Palin’s “hit list” which was circulated in 2010 “targeted” congress people like Giffords. by Alyce Santoro

On the Metro, as I was leaving downtown D.C., I saw a few individuals wearing United Auto Workers T-shirts. Being a journalist, I was curious about what any of them might have thought about the "One Nation Working Together" rally I was leaving. I asked the person closest to me for his thoughts, and he said he was a little a disappointed. He said he was glad people came out and there was good camaraderie but he was disappointed.

I asked why he was disappointed. He said, "We didn’t march." I smiled at him and told him, "He was right, we didn’t." The organizers used the word "march" when there was no plans for people marching at all. They said those at the rally were going to march for jobs, education, immigrant rights, justice, and more. But, they weren’t talking about what people on the National Mall were going to do after the 4-hour rally ended.

The use of the word "march" was, instead, an act of cheapening activism. Liberal-leaning institutions involved, like the AFL-CIO, American Federation for Teachers, NAACP, SEIU, Sierra Club, etc.—organizations that can always be counted on to convince people to vote Democrat—co-opted the word. What they really meant was they and others were going to "march" on the polls on November 2nd and overwhelm the efforts of the Tea Party to take control of Congress. And, in effect, these institutions and other organizations involved were doing a service to political leaders, who have failed Americans miserably since President Obama was elected. By managing the anger and frustration of people and ensuring it did not produce any kind of an independent movement that would result in major acts of civil disobedience, direct action or electoral activism outside of the two dominant parties in America, these institutions were helping the politicians and corporations that finance them out.

When I first got to the rally, I hung around the peace contingent. There were a couple hundred people from various groups of significance in the peace movement present. They had a right to be proud because the organizers of the event had invited representatives of the peace movement to be a part of the organizing committee (something that usually doesn’t happen with these big liberal groups).But, then, the peace movement also had plenty to bothered about; they really didn’t get to have any speakers from the movement get up in front of the Lincoln Memorial and address the tens of thousands of people who were present.

The peace contingent held a small rally near 14th & Constitution Ave in D.C. before joining the main rally that went from from 12 to 4 pm. Michael McPhearson of Veterans for Peace, members of Gold Star Familes for Peace, Glen Ford and others spoke to those who gathered around. Perhaps, one of the most memorable issues brought up during that small rally was the issue of FBI raids on progressive activists that happened recently in Chicago and Minneapolis. An individual shared how a grand jury is going to be convened and activists will be expected to respond to subpoenas, however, the activists are refusing to go before the jury on the basis that this is a "witch-hunt," McCarthyism, or, more appropriately, a result of the PATRIOT Act and its expansions.

A satellite photo image led organizers to claim the rally had more people in attendance than and the "Restoring Honor" rally put on by Glenn Beck had. Interestingly, the Associated Press is disputing this claim and do not think the crowds were as dense as they were during the Beck rally.

As someone who was there, I contend there were at least 50,000 if not more. I don’t know how many were present for the Beck rally and, if you followed that crowd count, there were disputes on the numbers.

This event provided group therapy for community organizers and Obama supporters looking for a way to reaffirm their dedication to hope and change. It was not only a chance to unify around the need for jobs, education, environmental protections and clean energy, immigrant rights, college affordability, etc. but also a chance to reclaim history and, one month later, send a message to Glenn Beck and the Tea Party that they would not be allowed to pick and choose who the real Americans are because America is a nation of immigrants and everyone who is in this country has a right to a pathway to citizenship.

Many of the speakers made sure they addressed this dominant media narrative that there is some kind of "enthusiasm gap" among liberals and Obama supporters. People are dissatisfied, but they do not want to make it harder for Obama to his job by offering up criticisms or demands. Liberal institutions and much of the grassroots present were there to raise doubts about the existence of any kind of "enthusiasm gap."

None of the speakers really bothered to address how Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, Vice President Joe Biden, President Barack Obama and others have been attacking progressives for "whining" and being petulant and unrealistic, who have raised expectations for the Obama Administration most of them helped elect in 2008. Few in the audience bothered to address how they are victims being abused–that they are dealing with a dilemma that battered wives often run into. Not much was said on how they were going to gain respect for the vision they have for America.

The prospect of this rally impacting "the game" now depends greatly on whether the people start to ask questions, whether they choose to make demands, whether they come here today and they hear about the issues that are being talked about and in the back of their head they start to think there is an issue with how the Democrats and President Obama have not been responsive to the people.

