progressive politics

A Toast to a Remarkable Leader: Speaker Nancy Pelosi

Robert Borosage — Wed, 22 Dec 2010 12:28:53 -0500

Speaker Nancy Pelosi will relinquish the gavel to the perpetually tanned, lachrymose Republican leader John Boehner when the new Congress convenes next January. It will be four years after that January 4, 2007 day when she "broke the marble ceiling" and became the first woman Speaker in the two-century history of the House.

At the time, Republican pundits mocked Democrats for the choice of a "San Francisco liberal" woman as speaker, suggesting she'd be a weak leader, unable to control the conservatives in the ever disputatious Democratic party, and easy to burlesque in campaigns across the country.

But this was Nancy Patricia D'Alesandro Pelosi, raised in a tough Baltimore Italian political family, who imbibed politics with her mother's milk. Republicans soon discovered that Democrats had chosen not just the most progressive, but also the most effective and powerful speaker in memory.

She was disciplined, shepherding her flock of progressives, Blue Dogs, New Dems, blacks, Latinos, women and good old boys, to focus on core issues -- the kitchen table concerns that Americans worry over every night at home, the challenge to George Bush's disastrous wars abroad. She was tireless, intent on consolidating her majority and helping Democrats to take the White House. She was practical, raising record sums of money in fundraisers across the country, the necessary coin of America's debauched politics. She was tough, getting members to take votes they wanted to duck, forging the majorities she need to overcome unified Republican opposition. And she was, for better and worse, independent, willing to block the left's efforts to impeach the president or end funding for the war that she thought would be damaging electorally.

In the face of the Bush White House and launch of the Republican strategy of obstruction through misuse of the filibuster, Pelosi produced far more in her first term as Speaker than anyone expected; far more, for example, than the much ballyhooed Gingrich Contract with America Congress in 1995-96.

The Pelosi-driven Congress increased the minimum wage, expanded investment in education and college, passed a bold new GI bill for veterans, passed lobbying and ethics reform, enacted many of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, and made headway on new energy, childrens' health care, college loans, Head Start, and more — much running afoul the mosh pit of the Senate and some the veto of the president.

Liberals were livid that the House failed to cut off funding for the Iraq War, with many of the Blue Dog candidates of former Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee head Rahm Emanuel getting in the way. But Pelosi's Democrats kept the pressure on, setting up timetables and reporting deadlines that made it clear it was time to declare victory and get out.

With the election of Barack Obama and the consolidation of her majority, Pelosi demonstrated her remarkable leadership. The swing votes in the House came from largely conservative Democrats elected in districts that voted for John McCain. Yet, time and again, in the face of unified Republican opposition, Pelosi rallied her caucus to pass historic legislation — the largest recovery act ever, the largest increase in student aid ever, comprehensive health care reform, comprehensive energy legislation, financial reform, and more. She asked her members to take tough votes and they responded. Too often, she was then hung out to dry by a passive White House and an obstructionist Senate that diluted, delayed and defeated major reforms.

Her true grit was demonstrated in the fight over health care. After Scott Brown's stunning victory for Sen. Edward Kennedy's Senate seat in Massachusetts, many in the White House and the Congress assumed comprehensive reform was dead. Pelosi would not accept retreat or defeat, and wouldn't allow the White House to go wobbly on her. The lady was not for turning. Inane White House strategy — dithering for months with Max Baucus, for example — made the bill far weaker than it had to be, but the result was an historic accomplishment.

The best measure of Pelosi's stature — and her achievement as a woman in leadership — was that Republicans joined her with the president as their poster targets in the election. With hundreds of hours of ads vilifying her without any effective rebuttal, her popularity plummeted, her "negatives" soared. Democrats were held accountable for failing to revive the economy that conservative policies had taken over the cliff. The recovery act — too small in conception and weakened badly in the Senate — was inadequate to the cause. With a Democratic president commanding the bully pulpit of the White House, no speaker, no matter how powerful, could drive the election message.

There is no need to idealize her. On several issues from the war to the public option, many liberals, including myself, fought against compromises Pelosi forged. But there is no doubt that she has been the most effective reform speaker since the days of the New Deal.

