The DU THINK TANK Proposal Needs Your Support

[ulTRAX]

Some of you may remember the proposal for a DU THINK TANK.....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2744460

It was received with a great deal of enthusiasm. In fact some from another forum http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/ that I proposed it to have created a prototype http://www.broadbandcooperative.com/zope/ThinkTank but the original goals were so watered down I could not be associated with it.

Well the proposal's gone nowhere here so I'm making a direct appeal to the Admins....

If you have any thoughts on the proposal or would like to support it, the thread is here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=121x3304

Here's my proposal from last November:

The Democratic Party is on the retreat. It has issues but no bold vision of where it wants to take this nation. I believe it suffers from intellectual stagnation. For example, in this last election Kerry worked ENTIRELY within the Right's framework of irresponsible fiscal policies. He did not challenge their assumptions or expose the Right's "strangle the beast" agenda. He did not educate the public on the shell game that is the federal budget. He did not educate the people on how the debt poses a risk to Social Security. Kerry did not even use the correct Bush deficit numbers! He did what he thought was politically expedient, yet his failure to challenge the big issues means the Right's framework becomes more entrenched.

If there’s no compelling Progressive vision that sells well to the average American, then 10-20-30 years from now the Progressive movement will STILL be on the retreat, relegated to tweaking a dysfunctional political and corporate system created by history and the Right instead of trying to reform it. Of course we could just hope the Right implodes but that doesn't solve the lack of vision problem.

So what are those ideas we WISH the Democratic Party would represent? What ideas are worthy of fighting for even if there's little to show for it in the next 5-10 years? What should the role of this forum be in helping creating that vision?

Currently DU is a place to rant or discuss events/ideas. It’s a place to network. The frantic pace at these forums prevents ideas from ever being fully developed. There's constant reinventing of the wheel and no conclusions are drawn.

I believe DU should aim higher… to harness our immense grassroots energy and talent to reshape if not reinvent the Democratic Party, American politics, America itself.

To work towards this goal I propose DU should become an on-line Progressive Think Tank... a place where ideas can be generated efficiently and not just lost in the shuffle of endless rediscussion… but a place that can have some structure focuses on creating a "product". The DU Campaign Underground project is an example of such collective effort.

How do I envision this being accomplished? I propose three things. The first is the expansion of the topical forums to reflect issues not given priority here. The current forum structure tends to encourages discussion along traditional lines while ignoring the issues that REALLY shape our lives: constitutional reform, federalism, property rights, corporate rights, wealth distribution, taxation, markets, democracy, morality, US role in the world, etc. These are issues too important for the Democratic Party to ignore.... yet it does. Most other issues are merely subsets of the above.

Secondly, I propose adding a mechanism that can provide continuity in brainstorming. Many of you already heard of wiki…. essentially collective authorship. If not check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page It's a community encyclopedia. Anyone can edit it or return a page to a previous state. It seems chaotic but it does work. I think such a feature here connected to each forum could help in developing more focused strategies, talking points, ads, whatever. Those principles/mission statements could be collected for a new Progressive Manifesto... a Common Sense for the 21st Century…. a logically consistent paradigm that will serve as the bedrock of Progressive thought.

I have to add I STONGLY believe there has to be some structure to the project. The first stage would be to create forums/wiki space to discuss the basic values we believe in…. rights, freedoms, the purpose of government, democracy, inequality… etc. Statements would then be drawn up that crystallize each principle into a coherent argument. If you’re not sure just what I’m suggesting please read the Rights of Man… http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/rightsof.htm In the second stage additional forums would have to be created based on a list the community draws up. Most of these forums already exist. They too would need a wiki component.

I have to add… that proposed this idea here a few weeks ago and it went nowhere. But another forum LOVED the idea then rushed to sabotaged it. Those who participate MUST BE WILLING TO LEAVE POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS BEHIND. This is not a proposal for Democratic Party politics. This would be an intellectual exercise to find or create core principles upon which we’d base a vision of the America we’d like to see in 20-50 years. I strongly believe that working with the basics first will be liberating and a source of great creativity. The process will point out contradictions in the Progressive message. Consider it political psychoanalysis. New ideas flow once we’re back in touch with basic values. If we REALLY believe in civic equality where all votes weigh the same then we have to abolish the EC. If we REALLY believe in that forgotten 9th amendment then we have to prevent lawmakers from exceeding legitimate intent.

I strongly urge such specific proposals and long-term strategies be left for a time AFTER the Manifesto.

[bryant69]

1. It sounds like a good idea--but it would also require a lot . . .

of start up time and effort. I can understand why a lot of people would agree that this is a good idea, but few would actually want to start working on it.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[ulTRAX]

3. start up time

The prototype was put together in a few days by one person on their home PC...

