Take a look at this. Though it’s nearly 100 years old, it could have been written yesterday:
The conscience of the people, in a time of grave national problems, has called into being a new party, born of the nation’s sense of justice. We of the Progressive party here dedicate ourselves to the fulfillment of the duty laid upon us by our fathers to maintain the government of the people, by the people and for the people whose foundations they laid.
We hold with Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln that the people are the masters of their Constitution, to fulfill its purposes and to safeguard it from those who, by perversion of its intent, would convert it into an instrument of injustice. In accordance with the needs of each generation the people must use their sovereign powers to establish and maintain equal opportunity and industrial justice, to secure which this Government was founded and without which no republic can endure.
This country belongs to the people who inhabit it. Its resources, its business, its institutions and its laws should be utilized, maintained or altered in whatever manner will best promote the general interest.
It is time to set the public welfare in the first place.
That’s the introduction to the Progressive Party Platform of 1912.
The Progressive Era was – by far – the most productive in our nation’s history in defining, advancing and securing the Social Contract. Seige is now being laid to that precious contract by corporatists disguised as candidates, looters held out as leaders – and an opportunist named Obama.
The Progressive Era flourished from the 1890s to 1920s. Then as now, true Progressives questioned and ultimately chastened the major parties which were complicit in the oppression of American families and workers. The same two parties which are complicit in that very oppresion today. Quoting again from the 1912 document:
THE OLD PARTIES
Political parties exist to secure responsible government and to execute the will of the people.
From these great tasks both of the old parties have turned aside. Instead of instruments to promote the general welfare, they have become the tools of corrupt interests which use them impartially to serve their selfish purposes. Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people.
To destroy this invisible government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.
The deliberate betrayal of its trust by the Republican party, the fatal incapacity of the Democratic party to deal with the new issues of the new time, have compelled the people to forge a new instrument of government through which to give effect to their will in laws and institutions.Unhampered by tradition, uncorrupted by power, undismayed by the magnitude of the task, the new party offers itself as the instrument of the people to sweep away old abuses, to build a new and nobler commonwealth.
Liberals are fleeing from the “L word ” – who can blame them, based on their unconscionable abandonment of common people – and are doing their best to purloin the “progressive” label as their own.
We must stop them.
We’ll do it by creating a new voice for Progressivism (with a capital “P,” as distinct from the small “p” purloiners of the Progressive tradition).
As Progressives did then, so must we unite Americans who embrace non-intervention, industrial justice, environmental protection, equal access to education, and care of our youth, our aged and our downtrodden. As they did, we too can coalesce into a force which does not tolerate the lies told by both parties as they strive to protect the wealth of elites, and their own standing as the well-paid protectors of the elitist class.
In tomorrow’s second part of this diary, we’ll show the lengths to which “small p” progressives go in attempting to quash mounting public dissent – and disdain – for the Donkey and Elephant show which has enriched a tiny percentage of the populace at the expense of the rest of us.
In the meantime, I invite you to read the 1912 Progressive Party platform in its entirety. Alongside the platforms of other organizations engaged in the fight for justice for all Americans, it is one of the central resources through which the NPA’s Unified Progressive Platform of 2012 is being drafted. Look for the initial draft of this document – and please, provide your feedback on it – in mid-July at NewProgs.org.
Thank you.
Anthony Noel
NPA Facilitator



27 Comments

Well I hope you and many from the NPA make it to Oct2012 DC.
If not, then you can STFU, and get out of the way.
Sorry to be blunt, but there’s no more time for useless people.
And forget the whole P versus p thing. It’s nonsense. O considers himself a P. He would be offended if someone implied otherwise. He said as much to Cornel West.
And I don’t care if you are called “progressive”, because we’ve all seen how so-called progressive groups like RI and GLAAD, and many many others, have sold out. You can call yourself a “conservative”, “liberal”, “fascist-anarchist, or even “butterfly-lover”. Who cares about a name. A rose by any other name … And feces by any other name …
I care only what you do. If you can get things done for the people. Until then, I reserve judgement.
The NPA is an endorsing org of the event, Kevin Zeese is on our steering committee, and just FYI, it’s Oct2011.
It doesn’t sound like you’re reserving judgment, tambershall. It sounds like your mind is made up, though you clearly don’t know JACK about the NPA – for example that it was founded here by MyFDL readers last fall.
Just sayin’.
Don’t know who put the bee in your bonnet, but a little objective research might serve you better than displaced righteous indignation.
Thank you for the correction about the date.
You never responded if you were going to be there or not. SO ARE YOU?
My mind is NOT made up, as you put it. However, I don’t give a flying monkey if you took all the FDL posters, got them together, held hands, and had a massive group hug.