Starting in January, she will lead a smaller, more liberal caucus against the most right-wing majority in post-Civil War history, with a White House already showing more switch than fight. The last time she was minority leader, Pelosi helped stop President Bush's efforts to privatize Social Security. This time she may have to lead the opposition against another president's willingness to cut Social Security.

She will no doubt be ready to offer John Boehner tissues for his tears, even as she organizes resources and energy for regaining the majority in 2012.

So in this holiday season, as we reflect on the year past, let us afford recognition to an extraordinary leader. San Francisco liberal? You bet. Doting mother and grandmother? No doubt. Tough, proud Italian scion of a political family, daughter and brother of Baltimore mayors? Never forget. From those of us who have fought with her, beside her and behind her, a toast to the most effective Speaker of our lifetime, Nancy Pelosi.

Election Day Poll: Voters Weren't Backing Extreme Right Agenda

Isaiah J. Poole — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 11:37:08 -0400

A poll released today by the Campaign for America's Future and Democracy Corps proves what we've been saying this week about the message voters were sending to the White House and Congress. Conservative leaders in both parties are flat wrong to claim they have a mandate for the dramatic government retrenchment that top congressional Republicans are calling for.

What a majority of Americans want is for the government to step up to the plate, repair the economy and set the stage for creating new jobs—not by stepping back and lavishing tax cuts on the wealthy but with policies that revive American manufacturing, fix bad trade deals, and invests in the basics we need for a thriving domestic economy and a growing middle class.

"We were rather surprised in many ways at the fact that the voters in large numbers are still looking for larger answers to an economy that is not working for therm in a situation that they find for the country very worrisome," Robert Borosage said during a presentation of the poll earlier today.

"People are not looking for a cramped vision," pollster Stan Greenberg said. "Folks are not looking for a period of austerity. They are looking for a period of growth and for America not being in decline but being on the rise."

The survey covers interviews with 1,000 people who voted in 2008 on Nov. 2 and Nov. 3, including 114 who decided not to vote in the 2010 election, to determine the issues driving both voters and nonvoters on Election Day.

Some noteworthy poll findings:

Fifty-eight percent of respondents who voted said they were trying to send a message about how dissatisfied they are with things in Washington. But they were not necessarily embracing the Republican party and its policies: Both political parties received equally poor favorability ratings, as did the Tea Party movement. Twenty-six percent of voters said they were trying to send a message to "both parties" with their vote, while only 20 percent cited President Obama and 15 percent said Democrats in Congress.
"Too much bickering in Washington" was the top complaint of voters in the poll (39 percent), followed by "too much spending, taxes and deficits" (35 percent).
A majority opposed the Republican plan to cut $100 billion from domestic spending programs while extending the Bush tax cuts to those earning more than $250,000, while 51 percent said they agreed that those top-end tax cuts should expire and with proposals offered by Democrats to reduce the deficit over time. That's particularly bad news for House Republican leader John Boehner and Senate counterpart Mitch McConnell, who are making perpetuating the Bush top-end tax cuts plus deep domestic spending cuts the centerpiece of their legislative agenda.
Likewise, 69 percent said that "politicians should keep their hands off Social Security and Medicare" as they attempt to address the national deficit.
Fifty-eight percent of voters said they were much or somewhat more likely to vote for a candidate that promised "to change Washington for the middle class. That means eliminating the special deals and tax breaks won by corporate lobbyists for Wall Street, paid for by American taxpayers and workers' outsourced jobs. Republicans have pledged to protect those breaks. We should cut taxes for the middle class and small business to create jobs."
Compared to a candidate who attacked Democrats for the economic stimulus and health care reform, 57 percent of voters said they were much or somewhat more likely to support a candidate with a "made-in-America" campaign message that points out that Republicans have "pledged to support free trade deals and protect tax breaks for companies that send American jobs to India and China."
Eighty-nine percent of those surveyed agreed with the statement that "America is falling behind" in the global economy and that "we need a clear strategy to make things in America, make our economy competitive, and revive America's middle class."
Significant majorities in the poll also supported new investments in infrastructure through a national infrastructure bank, and a five-year strategy for reviving manufacturing in America

Many of the poll results show that progressives have a lot of work to do to convince a broad majority of voters that they can once again trust government to act in their interests. But progressives have an opportunity to make that case and to get voters to embrace their vision for how the economy can work for everyone. It can't be stressed enough: the Democrats got a "shellacking," to use President Obama's word, on Tuesday not because America has fallen in love with so-called "Tea Party" policies, but because Democrats failed to offer their own compelling vision for restoring the economy.