Unfortunately, an opportunity was likely squandered in the same way the Obama Administration has squandered opportunities for significant progress. It is hard to say what demands the organizers are going to make on Obama. There was a vision, but what is a vision without a connection to realities in Washington?

It seems like all this event did is give Democratic Party politicians and strategists a chance to see what principles and ideas are currently important to Democratic Party supporters. And, it is likely liberals and progressives find themselves at another rally like this in the future, re-affirming commitment to issues that do not have definitive specifics on how to get government to act, because demands with consequences attached were not issued for the Administration.

I very much wanted to walk away with a positive outlook. But, I am not one to delude myself when uncomfortable truths lie in plain sight. That’s not a claim to be holier-than thou or an expression of purism. The event does not mean all is hopeless; many there clearly were looking for a way out and came dissatisfied and afraid. They need leadership from progressive or social movements in this country.

They’re counting on bold people to step up and take the lead. They want the progressive movement to step it up, be decisive, and be more organized.

*Here is a podcast report I recorded for CMN News with host Chris Novembrino from the Lincoln Memorial while I was at the event.

The above is an image that has been circulated by Americans as "proof" Obama may be Muslim. Those circulating the image fear what Obama is doing to this nation’s identity and would like to also remind the world he is Black. by SS&SS

Religion & America

The uproar by Americans as a result of the proposed construction of an Islamic community center near Ground Zero along with Glenn Beck’s "Restoring Honor" rally in Washington, D.C. have pulled into focus the intense zeal that Americans have for religion. Undoubtedly, the characteristic of Americans that has been affirmed is the characteristic that Americans are dedicated to getting religion right.

A number of people consistently have been giving explanations of religion and defending misunderstandings of religion. Possibily thousands have written about the reality that religion can be practiced in "moderation" and not all religious people are extremists.

Recent discussions indicate individuals find an utmost value in defending one’s religion, promoting religion, and ensuring all Americans can practice religion so long as that religion does not cut into their religion’s ability to live free and prosper. Yet, what do they say to the idea that’s why the world sees people like Terry Jones who are driven to organize days of actions where Korans are burned, like Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, who suggest "all nasty people who hate Israel" should be struck down "with the plague," or like members of the Muslim Brotherhood, who will always assert (although they might have justification) peace talks will not favor Palestinians and should be resisted.

Religious people like Jones, Rabbi Yosef, and those in the Muslim Brotherhood fear another religion could eat into the world their religion occupies. They’re why the idea of coexistence of religions is naïve. Believing in another religion essentially means you do not believe in another religion. And, implicit in belief, whether you interpret the language of your religion’s text literally, is the idea that other religions–nonbelievers–are to be destroyed. To a certain extent, Glenn Beck, James Dobson, Newt Gingrich, Franklin Graham, Sarah Palin, Rand Paul, Tony Perkins, and many employed by Fox News entertain this implicit belief.

Also, if one wishes to be objective, those who point out passages in the Koran and argue Muslims are committed to Sharia are right. It’s true that, theoretically, in order to be a true Muslim or true believer you have to follow all aspects of the Koran or the religion. But, couldn’t we say that for any religion? 

To me, the majority asking people to fear the march of Islam have a conflict of interest because many of them are God-fearing Christians who worry they will lose the race against Islam to control the world and don’t want to give an inch to that which they believe to be from the pit of Hell.

Photo by Bonnie Woodson

I was briefly religious. I did not belong to a religion, but I believed in Jesus Christ. I believed in God. I prayed. I would get down on my hands and knees on the bedside and I would ask God to do me favors because that was the understanding I had of God. I thought he could give you the strength to complete your homework and, perhaps, even confront your friends in high school who maybe needed help from you. That was, quite frankly, bullshit. Unequivocal bullshit.

A friend invited me to what, for all intents and purposes, was a Jesus Camp. While the average age was much higher than the camp in the documentary film Jesus Camp, the camp required all gizmos and gadgets to be surrendered upon entry into the camp, there was very little they wanted you to begin, and, while I had gone there to have fun at camp with some friends, I was confronted with a situation where I had no choice but to get closer to Christ.

From the camp, I recall an obstacle course that you could argue attendees were completing to prove they could be soldiers for Christ. The camp also appropriated secular rock songs like Tom Petty’s "Free Fallin’" and Oasis’ "Wonderwall" making it seem like they had been written for God. The camp Christianized these songs, which was okay because Christian music is the most artistically bankrupt music on the market.