SO WHAT? What does that have to do with it or anything?
And if you think my waiting for actual significant action versus just talk is a bad idea, then … let’s just say we can agree to disagree.
My meme is simple, make “it” happen, and until then I reserve judgement.
If you think that means I’m attacking the NPA, then we can agree to disagree.
Yes, we’ll be there.
We’re a 100-percent volunteer organization working to make “it” happen. I hope you’ll consider helping us.
Excellent.
Thank you for the link.
“My meme is simple, make “it” happen” is not a ‘meme’; for your edification:
http://www.chrisg.com/what-is-a-blog-meme/
Secondly, please elaborate to myfdl readers exactly what YOU are doing to “make it happen” besides critiquing those who are putting forth effort to make it happen.
2011
http://october2011.org
Oh, and David Swanson is on our steering committee, too! **blush**
Well, tambershall, I certainly understand your anger, but I don’t think it is constructive to blast away without having a plan in action to achieve some measure of change. Telling people to STFU isn’t helpful. What are you doing in your community to bring about progressive change?
“Who cares about a name…I care only what you do. If you can get things done for the people. Until then, I reserve judgement.”
Fair Enough. Check out our website and see where we go. I have been hurt and insulted by many democrats I used to work with who are more fans than believers in anything. If the NPA betrays me I will spend more time with 350 and other organizations. So far I like NPA.
NPA – when you get a candidate on the ballot in 12 states (prox 20%) prior to the primaries, I will commit to 100 phonebanking calls in Iowa and 100 calls in New Hampshire during the primary cycle.
Prove that limited muscle, and I’ll add my help. Should you provide greater reach, say 40 states with your NPA candidate on a primary ballot, I would increase my help substantially.
New Progs
Thank you for the stellar article. As for those who say that they will help but only if…..
The only way that your criteria will be achieved is if…….
You help.
I mean seriously.
ED2291
Trust me. If this was some pseudo progressive shill organization for the Democrats, I would NOT be a part of this.
I ran against Keith Ellison, the member of Congress who is the current sitting chair of the Dems “Progressive Caucus.”
He is a fraud and during the election he REFUSED to take part in a debate with me. He would only allow a Televised debate (with myself obviously excluded) with him and the Republican candidate.
You can you tube Michael Cavlan Keith Ellison and watch where I chased him around looking to debate.
I Know why he refused to debate.. Because I knew what he was doing v.s. what he was saying.
A ‘wait for someone else to do the hard work first’ strategy is just looking for a winning bandwagon to jump aboard on, with no guiding principles.
Does this mean if the GOP candidate is leading the polls next year that’s who’ll win your support and vote?
I’m with that Canfield fella.
When NPA can mount a similar direct assault that was done today by Red Scrubs on Wall Street and stir some shit, I remain highly critical of your rhetoric.
If they get as far as I outlined, sign up for calls, Larue.
1 out of 5 is decent as regards “I reject the current system, and I want an alternative.”
Get beyond 1:10 land, Ron Paul territory – who I can’t possibly support, to 1:5, and I’ll help.
Aside from that, I’ll continue doing what I do, which is to identify and shame the Democrats in my district, until there’s an alternative.
“The Progressive Era was – by far – the most productive in our nation’s history in defining, advancing and securing the Social Contract”
Even more so than the New Deal?
Well Kelly (and Larue), I certainly respect your points of view. It just strikes me as curious that you both post to nationally read forums, yet limit your activism to the local level (that to Kelly; not sure what angles Larue’s working, locally or otherwise).
I work my ass off locally (my pet issue: smart growth. I support and facilitate educational forums throughout my city, and state both in city council meetings and the local media exactly where I stand. If you’d like, you can read my current missive in that battle here). But I’m not about to stop there. And why would I?
I guess what I’m asking is: Why not take the opportunity to shame – and support efforts to counter – lame-ass leaders at all levels of government?
Kelly and I exchanged comments about a month ago in which Kelly asked that the NPA support “just one” candidate other than at the Presidential level. “Mayor, town council, anything,” is a roughly accurate paraphrasing of his beseechment.
Michael Cavlan (who comments above) is running for U.S. Senate in Minnesota, and will have the NPA’s full support. We are compiling a list and gathering the resumes of other potential candidates in localities across the country. But that said, we’ve been neither coy nor indirect about our approach for the current cycle: To leverage the 2012 election, primarily at the national level, in order to create a lasting organization which will support and further Progressive reform without apology, without compromise, and without quitting.