The White House and Democrats in Congress would do well to study this poll. The election would clearly have turned out differently if Democrats had presented a more populist, more progressive and more coherent message about the road ahead.

Conservatives, Don't Misread Your Mandate

Robert Borosage — Tue, 02 Nov 2010 21:16:36 -0400

It is, once more, the economy, stupid.

This election was overwhelmingly about one thing—the lousy economy. Democrats paid the price as voters expressed their discontent.

Conservatives in both parties are simply wrong to claim that the vote represents an ideological shift to the right. It wasn't because President Obama tried to do too much or was too liberal. If anything, it was because he did too little.

The recovery act is a case in point: it was too small and the White House didn't fight aggressively for more. Democrats suffered because the economy hasn’t been producing jobs—and the president failed to convince voters he was on a course that would produce them. And the absence of a forceful and sustained explanation of how conservative policies have failed and will continue to fail allowed a right-wing narrative riddled with empty slogans, fear-mongering and outright falsehood to gain traction in the debate.

Republicans made gains with an agenda – a forced march to austerity – which will only make things worse, and a paymaster – corporate and wealthy donors threatened by reform – intent on defending entrenched interests. They have benefited from obstruction and are likely to be even more committed to it.

In order to regain the trust of the majority of voters, Democrats and the president have to lay out a bold plan to get the economy going and fight for it against those standing in the way. Joining the Republican embrace of cuts to Social Security and harsh budget austerity would be bad policy and bad politics.

Joining with the right to raise the retirement age, push through more job-killing trade accords, or extend tax breaks for the wealthy will address neither economic nor political challenges. It would be far better to lay out what the country needs, stand firm against the special interests and make the choices clear.

Win or Lose, Perriello Reveals Progressive Power

Zach Carter — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 12:41:49 -0400

Tom Perriello always knew it would be hard to hold his seat in Congress. The progressive Democrat from Albemarle County, Va. represents a district designed to nullify liberal votes with a wide swath of conservative countryside. He was elected in 2008, riding President Obama’s coattails to victory by just 727 votes. He does not represent a swing district--he is a committed progressive in a solidly Republican district. But unlike his Blue Dog contemporaries, Perriello has voted like a progressive for the past two years. And unlike many Blue Dogs, he might actually pull out a victory tomorrow night, even in the face of a Republican wave fueled by double-digit unemployment. The mere fact that he’s in the running is a stunning accomplishment.

I lived in Perriello’s district for eight years before moving to Washington, D.C. this summer. For mountains, majesty, and rock ‘n roll, it simply can’t be beat. But there were problems, namely persistent racial tensions, a lousy economy and politicians who perpetuated these two troubles. For all but the last two years we were represented by Virgil Goode, a conservative Republican and unabashed bigot. Years before Fox News made Islamophobia a mainstream political view, Goode was openly attacking Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., on the grounds that he was – gasp!—a Muslim. Goode cruised to re-election every cycle, easily surviving the 2006 Democratic wave, despite being a Bush-backing war-monger in a year when voters were rejecting both Bush and his war in Iraq.

I lived in Charlottesville, a tiny outcropping of progressive politics at the northern tip of the Fifth District. From Charlottesville, the district fans out directly to the rural south, extending all the way to the North Carolina border. It’s a two-and-a-half hour drive straight south from Charlottesville to Danville, three hours southwest to Collinsville or southeast to Brunswick. All four towns are in the same district. Just 40,000 people live in Charlottesville—120,000 if you include Albemarle County (which is not as progressive as “the city”). But the district as a whole includes nearly 650,000 people, most of it tiny towns and farmland, and most of its inhabitants Republicans. Jerry Falwell’s right-wing conservative Christian enclave Liberty University is smack in the middle of Perriello country.

Conventional wisdom dictates that Democratic politicians in such districts vote like Republicans. Otherwise, a Republican runs against you, points out that you’re not a Republican, and beats you.