The final day of camp was intense. That was the day the counselors had all attendees revved up and ready to get closer to God. The attendees split off into areas of the camp to sit by themselves and get in touch with God. So, I went off and wrote something. Given the climate the evangelical counselors had created, I was pretty sure I was connected to God and I think everyone else was too. I think, in retrospect, God probably was only with one or two people and he put on a smokescreen so we could believe he was with us all.

As it became time to leave, a friend pulled me and another friend aside and he asked us if we could pray. I think it was then I was sure I was entering some kind of a cult if I didn’t watch it because we had never prayed. We had never wrapped our arms around each other and discussed how we could share a common bond of religion. That was uncomfortable for me. Call me irrational, but I didn’t want to embrace other boys to get closer to Christ. No, sir. If you want to get closer to Christ that way, you go right ahead.

Following that experience, my understanding of religion became intertwined with my opinion of President George W. Bush and the work of his administration. I started blogging in 2004 (my first political activity online was on MoveOn.org’s message board discussing the 2004 Election).

I wrote posts on faith and separation of church and state. Nobody told me to think like this, I just developed the following understanding (and I read a book on Bush called The Faith of George W. Bush):

"[Bush's] principles, prayer, and personal life are intertwined and are basically in my opinion inseparable. He said God wants everyone to be free and stated that he imposed this idea on Afghanistan. I think this endangers America. I believe Bush and Osama are leaders of a Holy War. What [it] comes down to is this is a stand off of religious principles. Muslim principles have conflicted with Bush’s faith. I adamantly feel that Bush has not separated church from state and this has led us down the wrong path. It doesn’t matter if separation of church and state is right or wrong. What matters is whether or not our president will follow accepted rules while in power. Separating church and state in my opinion is an accepted rule."

I possessed a clear understanding of separation of church and state, whether it was accurate or not. And, I took issue with Bush’s Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives finding them, after conducting my own research, to be constitutional. I specifically singled out an organization known as Teen Challenge in one of my blog postings and suggested the organization’s leader, Reverend John D. Castellani, admitted to a House subcommittee the program made people involved become "complete Jews" or "Jews for Jesus." The nature of the program–replacing drug addiction with an addiction to Jesus–made the program unconstitutional no matter how benign Rev. Castellani’s program might be.

Five years later, I now monitor America with alarm at the interconnectedness of religion and nationalism that has only increased since my days in high school. The way Christianity in this country is often believed by many to be synonymous with patriotism or love of country confounds me. When I listen to people like Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin discuss religion and politics, I worry about the future of this country and how religion could have the effect of making society more close-minded instead of enriching and enlightening society.

Photo by Graham Buffton

President Obama’s agenda has been impeded greatly by religious forces in America. He currently has to affirm his faith in Jesus Christ to appease those who believe he is Muslim and might be inviting Islamists into the country to impose Sharia Law on us all. Personally, I would tell them to go join a survivalist commune, arm themselves, and spread a communicable disease that would kill them all off and bring them in contact with the Kingdom of Heaven sooner than later

Such forces have used religion to mask their deep-seated hatred for how Obama indicates this country is further embracing multiculturalism. I witnessed these people firsthand when filming a documentary at the University of Notre Dame when Obama was invited to deliver the commencement speech. They are militant in their organization for the preservation of America’s national identity and they will not back down unless confronted head on.

In the 21st Century, religion is the eight hundred pound gorilla in the room. Countless people of the world assert it gives humans purpose, it’s a force for good, it allows us to confront mortality and believe in the afterlife, it makes us moral and forces us to confront sin, it teaches us the beauty of creation and life, etc. But, anymore (and especially in America), it seems like a cheap way to unite a nation of disgruntled and angry people and distract those experiencing economic despair from channeling their anger and organizing against government for economic emancipation from joblessness and poverty.

Many religious people arrogantly, offensively, and thoughtlessly eat mankind’s future and advance the belief that their religious text does not show global warming bringing the end of the world. So, like those who believed the Earth is flat (which some still believe) and the sun revolved around the Earth (which some still believe too), they expect humanity to let them forsake reality so they can maintain their collective delusions.

