elected officials were not bought and sold by Corporations we might see some legislative progress too.

[cyclezealot]

34. pragmaticism?

Means just giving up on programs the American people want because we don't want to take on the Repugs.. One reason the public does not get inspired by the Democrats, I hear, they wonder what we stand for?
Most pragmatic programs that polls say are popular with the American people...Kucinich's...

[AP]

37. Edwards on CU and Health Insurance seems to be definition of

pragrmatic progressivism.

E.g., on health insurance, he's taking the rhetoric that "Americans sacrifice all for the kids" and applying it to health insurance. He's compelling private insurance companies to provide a well-regulated, low-profit margin product to everyone until the age of 25. He's saying provide it, and eat your losses on those policies (if there are any) because in America we do it for the kids.

When the people who have those policies turn 25, what do you think they're going to do? They aren't going to be happy with the sudden rise in health care costs, so they're going to petition the gov't to give them a real health care program.

By then, Edwards will have taken the money out of politics (with real CFR, tightly regulating lobbyists, and giving free TV time to candidates). So, the health care lobby won't be able to fight real health care reform like they did in '94, and like they could today (because they're even bigger, richer and even more powerful today).

That's a pragmatic, extremely smart route to real change.