But Perriello decided to take a different tack when he was elected. Instead of capitulating to policies and votes he didn’t believe in, he would do what he thought was right, and make an aggressive case to voters that he was, in fact, right.

On every major vote in the past two years, Perriello voted with progressives, at times even voting against President Obama on the grounds that his policies were not progressive enough. He voted for healthcare reform and the stimulus package, but he voted against Wall Street reform because it didn’t hit the big banks hard enough, and he voted against disbursing the second round of bailout money to the banks (he wasn’t in office when the bank bailout was approved).

He never apologized for these votes or caved to right-wing rhetorical frames, and he hit the road to campaign on his record, explaining his positions directly to voters. This was old-school campaigning, and it wasn’t glamorous—trekking from Danville to Martinsville to Charlottesville every week, making speeches, shaking hands and answering questions in town-hall meetings. But Perriello is not your standard politician waiting for a cushy lobbyist job. He has a deep background in social justice work—he’s in Congress because he wants to make a difference, not to score a sweet paycheck.

All of that campaigning has paid off. Voters are pissed off this year. They’ve watched Wall Street profits soar on the back of a taxpayer-financed bailout, even as ordinary Americans have been laid off by the millions. Whether Republicans take control of the House tomorrow night or not, they will certainly make big gains as voters reject policymakers who cater to big banks while failing to tackle the jobs problem—either out of political cowardice or ideological blindness.

But Perriello is holding even with Republican challenger Robert Hurt. The fact that Perriello even has a chance in this election ought to be viewed as something of a miracle. Or maybe it’s just good governing, combined with good politics.

Tim Fernholz almost gets it right in his profile of Perriello for The American Prospect. But he misses the mark with this comment, which is going to be echoed by the Beltway establishment on Wednesday morning, however the race turns out:

“If Perriello can beat the odds tomorrow, it is not only his reputation, and the president's, that will be burnished . . . . Should he lose, the voices who call for a more timid Democratic Party will have a point in their favor.”

This is wrong. Perriello won in 2008 by just 727 votes. Any Democrat who entered office by so slim a margin is almost certain to lose this year. By any conventional political analysis, Perriello should be getting trounced He faces a massive voter registration disadvantage, representing a district that is designed to crush progressive voices during what is expected to be a wave election for Republicans, amid strong anti-incumbent attitudes sparked by high unemployment. But he’s holding even. That’s incredible. Even if things go well for Democrats tomorrow, and they hold the House, candidates in much safer districts than Perreillo’s are going to lose.

The Perriello lesson, in other words, is already clear. Whether he wins or loses on November 2, having the courage to govern by his convictions and do real work to sell those policies has paid off. It might not get him re-elected. But in an all-but-impossible district, losing close sends a clear signal to actual swing districts. Governing like a pretend-Republican only reinforces the Republican world-view and aligns voters against you. If you want to have a chance, you have to stand for something. Tom Perriello stood for something these past two years, and even if it can’t overcome a terrible economy to win him two more years, the political establishment should take heart.

America's Future Now! We Are The Change

Isaiah J. Poole — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 07:21:44 -0400

On the first day of the America's Future Now! conference in Washington, activists wrestled with how to respond to the Obama administration's first 17 months, and came to a consensus that rather than depending on President Obama's leadership to move progressive change, it is up to progressive activists to prod and set the stage for progressive action by elected leaders. Here are excerpts of some of the plenary session speeches at the conference and interviews with some of the participants.

Speaker Pelosi Previews Address On Progressive Leadership For America's Future Now!

Bill Scher — Wed, 02 Jun 2010 12:38:34 -0400

On Tuesday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will address a nationwide gathering of progressives at America's Future Now! -- one day after the conference holds "The Great Debate: Progressive Strategy in the Obama Era," where attendees will discuss whether to fully back President Obama's agenda or constitute an independent force pushing for bolder, faster action.

Yesterday, during an on-the-record question-and-answer session Speaker Pelosi held with progressive bloggers and reporters, I had the opportunity to raise with the speaker the concerns that many liberals have about a lack of leadership in Washington on pressing issues such as the jobs crisis, and I asked what was her advice for progressives to help bring about a bolder agenda.