Non-belief carries this stigma that it leaves people deprived, deficient or excluded. That’s correct–nonbelievers have excluded themselves from believing certain lessons, parables, proverbs or fairy tales in religious texts are truth and have embraced ideas that can be unmistakably proven to be truth in the physical world that humans occupy (like, for example, the theory of evolution).

They’ve adopted an understanding that religion is politically irrelevant and cannot solve the problems of war and peace, poverty and sickness, corporate power and corporate control, privatization and loss of public space, and/or environmental destruction and global warming.

I suppose many believe just because traditionally their family, their ancestors and much of humanity have believed. They may not believe a word or think God exists at all, but they continue certain rituals because these traditions have a monopoly over how we conduct life especially how we respond to key points like birth, childhood, the transition from youth to manhood, marriage, death, etc).

Believers suggest those who do not believe simply need to take a leap of faith. I think the proper response to that is to suggest believers take a leap of fact. Courageously test the scientific hypothesis that there is some supernatural or mystical being who has designed the world, a being that can connect to you and hopefully guide you and answer your prayers. Consider what type of band-aid religion is in your life.

Whatever the problems are that manifest themselves as you invite skepticism into your thought processes, I posit you have two choices: you can return to your church on Sunday (or Friday or Saturday or whatever day you attend church) and pray your problems away and you can use an archaic text for guidance or you can trust in your emotions, instincts, and develop a motivation to be the actor in your world that organizes your life to be the life you want it to be.

Because in addition to the fact that religious people will always struggle amongst other religious people over mankind’s past, present and future and go to war over what other people think mankind’s past was and what other people think mankind’s future will be, there’s the reality that the time spent pondering an afterlife–and thinking life is bad now but God will let me into some Kingdom or Paradise and "make things new" for me one day–is time that you could have spent enjoying the little time you have on this Earth.

Pundit and radio show host Glenn Beck, a man who possesses an evangelical flare for expressing his opinions to viewers, held his “Restoring Honor” Rally at the Lincoln Memorial yesterday morning, which was the anniversary date of Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream Speech.” The rally was a conscious attempt to not only re-appropriate the history of Martin Luther King Jr. but also to push the country closer toward adhering to more principles and tenets of Biblical Law.

Participants in the rally included Sarah Palin, Marcus Luttrell, the Liberty University Choir, Tony La Russa, Albert Pujols, and Martin Luther King Jr.’s niece, Alveda King.

You’d be forgiven if you thought Alveda King is someone who was like a Jackson in the Michael Jackson family—someone who is out to exploit the family name for profit and honor. King has said of homosexuality, “It is statistically proven that the strongest institution that guarantees procreation and continuity of the generations is marriage between one man and one woman.” During the rally, she called for more prayer in public schools and referred to abortion as “a womb war, which threatens the fabric of our society.”

Beck and organizers chose, prior to the rally, to put on an event that could be called “non-political,” to emphasize the religious devotion and the revival of spirit that could come out of this event instead. Those in attendance were not allowed to bring in signs that Americans could potentially see on the news, which would clearly indicate what percentage of the crowd was literate and sociopathic and what percentage was not.

While Beck did say that he wanted this rally to help “reclaim the civil rights movement,” the rally indicated Beck was uninterested in the black revolutionary spirit of King that pushed him to fight for de-segregation and equality and far more interested in using King as a prop who understood how faith and belief in God could unleash goodness and greatness in America.

In his speech, Beck offered up a story on the Washington monument that one could say proved Beck is committed to an onslaught on intellectual thinking. He used a story of the Washington monument—how it was being built until the Civil War and then was finished afterward—and argued that was a true example of American triumphalism. Only Beck would suggest that something that makes logical sense indicates America has a true spirit of resilience. And, really, the only reason monuments figure into Beck’s revivals and the only reason he holds them in the presence of memorials is because they provide a nice theater for his American revisionist history to be advanced.

Really, Beck’s rally was a right wing nationalist event featuring leaders collectively trying to control the past so they could control the future. In the exact way that George Orwell would have said totalitarians can gain power, this was really an attempt to control the history of MLK Jr., to manufacture it in a way that will feed into an agenda for moving America in whatever direction they want to go in. By doing this, what Glenn was saying was that he wanted people to focus on MLK as a black preacher. He didn’t want them to consider MLK Jr., the black revolutionary. He wished to remind the audience again and again about the ways that MLK Jr believed in God, the faith he had and the leadership he had from being a believer or follower of God but ignore the liberation aspects of King’s "Dream."