While it is certainly everyone’s prerogative to apply their own standard to what makes an effort worth joining, I have to agree with Michael’s comment above, suggesting that when something worthwhile – especially something which has coalesced (and continues to do so) as transparently and has been so consistent in its stated goals as the NPA – comes along, something with which one has clear ideologic agreement, why would one not take the opportunity to help it grow? Especially when it is a 100-percent volunteer, non-profit effort? Why wait?
The thing about movements is they’ve gotta start somewhere – and while results matter, one thing is guaranteed: We can’t even hope to see results without making that initial commitment: To start. To quote The Great One (no, not that Great One – I’m talking about Wayne Gretzky!):
Nonetheless, I appreciate the comments from both of you, Kelly and Larue. I look forward to the day when you’ll comment positively on any effort which – like ours – seeks to build alliances among like-minded people, whether the results will be seen next year or 50 years hence.
Thanks again for your comments.
Tony
Hey bluewombat! How’s that manuscript coming?
In my opinion, yes. Four constitutional amendments (one rightly repealed) all of which had major impact and still do today: institution of the federal income tax, women’s suffrage, direct election of Senators. Even the clinker – prohibition – is still informing our national discourse.
Moreover, the New Deal was (largely) a manifestation of Progressivism, a furthering of its tenets. Had Progressive ideology – which strongly embraced the Social Contract – never existed, one can make a strong case that the New Deal might never have come to pass.
Tony
“While it is certainly everyone’s prerogative to apply their own standard to what makes an effort worth joining, I have to agree with Michael’s comment above, suggesting that when something worthwhile – especially something which has coalesced (and continues to do so) as transparently and has been so consistent in its stated goals as the NPA – comes along, something with which one has clear ideologic agreement, why would one not take the opportunity to help it grow? ”
This is human nature. It is partly rational behavior – there’s an implicit, reality based, if intuitive cost/benefit ‘caculation’ that people engage in. It is also partly irrational, having to do with human’s herd instinct.
Thepoint.com was created with a view to automating a tipping point approach to overcoming the above-mentioned inhibitions to participating in a civic or charitable enterprise. Unfortunately, it’s not ideally suited for use by political efforts that have multiple, localized needs. I have written diaries and comments, I think more at openleft than here, about the need to funnel citizen’s volunteer hours and $$ into some campaigns at the expense of others. Those ideas had a sort of implicit tipping point aspect.
One thing I’ve also mentioned is setting up a facility (think web site) that has a sort of provisional or tipping-point capability where potential candidates can stipulate conditions for a serious run. These would take the place of exploratory committees. E.g., “I, George Washington Junior, will run for House of Representatives if I get commitments of 8,000 volunteer-man-hours, and $50,000.”
Because NPA is only recently started, it will likely be tough to get large numbers of committed candidates and supporters in every district, even in 2014. One reason for NPA to support a “Full Court Press” is to help overcome the inertia of lesser-evilism and non-voting (for those who have completely or mostly given up). Full Court Press is just fine with minimalist candidates. Of course, if tons of $$ and volunteers develop in any particular district, nobody is going to look a gift horse in the mouth. By allowing minimalism, NPA would lower the (herd instinct) inhibition threshold for doing something very different than the rest of the human herd.
If NPA were to embrace an even more provisional approach than FCP, there would be additional options for dealing with the tentative offer to help, of the sort that KellyCanfiedDenver has made. You could have come back, e.g., with a suggestion that Kelly run as a minimalist candidate in his/her district, and that, with any luck, NPA might have 1/5th of a FCP effort in 2012 or 2014, by engaging other people with his/her degree of tentativeness, similarly.
I think one way to get 1/5 of 435 minimalist candidates in 2012 or 2014 is to contact college political science departments all over the country, explain the program, and ask professors to create class projects towards this end.
As Bruce Springsteen sang,
You can’t start a fire
without a spark
===========================================================
This is somewhat off topic, but it’s a damn shame that FDL does not support NPA. FDL did not support the FCP, either. I saw a video of Jane Hamsher at NN11, and I’m thinking “Well, 11 years of political blogging, and what has it gotten us, in terms of solid political gains?” Russ Feingold out of a job, and Denis Kucinich taking a dive on Obamacare? Even Jane plus FDL seem too captured by the gravitational pull of the Democratic Party to do much more than orbit around the DP. I have to wonder whether Jane, et. al., are actually bothered by that. And if they are, do they really think that just improving the blog and relying in ever more information presentation is going to change things?