Previewing her America's Future Now! remarks for next week, the Speaker laid out a vision for a "New Prosperity" -- a "different kind of economy" that did not suffer from extreme boom-and-bust cycles, a modern "industrial revolution," and investments creating new opportunities in "health care, education and energy." (Last week, she discussed the "New Prosperity" in her commencement address at Cornell University. Read her remarks here.)

And how does the Speaker believe we can help realize that vision?

First, she implied that patience would be required in enacting legislation, noting a "changed climate" in Congress with increased resistance from right-leaning Blue Dog Democrats and others, "about the size of the investment packages that we are putting forward."

But despite that, she insisted Congress can "do it in pieces."

She pointed to the latest jobs bill that included $1 billion in new funding for summer jobs, extensions for jobless assistance, and the end of a tax break that has been rewarding businesses for sending jobs overseas.

While aid to state governments and COBRA health insurance subsidies were taken out of the jobs bill to appease certain Democrats, Speaker Pelosi sought to reassure that Congress would simply revisit those goals in separate legislation, keeping the overall agenda moving forward.

Second, she called for progressives to blaze their own path on deficit reduction, "not just with cuts, but by making the proper investments," arguing, for example, that "nothing brings more money to the Treasury than investment in education."

Finally, she suggested that frustrated progressives should tone down criticism, saying, "It would helpful if we worked together on it, instead of undermining each other."

We'll hear more from the Speaker at America's Future Now! on Tuesday morning. For more about the conference, and to find out how you can be a part of it, check out www.ourfuture.org/now.

For other reports on Speaker Pelosi's conference call, check out The Huffington Post, FDL News Desk and AmericaBlog.

What Happened To The Progressive Majority?

Isaiah J. Poole — Tue, 18 May 2010 15:53:53 -0400

The change agenda at America's Future NOW!

This is the first in a series of posts highlighting topics and people to be featured at the America's Future NOW! conference in Washington June 7-9, the nation's premier gathering of progressive activists.

REGISTER NOW
for AFN 2010

On a day in which voters in Arkansas, Kentucky and Pennsylvania are heading to the polls in what is being widely described as an anti-politician, anti-government rage, and with a particularly strident strain of conservatism portrayed as on the ascendancy, it might seem harder to support the conclusions of a series of Campaign for America's Future reports that portray America as fundamentally a "center-left" nation.

But Tea Party activists and xenophobic Arizonans aside, Simon Rosenberg, a longtime political strategist, says the progressive majority identified in 2009, 2008 and 2007 Campaign for America's Future reports still exists. Meanwhile, he says, "the conservative coalition is aging and contracting," opening the way for an era of progressive political dominance comparable to the period from the New Deal to the Great Society.

But that's only if progressives face the anxiety and restlessness in the electorate head-on with an effective message. How to do that is the subject that Rosenberg will address at the America's Future NOW! conference June 7-9.

Rosenberg—the founder of NDN and the New Policy Institute, which does research on progressive policy issues and on voting trends—offered a preview of his talk at his downtown Washington office.

INTERVIEW

Watch the full interview with Simon Rosenberg of NDN on the state of the progressive majority.

"There is only one message and one argument" this year, Rosenberg said in his downtown Washington office. "It's got to be about the economy."

Specifically, progressives have to continue to make the case that their policies address the interests of working-class people—such as their desire for more income, for better access to health care, for better schools—while conservative policies have led to or argued for the opposite: less income for working-families in inflation-adjusted terms, support for continued barriers to health-care access, for cuts in education spending and other vital services.

In order to energize the progressive majority at a time when the economy is still not strong enough to provide jobs for the nearly 27 million people who currently are either unemployed or underemployed, "progressives and the president have to convey that they understand the challenge that's before us and have a plan that is commensurate to the challenge," Rosenberg said.

Don't be fooled, Rosenberg says, by some recent poll findings.

In a May NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, for example, 40 percent of respondents defined themselves as "conservative or very conservative" while 22 percent described themselves as "very liberal or somewhat liberal." Thirty-seven percent described themselves as "moderate." In that same poll, respondents were equally split on the question of whether "America needs more sense of community and people helping one another" or "America needs more self-reliance and personal responsibility."