Shared during the rally were Beck’s definitions of faith, hope and charity. Beck inadvertently seemed to be suggesting insanity was a synonym of faith as he said faith is “knowing and believing in something when all the circumstances surrounding you would indicate otherwise.” What he said on hope indicated he opposes President Obama’s view that hope is collective and that “we are all in this together”; his definition of hope, that it is “the parent of faith and charity,” the “light of the world,” and something that “must be rooted in truth and honor,” suggested hope was much closer to hope in the individual and not believing that the collective society could prevail. And, on charity, which he said was “opening your heart to another human being in his time of need,” Beck was giving himself cover for the fact that he does not support the economic redistribution of wealth and power that Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “Dream” speech was about in addition to ending segregation and granting equality and civil rights to all.

With the Special Operations Warrior Foundation sponsoring the rally, there was a confluence of faith in God with testimony on how honorable it is to serve in the military. Beck sought to compel Americans to join the military so that they could participate in a project to remake the globe that would involve confronting the forces of Satan and Christianizing the world so that it could be made new. The problem with this, as the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) would attest to, is that asserting the military is some project for God means members of the military have to give up religious freedom. The very nature of the military requires uniformity so either you have a right to believe in whatever supreme beings you want or everyone is made to believe in a certain supreme being.

An army that promotes the idea of serving Christ not only puts people in the position of having to endure the most horrendous music known to the human ear, Christian rock, but it also creates a clash of civilizations. It invites right wing fundamentalist Muslims who see a “Christian” military fighting in countries that are predominantly Muslim and choose to attack so they can defend their homeland from “Christianization.”

Also, an overtly religious military, means wars are based predominantly in emotion and do not need evidence to support their prosecution. The cost of war, casualties, and the impact on the theater of war no longer matters because your cause is just in the eyes of God. What is being done is good and you must keep fighting until the job is done; the enemy is Satan and you must press on until victory.

Beck explained one of his favorite lines in the Declaration of Independence is, “with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.” This was encouragement to Americans, especially those in the audience, to return America to God, to push America further toward being a country governed by Biblical law.

The media went along with Beck’s claim that the rally was "non-political" because it was religious and Beck hid the partisanship that was part of the motivation behind the rally. To anyone who believed anchors or pundits making this suggestion, the Tea Party provided staff and promotion to the rally, the National Rifle Association sponsored and promoted the event, FreedomWorks pledged to cater to attendees "political interests," Americans for Prosperity, a major organization backed by right-wing billionaire David A. Koch of the oil giant Koch Industries, provided buses to the rally, FreedomWorks and the Tea Party Patriots hosted their own corresponding events, Sarah Palin, a figure inextricably linked to the GOP, spoke at the rally, GOP members of Congress like Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) raised money for the rally, Beck used political terms like "fix the capital," "reclaim the civil rights movement," Beck planned an "education convention" as precursor to the event that would teach followers "how to be a politician."

More importantly, Americans do not like to separate religion from politics. A recent Pew Research Center poll on religion and public life indicated "they feel strongly that politicians should be religious." Sixty-one percent agreed "it was important that members of Congress have strong religious beliefs." Forty-three percent suggested churches should express their views on day-to-day social and political issues. Somewhere between seventy and ninety percent of Americans believe in God or practice a religion. An ABC News poll "found sixty-one percent believe the account of creation in the Bible’s book of Genesis" to be "literally true" and not just a "story meant as a lesson." And, "about one-third of the American adult population believes the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally word for word."

So, can a media pundit or news anchor really look in to the camera and say Beck’s rally was "non-political" without acknowledging how intertwined religion and politics is in America?

Many who are liberal, progressive or Democrat would say Beck’s rally was a distraction, that we should stay focused on the economy and not discuss this topic because it’s what Republicans want to talk about so they can win votes in the election. They would assert that Beck is trying to take a movement because Obama is in the White House. That’s not to say that is untrue, but there’s also truth in the fact that the economy can play a huge role in pushing fearful followers of Christ into people who tap into hate, prejudice and bigotry in the worst of times and attack minorities because a leader tells them those are the evildoers who are making the country impure.

There’s an analogy to be drawn to an episode of the Twilight Zone called, “He’s Alive!” It was Twilight Zone’s creator Rod Serling’s warning to Americans that as long as ignorance and hate persists so too will characters who are perpetually hungry for greatness, who are looking to exploit ignorance and hate for honor and power.

