Metamorphosis
We hear a lot that Democrats must learn to be a "party in opposition." But what might that mean?
An opposition party, it seems to me, subscribes to a set of principles and policy assumptions that clearly distinguishes it from the party in power.
Here are a few suggestions:
Progressive Taxation -- An opposition party would work to restore the progressivity that the federal income tax has lost in the past 30 years. At the state level, it would lean toward using income taxes as a principal funding mechanism over regressive measures like the sales and property tax. In general, an opposition party would promote policies that treat income earned from inheritance and investment equally with income earned from work, without privileging the former over the latter.
Support for Labor -- An opposition party need not give a rubber stamp to all the political positions of labor unions, but it should at least be committed to clearing away the obstacles to organizing workers. Such a party would not think it a bad thing if the percentage of union workers in the labor force returned to, or exceeded, the level of the 1950's.
Restoration of the Middle Class -- A key longterm policy goal of an opposition party would be to halt and reverse the erosion of the American middle class. It was largely the policies of the Roosevelt and Truman administrations that created a country where many single wage-earners could support a family, pay a mortgage,educate their kids and retire in modest comfort. It was in large part the policies of the last 25 years of Republican rule that put this dream out of reach of ordinary Americans.
Public Investment -- An oppoistion party would favor making significant public investments in health, education and infrastructure, financed through a tax system to which progressivity had been restored.
Robust but Efficienty Regulated Markets -- An opposition party would recognize that sensible regulation is necessary to make capitalism, or any economic system, function in the public interest. It would not hesitate to use government power to protect public health and safety, ensure transparent and honest operation of markets and, where appropriate, to limit monopolies and break up concentrations of economic power that work against the public interest.
An opposition party, it seems to me, subscribes to a set of principles and policy assumptions that clearly distinguishes it from the party in power.
Here are a few suggestions:
Progressive Taxation -- An opposition party would work to restore the progressivity that the federal income tax has lost in the past 30 years. At the state level, it would lean toward using income taxes as a principal funding mechanism over regressive measures like the sales and property tax. In general, an opposition party would promote policies that treat income earned from inheritance and investment equally with income earned from work, without privileging the former over the latter.
Support for Labor -- An opposition party need not give a rubber stamp to all the political positions of labor unions, but it should at least be committed to clearing away the obstacles to organizing workers. Such a party would not think it a bad thing if the percentage of union workers in the labor force returned to, or exceeded, the level of the 1950's.
Restoration of the Middle Class -- A key longterm policy goal of an opposition party would be to halt and reverse the erosion of the American middle class. It was largely the policies of the Roosevelt and Truman administrations that created a country where many single wage-earners could support a family, pay a mortgage,educate their kids and retire in modest comfort. It was in large part the policies of the last 25 years of Republican rule that put this dream out of reach of ordinary Americans.
Public Investment -- An oppoistion party would favor making significant public investments in health, education and infrastructure, financed through a tax system to which progressivity had been restored.
Robust but Efficienty Regulated Markets -- An opposition party would recognize that sensible regulation is necessary to make capitalism, or any economic system, function in the public interest. It would not hesitate to use government power to protect public health and safety, ensure transparent and honest operation of markets and, where appropriate, to limit monopolies and break up concentrations of economic power that work against the public interest.
I have confined myself to principles that most Democrats but few Republicans should be able to support. They used to be mainstream Democratic principles, but it is not clear to me that they are now.
It remains to be seen whether the Democratic party can rededicate itself to its own principles within a 21st Century context and become a true opposition party.
Advertisement
Should be a wedge issue in swing states like Ohio and West Virginia and strengthen us in Michigan. There are swing states where high-profile support might hurt us, though, like maybe Nevada, New Mexico and Florida. This would have to be studied. But it's got great potential.
June 18, 2005 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
As an old yellow dog Democrat myself, I readily agree with the overall thrust of this post, particularly as it relates to the process of redefining the meaning of "opposition" in strictly pragmatic terms. The concept of "loyal opposition" also comes to mind.
It is in the details that one stumbles over obstacles to achieving what these noble and traditionally Democratic ideals can accomplish. For example, the idea of a progressive income tax administered as the primary source of government funding at the expense of excluding other logical and fair kinds of taxation would send my Jacksonian forebears spinning in their graves.
I could go on, but suffice to note here that not all progressive ideas from the twentieth century work equally well in the twenty-first century. What solved social problems and helped to create the middle class between 1890 and 1950 are in part sui generis.
Can anyone here think of a better mix in terms of a tax plank in the next party platform?
June 18, 2005 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think that the problem is having ideas.
I think the problem is communicating them.
June 19, 2005 12:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am not at all startled to see TPM Cafe attracting living political leaders such as Edwards and Sanders, but I stand duly impressed even Stygian residents are joining the conversation.
Perhaps Ovid would care to comment on the implications of opposition as it relates to BookV of Metamorphoses - The Battle at Cepheu's Palace.
I can not think of a more apt example from your work. Entrenched, unpopular king, young and innovative leadership clearly trumping on all issues, King's men decide to adopt their usual "no man, no problem" solution. Oath, Javelin's, Curved Swords and a variety of body parts then fill the air resulting in. And perhaps Ovid would care to comment, an early example of the Food the Tree of Liberty from time to time needs to sup upon?
June 20, 2005 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am not at all startled to see TPM Cafe attracting living political leaders such as Edwards and Sanders, but I stand duly impressed even Stygian residents are joining the conversation.
Perhaps Ovid would care to comment on the implications of opposition as it relates to BookV of Metamorphoses - The Battle at Cepheu's Palace.
I can not think of a more apt example from your work. Entrenched, unpopular king, young and innovative leadership clearly trumping on all issues, King's men decide to adopt their usual "no man, no problem" solution. Oath, Javelin's, Curved Swords and a variety of body parts then fill the air resulting in a needed, but bloody transformation of the political order.
It would also be interesting if Ovid would care to comment, on other early example of the Food the Tree of Liberty from time to time needs to sup upon?
At the very least, it is wonderful to think TPM Cafe may be attracting the sort of thinkers who admit, then if you face entrenched faschists who re-write voting machine software, you will never win playing by that level of rules.
The machine-code of all society is set on a narrow and respected set of rules but always predicated on when death is allowed and not allowed. But if the rule-makers stop using the agreed upon rules, you have to, at the very least, do a deep-restart and turn off this code for period. It may even be obsolete.
Ovid, if you have time or interest your reflections of Book XII and the House of Rumour as it pertains to our versions of political rulership today would be extremely interesting.
June 20, 2005 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would add open accountable government. We should support campaign finance reform, voter verified paper trails, strong ethics, eliminating government lobbyist revolving door.
June 22, 2005 1:21 AM | Reply | Permalink