The April Washington Post/ABC News Poll repeated a recurring question it has asked respondents about whether they prefer "larger government with more services" or "smaller government with fewer services." In June 2008, 50 percent sided with "smaller government" while 45 percent preferred "larger government." In April 2010, the percentage wanting "smaller government" rose to 56 percent, while those supporting "larger government" dropped to 40 percent.

Those numbers are more a reflection of a skepticism about government's ability to solve problems, Rosenberg said, particularly in an environment shaped by decades of conservative arguments about government as an obstacle to social good rather than an instrument of social good.

Beyond those numbers is evidence that growing numbers reject the conservative orthodoxy that less government is always good.

The NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, for example, found that when voters were asked if they were more concerned that financial reform legislation in Congress was going too far (the argument advanced by financial reform lobbyists and by a multimillion-dollar U.S. Chamber of Commerce ad campaign), 55 percent said they were more concerned that the legislators "were not doing enough" to rein in Wall Street. The ABC News/Washington Post poll found that two-thirds of respondents rejected the conservative position against stricter federal regulation of Wall Street.

The NBC/WSJ poll also asked voters what they thought should be the top priority for the federal government. "Job creation and economic growth" was singled out by 35 percent of respondents, "the deficit and government spending" was chosen by just 20 percent of voters.

Rosenberg adds to these findings the importance of the demographic change happening in America. The country as a whole is becoming more ethnically diverse and is becoming increasingly dominated by a generation of voters with less of an allegiance to the views of their parents on such social issues as gay marriage.

Nurturing the potential of a lasting progressive majority will mean speaking to the needs of this new coalition and governing effectively on behalf of their interests, Rosenberg said.

Forging strategy for how progressive activists can lead that process, and get candidates in an election year to be forceful and fearless advocates of progressive change, will be a key agenda item for Rosenberg at this year's America's Future NOW! conference.

Squandered Opportunity

OurFuture.org Staff — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 18:26:43 -0400

Honors For Three Fighters For Economic And Social Justice

Isaiah J. Poole — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 22:02:56 -0400

A theme that seemed to run through the three acceptance speeches of the award recipients at the America's Future Now! gala dinner Tuesday night was that people who have been left out or left behind in the move toward the American Dream are due their chance for prosperity, and now is the time for the progressive movement to take the lead in making that happen.

All three Gala Award recipients—John J. Sweeney, outgoing president of the AFL-CIO; Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus; and Deepak Bhargava, executive director of the Center for Community Change—know a lot from first-hand experience about the left out and left behind. Sweeney, before leading the nation's largest labor federation, grew up in a working-class family in New York City, where his father was a bus driver and transit union member. Lee was a single mother on public assistance when she went to Mills College in Oakland, Calif., and began getting active in the area's left-wing political scene. Bhargava has for more than nine years made organizing low-income people, people of color and immigrants his life's passion.

All three used their gala speeches to challenge progressives to ensure that the movement works to have a substantive impact on the daily lives of working families.

One of the worst aspects of the conservative era is that "poverty and racial justice were not only not addressed, but were actively taken off the table," said Bhargava, the winner of the Paul Wellstone Leadership Award.

Now that we are at the beginning of a new political era, progressives have to move beyond merely pressing for legislation and ensure that low-income people and people of color have a voice and are empowered, "This is the moral test of progressive politics," he said.

Lee, in accepting her Progressive Champion Award, spoke of "the progressive promise," which she said includes a
commitment to economic justice, peace, empowerment of the disenfranchised and "equal justice for all." She added that wherever there are disparities between the well-being of the society as a whole and hat of people of color, "progressives and people of color must come together to eliminate those gaps."

"Serving working people is the biggest honor I could have," said Sweeney, the recipient of the Lifetime Leadership Award. During his remarks, he recalled a recent visit to the White House in which he was able to reflect on how he, a son of Irish immigrants, found himself in the presence of two other children of immigrants: President Barack Obama and his Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor. It is a positive sign, he suggested, of how far this nation has come.

Sweney, who will soon retire from the AFL-CIO to become "a labor activist at large," quickly pointed out the struggles ahead for the movement to better the lives of workers—specifically singling out "health care for everyone and the ability of every worker to join a union"—but he did it with a note of optimism. "We will turn around our economy and make it work for everyone," he said.