On first look, Beck’s rally seemed like an event organized so that tens of thousands of fearful easy-to-manipulate would give him a strokejob. When one goes deeper, it’s much darker than that—Beck wanted a strokejob, but he wanted that to also be part of pushing the country closer to one that abandons religious pluralism, forsakes the idea of separation of church and state, and marches onward toward the kind of closed-minded society most Americans would condemn Muslims for instituting.

One camera crew on site managed to capture this video. This video indicates that there was something slightly different going on than what was seen by people who watched the rally on C-SPAN or any of the news networks that aired portions of the rally. Additionally, it happens to feature some behind-the-scenes footage of Glenn Beck from right before the actual rally.

WI: Sen. Feingold speaks in support of Barack Obama in Eau Claire, August 24, 2008 by aflcio

A USA Today/Gallup poll based on "telephone interviews conducted June 11-13, 2010, with a random sample of 1,014 adults, aged 18 and older, living in the continental U.S." suggests a majority of the American population does not know if the term "progressive" describes their political views. The poll represents the possibility that many Americans have no idea what it means to be "progressive" or why one might enjoy anointing one’s self with the label of "progressive."

One conclusion from these results could be that this provides an explanation for why progressivism has failed so far in the United States. However, that idea seems to ignore the fact that those responsible for advancing progressivism through the passage of legislation, for example, are politicians. Politicians in this country are most certainly aware of the presence of "progressives" and what they stand for, as they are a potential constituency to be won (and divided) in elections.

A failure of understanding among Americans of what a "progressive" is might have more to do with a political failure among Democrats to articulate specifically what a "progressive" stands for. And, is that necessarily a bad thing? In the "Bottom Line" section of the poll results, the analysis reads, "Given the high degree of public uncertainty about what the term means — as well as the lack of opposition to it from the political center — that could be a successful strategy, at least if the goal is to avoid being pigeonholed."

In an article posted on Salon.com titled, "Does the left even know what "progressive" means?" Ned Resnikoff, an NYU student, further illuminates the results of this poll. First, he addresses what the term means noting that, after the left allowed conservatives to turn "liberal" into a slur, "progressive" has replaced "liberal." Essentially, "progressive" has been a political faction’s attempt at re-branding in this country.

Resnikoff looks at how progressives have failed to define what a "progressive" is and suggests asking what is a "liberal" in order to gain some insight into what a progressive’s worldview happens to be. He highlights the modern conservative movement’s ability to articulate their worldview and how progressives have quite often been "a morass of factions and interests that sometimes work in harmony and often don’t. A ragtag group that can never seem to find a consistent frame for the policy proposals it puts forth."

Glenn Beck and President Obama, as Resnikoff also points out, have offered definitions of the progressive worldview. Beck’s definition of the progressive worldview is unfortunately, for those wishing to become informed, much easier to find than Obama’s definition (that’s likely because he hasn’t talked specifically of progressivism in any interviews or speeches).

Beck thinks, "Progressivism is a cancer in America" and "it is meant to eat our Constitution." Beck delights in offering his own version of the history of progressivism in America and never hesitates to set his sights on President Woodrow Wilson and the progressive ideas he believed in.

This could be part of the reason progressivism has failed. Those who articulate and explain what progressivism is often have as much of an idea of what progressivism is as the people who have no idea what the label "progressive" means. Also, there’s a tendency for people like Hillary Clinton to anoint themselves with the label "progressive," which masks real views and can be confusing because it appears progressive just means a willingness to support progress and move forward; to a certain extent, that is progressivism but really it’s a lot more than that.

The Center for American Progress (CAP), a progressive think tank, has published reports on "The Progressive Tradition in American Politics" seeking to articulate the originations of the progressive worldview in America. This report points to the slow transformation of Woodrow Wilson into a national progressive president as what "solidified progressivism within the Democratic Party." CAP also notes that "the most distinctive progressive faction" happened to be "within the Republican Party and most fiercely advocated by prominent voices such as Theodore Roosevelt and Robert La Follette of Wisconsin. (Both Roosevelt and La Follette formed outside Progressive Parties to promote progressive ideas after failing to transform the Republican Party from inside.)