I’m with Denis Rancourt (up to a point), when he says, “Truth will not set us free.” IOW, “Information is not power”. Yes, solid information should be more widespread, from beyond the blogosphere to the unblogged masses. HOWEVER, EVEN THE WELL-INFORMED READERS OF BLOGS LIKE FDL HAVE NOT, IMO, DONE MUCH TO FORM AN ORGANIZED POLITICAL FORCE. (NPA is an exception, sort of. It’s too soon to tell what NPA will develop into, but in any event, the lack of support by FDL is symptomatic. NPA has developed in spite of FDL lack of support, not because of FDL support. Of course, we appreciate the benign tolerance. )
Speaking of tipping points and lowering political inhibition thresholds, perhaps one route to rapid growth is to get FDL on-board, provisionally, with the following “civic value proposition”: Dear Jane: if NPA can get at least minimalist candidates plus volunteers for at least 20% of the district in the US, will FDL at that point embrace NPA?
Hmmmm. I feel a diary coming on.
Here is a story illustrating why I am volunteering for the NPA. Some nuns in the 1600s in America were adamantly opposed to slavery. What could they do given that time and place? The Civil War was over 200 years in the future and real equality even further. They taught some slaves Latin. At the time many thought slaves could not be literate in English, let alone Latin. Did that help? I don’t know, but I like to think it did. They did what they could.
It is obvious to those that follow issues and not personalities that we have been completely abandoned by Obama and the democrats. (See http://stpeteforpeace.org/obama.html or NPA website.)Where to turn now? The Green Party or NPA or 350 are all good ideas. There may be many others, but I feel like the nuns in the 1600s. I need to do something even if it is potentially ineffectual. Time is not on our side for climate change and our country is headed in the wrong direction in other areas as well. Blogs like this are necessary but insufficient for change. We also need to roll up our sleeves and organize and work. Good luck with whatever path you take. The only wasted effort is working through the Republican or Democratic Parties for change.
I love what you’re doing, absolutely, and I love that you’re basing it upon a somewhat forgotten chapter in our history. But you’re forgetting about the populists, socialists, anarchists, laborers, unionists, farmers, and so on who paved the way for the Progressives! They came along somewhat late in the era (the Grange movement had its roots in the 1860s, and that led to the Populist movement), and were more middle class reformers who sought to avoid the kind of class conflict some of the other, more radical activists embraced (or at least saw as necessary).
So what you’re doing is great. But knowing the historical context is good, too, even if it’s not 100% relevant to what you’re doing today.
Thanks rossl!
I actually count all the groups you mention – and yes, many Republicans too – as key to the success of the Progressive Movement. This is the kind of cooperation and acknowledgement of reality to which we must return: We are all our brothers’ – and sisters’ – keepers.
Chris Hedges writes eloquently about the need for any successful movement to have a spiritual element. The propensity of today’s so-called “pious” individuals for ignoring the Golden Rule and spouting tired and long-disproved Horatio Alger nonsense (how “anyone can pick themselves up by their bootstraps”) has Progressives of that first era spinning in their graves.
Here’s hoping we can arouse their spirit, and begin caring for all our people again.
Tony
I did not attack the NPA or anyone else. As I said above, we can agree to disagree.
And what I said was, “If not, then you can STFU, and get out of the way.”
I didn’t say JUST STFU. I said, “If not, …” Notice the If not??? I stand by that comment still. I still feel the same way.
What am I doing? Before I share, I want to be clear and say who cares what I’m doing. I’m not NPA. I didn’t come here and try to voice my group’s message. And why aren’t you asking what THEY are doing? Because that’s my question. What are they doing? What have they done? Isn’t that’s what’s important.
So what do I do? Fair question. Organize and help at soup kitchens and the like. It’s small time but I do what I can to help. I am also trying to organize people in groups. One is easy to knock down. The many not so easy. It’s slow going but that’s the way it is.
What’s precisely has ANSWER ever accomplished in 3 decades of DC protests other than keeping ANSWER’s little cliche on the podium for 3 decades of DC protests?
But isn’t that the question … what are they doing?
Seriously. What are they doing? What have they done?
You are also insulted, when no insult was meant.
“Fair enough”. Good.
And I’m not a Dem. I left those useless followers when I found out that D is just another branch of the Corporatist party.
And I’m not attacking or insulting anyone. I’m saying what have they done. What are they doing?
And until I see actual action, I have reservations.
Here’s what Noam Chomsky said about spoiler-backing in 2004: “These may not look like huge differences, but they translate into quite big effects for the lives of people. Anyone who says ‘I don’t care if Bush gets elected’ is basically telling poor and working people in the country, ‘I don’t care if your lives are destroyed. I don’t care whether you are going to have a little money to help your disabled mother. I just don’t care, because from my elevated point of view I don’t see much difference between them.’ That’s a way of saying, ‘Pay no attention to me, because I don’t care about you.’ Apart from its being wrong, it’s a recipe for disaster if you’re hoping to ever develop a popular movement and a political alternative.”