Center-Left America

Eric Lotke — Wed, 27 May 2009 10:23:44 -0400

The wind is at our backs. The media still calls America a “center-right” nation, but “center-left” is closer to the truth.

On issues ranging from health care to energy, the public is more progressive than people think. Demographic groups from youth to Hispanics are voting farther left and in larger numbers than ever before. The new report the Campaign for America’s Future is publishing with Media Matters for America—"America: A Center-Left Nation"—documents the trends and challenges the mainstream media to recognize reality.

Sources for this Report
The report relies on high quality, nonpartisan sources. Baseline information comes from the American National Election Studies (NES) maintained by the University of Michigan, along with Pew Research Center and Gallup. Additional detail comes from polls by mainstream organizations such as CNN and The New York Times.

Public opinion

The American people are surprisingly progressive. Surveys on individual issues show the way:

Government is not the problem. The authoritative new National Election Studies reveals why the conservative attack doesn’t resonate as it used to. Two-thirds of Americans (66 percent) say “there are more things the government should be doing.” Why? Because “the problems we face have become bigger” (62 percent). Only one third (32 percent) say, “the less government the better.”

Regulation of industry makes ideology concrete. Conservatives downsized government until it hurt. Salmonella in our tomatoes, melamine in our pet food, financial instruments worth less than the paper they’re printed on. People miss the cop on the beat.

• “Government regulation of business…” — Pew Research Center, October 2008.
“… is needed to protect public interest”: 50 percent
“…usually does more harm than good”: 38 percent

The proportion has almost exactly flipped since conservatives started their anti-regulation crusade.

Health care brings government home. Health care is a #1 issue, and people don’t want government to get out of the way. They want it to help.

• “Do you think it is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure all Americans have health care coverage?” — Gallup, Nov. 16, 2008.

Yes: 54 percent
No: 41 percent

• “Should the government in Washington provide national health insurance, or is this something that should be left only to private enterprise” — CBS News/New York Times, Jan. 11-15, 2009
Government: 72 percent
Private enterprise: 32 percent

• "In general, would you favor or oppose a program that would increase the federal government's influence over the country's health care system in an attempt to lower costs and provide health care coverage to more Americans?"— CNN/Opinion Research Corporation, Feb. 18-19, 2009
Favor: 72 percent
Oppose: 27 percent

Energy also requires government attention. Higher fuel prices weren’t enough to turn the market — at least not at a rate that will keep up with global warming and instability in the Middle East.

• Would you prefer the government to increase, decrease, or not change the financial support and incentives it gives for producing energy from alternative sources such as wind and solar? —Gallup, March 5-8, 2009.
Increase: 77 percent
Decrease: 8 percent

• “Would you approve or disapprove of a proposal that would require companies to reduce greenhouse gases that cause global warming, even if it would mean higher utility bills for consumers to pay for the changes?” — NBC News/Wall Street Journal, April 23-26, 2009
Approve: 53 percent
Reducing Deficit: 40 percent

Taxes are not the problem. According to Gallup’s poll on tax day April 15, more people consider their tax payments “about right” than “too high” (48 to 46 percent),

When people do complain, it’s less about their own taxes being too high, than about rich people’s taxes being too low. People think corporations and the wealthy pay less than their “fair share” (67 percent and 60 percent each). People are willing to pay taxes if they think they are getting something for it.

• “Which do you think is more effective in stimulating the nation's economy and creating jobs: An economic agenda focused on returning money to taxpayers through tax cuts, or an economic agenda focused on spending for improvements to the country's infrastructure such as roads, bridges and schools?” — Los Angeles Times, December 6-8, 2008
Infrastructure: 54 percent
Tax Cuts: 33 percent

No culture wars. “Moral values” get single digit support in questions about ‘the most important question” facing the country. People care more about jobs and the economy.

Even on moral issues, people are more progressive than often recognized. Yes, the California ballot initiative for gay marriage lost in November. But since then, same-sex marriage has become legal in Iowa, Connecticut and Vermont. Pew Research shows majority support for gays serving openly in the military (59 percent). The trends are clear. It is only a matter of time.