CAP claims (in the above cited report) progressives were responsible for: the 8-hour work day and 40-hour work week, civil service tests to replace political patronage, worker’s compensation for on-the-job accidents, national supervision of banks and the creation of a flexiblenational currency, unemployment insurance, regulation of the securities industry, prohibitions against child labor and workplace exploitations, federal insurance of bank deposits, the legal right of people to organize within labor unions and engage in, bans on speculative banking practices collective bargaining for fair wages and benefits, the constitutional right to vote, full legal equality, and the elimination, refinancing and foreclosure protections for home and farm owners of formal discrimination for women and minorities, national infrastructure including electrification, railways, airports, the graduated income and inheritance tax bridges and roads, and the Internet, protections against contaminated food and medicines, Social Security and Medicare to aid the elderly and Medicaid and CHIP to help low-income families and children, hundreds of millions of acres of protected wilderness areas, waterways, minimum wage laws and income support for the working poor and national parks, antimonopoly and anticompetitive regulations of corporations, public education, college loans and grants for students, and the GI Bill, direct elections of U.S. senators, direct primary elections of political candidates, and the initiative and referendum process in the states.

With a list like that, it’s not hard to figure out what a progressive might stand for: workers’ rights, unions, bank regulations, social programs, equality, the building and re-building of infrastructure, economic protections, antitrust laws and the abolition of corporate personhood, and the strengthening of democracy.

Ask yourself: How many of those issues do you hear Democratic Party members discussing openly? What in that list is taboo to the interests and campaigns of Democratic Party politicians either because they fear Republicans will out-message them or they will alienate interests they must court in order to be re-elected?

If that’s what progressives stand for, then progressives should be ready and willing to go out and sell their visions for the future to the people of America. According to an April 2010 Gallup poll, support for regulating Wall Street banks was at 50%.A poll conducted as part of Gallup’s annual Work and Education survey in August of 2009 found that "48% of Americans now approving of unions" (and while that represented the first sub-50% approval since Gallup first asked the question in the 1930s" that could easily be reversed if there was more defense of unions in this country by political leaders).A 2009 New York Times/CBS poll found that "59% [of Americans] say the government should provide national health insurance, including 49% who say such insurance should cover all medical problems."

Social Security continues to enjoy wide support (although President George W. Bush’s push to privatize Social Security four years ago planted doubts in the minds of younger people). Another Gallup poll conducted in 2009 found 68% of Americans think major corporations should have less influence in this nation.A Pew Research Center poll from 2007 found a surge in support for the social safety net with 57% saying they were in favor of helping more needy even if debt would increase. (Interestingly, the poll found 48% of all conservatives were willing to accept deficit spending to help those who could not help themselves.).

In the face of conservative, libertarian, and free enterprise/free market think tank campaigns perpetuated through media and by the politicians of this country, the levels of support for "progressive" ideas and programs, which progressives started, is still high. Those who believe in these "progressive" ideals now need to speak to Americans about progressivism in a way that will lead them to support such a democratic, socially responsible, and much more egalitarian agenda.

A big problem is Democrats’ failure to connect the reality they and others are experiencing to the reality the Obama Administration is perpetuating. Gallup published a poll on July 16th that showed Democrats’ score on Gallup’s Economic Confidence Index at -14 (down from -3 in June and +3 in April) yet no "meaningful change" in approval of President Obama. Such a disconnect may be conscious to Democrats — perhaps, deep down they no longer wholeheartedly support Obama but say so publicly to not get lumped in with Tea Partiers. Whatever the case may be, progressivism cannot become more understood and rise in popularity and support if what the Obama Administration has done or failed to do is not connected to the situations we all face in society today.

Progressivism has likely failed because of fears that pushing progressivism may result in debate that tarnishes "brand Obama," a brand that managed to excite the grassroots without diminishing the possibility of influence and support from boardrooms and American CEOs (who Democrats depend on for re-election). Much of the left still cling to a belief that, despite his inability to incorporate progressive agenda items into legislation, Obama is still can bring real progressive change to the country.

Robert Scheer, Truthdig editor-in-chief and journalist, said in a Live Chat last week, "criticism of the president will only strengthen [the Obama Administration] if it comes from the grass roots and the people around him have to deliver to the people who vote."

That Americans are not supportive of progressivism is largely a conjured up fear to excuse a failure to advance a progressive agenda and win support from Democratic Party leaders for progressive change. The American people support progressive ideas. They just need real progressive leadership that, independently from Democratic Party interests, promotes a vision and future where these progressive ideas are indeed viable and practical.