And yes, the number of people considering themselves “pro-life” took a recent uptick, but this devil is in the details. On finer points like parental consent for teenagers, Medicare payment for poor people, and the late-term procedure successfully labeled “partial birth abortion” — Americans do differ. But the fundamental Roe v. Wade first trimester right remains solidly supported (68 percent, CNN, May 2009). The people who want abortion to be “illegal in all circumstances” are simply a vocal minority (23 percent, Gallup, May 2009).

Demographics

Not only public opinion, but demographics are also pointing left. The bedrock voters of the conservative movement are growing older and declining in number. In contrast, progressive demographics, are on the rise. America is becoming an increasingly diverse, younger and more metropolitan. These changes will drive our politics more than any single election.

Younger voters: People under 30 chose Barack Obama for president by a full 34-point margin over John McCain (66 percent to 32 percent). Even more impressive than the margin was the diversity. Obama garnered a 91-point margin among young African Americans (95 percent to 4 percent), and a 57-point margin among young Hispanics (76 percent to 19 percent). He even won young whites by a 10-point margin (54 percent to 44 percent), a strong contrast to his 14-point deficit among whites aged 45 to 64 (42 to 56 percent).

Hispanics: Hispanics are growing and mobilizing, and political parties have been dueling for them. But Democrats are winning. The Pew Hispanic Survey from July 2008 showed 65 percent of registered Hispanic voters identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party. Only 26 percent identify with or lean GOP, a gap “larger than it has been at any time this decade.” The gap is driven by the same issues that drive white voters — a general dissatisfaction with the state of the country, and their priority issues of education, health care and jobs. In the 2008 presidential election, Obama won Hispanics by an impressive 36 points over McCain (67 percent to 31 percent).

Unmarried Women: Women as a whole tend to lean Democratic, and Obama outscored McCain among women by 56 percent to 43 percent (compared to 49 percent to 48 percent among men). But this is only the tip of the iceberg. The most important hidden block are unmarried women, who chose Obama by 70 percent to 29 percent, a stunning 41 point margin.

Unmarried women are growing in number (47 percent of adult women today, up from 38 percent in 1970). And they are starting to assert themselves politically. Fully 20 percent of unmarried women voted for President for the first time in 2008, compared to 11 percent of voters overall and just 4 percent among married women.

Moreover, the issues important to unmarried women read like the wish list of the progressive movement. Universal health care, clean renewable energy, ending pay discrimination, raising the minimum wage, making college more affordable. Married women share these concerns — but more unmarried women add the word “very” in front of “important” in their survey responses.

Geography: Proximity produces progressives. People living in close proximity tend to tolerate individual differences, and to appreciate shared resources like schools, courts and subway trains. As urban cores expand into suburbs and as metropolitan areas prove to be dynamic, fast-growing and desirable places to live, progressive politics find fruitful soil in which to grow.

More than half (54 percent) of the country now lives in large metropolitan areas, defined as places with populations over a million people. Obama won these 51 regions by a 17-point margin (58 percent to 41 percent). Another 20 percent of the population lives in medium-sized metropolitan areas, with 250,000 to one million in population. Obama carried these regions by four points.

Obama only lost in rural America and small metropolitan areas. McCain won in small towns by 11 points and in rural America by 16 points. These regions look big on the map, but they account for only a quarter of America’s population between them.

The Media

Not everyone has gotten the message yet. The media continue to describe America as conservative or “center-right,” as if the election were an aberration.

• Populist economics are associated with words like angry, and treated like road rage.

• Conservative blue-dog Democrats in budget negotiations are honored with such labels as centrist or moderate, even as they stand on the wrong side of the American people and on the wrong side of history.

The media is starting to turn. Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter’s defection was a wake-up call that no one could miss. But the mainstream media needs to recognize progressives for the true Americans that we are, not a fringe that sometimes ekes out a victory.

The Movement

This report should give people the courage to push ahead. The danger is not in going too far, too fast, or overreaching. The danger is in not doing enough. The American people want to achieve the promise in Obama’s great speeches, not the compromise forced by conservatives in both parties.

The crisis is great. Bold action is needed. The people are hungry for progressive change.