What happened here was I was working with a charter member to propose the creation of a new forum do discuss organizing the project. We had written up a proposal which s/he was to submit via the normal route.... and that person hasn't written back since 12-1.

It's better to get the Admins aboard, if possible, then to again try the bottom up approach.

[ulTRAX]

28. BTW

That prototype forum was created using a free content management program called Plone. It's available here" http://plone.org/

From the intro: "Plone is powerful and flexible. It is ideal as an intranet and extranet server, as a document publishing system, a portal server and as a groupware tool for collaboration between separately located entities."

Plone is a 19meg download and runs in your browser. Out of the box it looks very much like the prototype forum.

[itzamirakul]

2. I sounds like a great idea but

why does DU have to become the THINK TANK? I mean, couldn't we just use one of the special interest forums to get this started and see where it goes from there without a lot of fanfare? I think the idea has a great deal of merit and potential and I am really very interested, so please keep me on your list of people who would like to participate....but again...why not just try to get it started as a forum? Is there something that I am missing about the proposal?

[ulTRAX]

4. wrong forum structure

itzamirakul wrote: I sounds like a great idea but why does DU have to become the THINK TANK? I mean, couldn't we just use one of the special interest forums to get this started and see where it goes from there without a lot of fanfare?"

A couple of thoughts... in theory you are correct. But in practice it would not work.

As I wrote in my proposal "The current forum structure tends to encourages discussion along traditional lines while ignoring the issues that REALLY shape our lives: constitutional reform, federalism, property rights, corporate rights, wealth distribution, taxation, markets, democracy, morality, US role in the world, etc. These are issues too important for the Democratic Party to ignore.... yet it does. Most other issues are merely subsets of the above."

The existing forum structure reflects the ideological limitations of the Democratic Party. The intent of the project is to break though these ideological barriers, not to be limited by them. That's why I parted company with the people at CGCS.

Any discussion on these issues would be relegated to the General Discussion forums which means they'd be buried. For the project to have any focus there has to be a structure conducive to that end. I believe dedicated forums for each topic with a corresponding wiki area is the only way to go. While I made some suggestions in the proposal, that topic list does not yet exist.

The current rules for forum creation are just not adequate for a project like this. What if some key topics never get forums? This is another reason why the bottom up approach would have failed. The Admins have to be behind this project and provide the flexibility to let it grow in unpredictable ways.

[itzamirakul]

6. I think I am beginning to understand what you mean...

at least to a certain degree. But again, have you looked at the new feature, Demopedia to see if that would be workable for a start? Could we start with say, three of your major topics? I am an artist, not a political scientist and I am not ashamed to say that I would be overwhelmed with too many heavy topics at one time because I would have to do a LOT of research to be able to particpate intelligently.

And, btw, who would administer such a big undertaking? You have to get the support of the people who run DU. I don't think that the members can make that choice alone.

[ulTRAX]

8. the project needs flexibility

itzamirakul wrote: "I think I am beginning to understand what you mean... at least to a certain degree. But again, have you looked at the new feature, Demopedia to see if that would be workable for a start?"

I have a few entries in Demopedia. I think it's a great addition to DU because like the Campaign Underground, it's dedicated to creating a lasting "product" not just the constant churn in the forums. While the Demopedia will be an encyclopedia of sorts, what I'm proposing was completely different . It was a complete rethink of the Democratic Party and Progressive movement. It's "product" would be a statement of principles... ideas that could form the foundation for a 50 year plan to create a progressive America.

"And, btw, who would administer such a big undertaking? You have to get the support of the people who run DU. I don't think that the members can make that choice alone."

I added some thoughts to the last post before I saw your question. I'd expect the project would be crippled by the current rules for forum creation. It would have to be much more flexible... another reason for having a dedicated space apart from the main forums.

[itzamirakul]

10. Well, I like the core idea of what you are proposing and

I wish that I could be more helpful but the best I can do is set up websites that have templates or go to blogspot, myself.

I don't know much more about setting up what I think you have in mind.

I did visit www.rootstalk.org (or .com) I forgot which but I bookmarked it. It is a very nicely put together site. I am assuming that what you want is on that order EXCEPT that the topics would be more encompassing and far-reaching than just curren-day politics.I will try to keep this topic kicked to see where it goes and hope that you get more support for your proposal.

[ulTRAX]

35. check out Plone

That prototype forum was created using a free content management program called Plone. It's available here: http://plone.org /

From the intro: "Plone is powerful and flexible. It is ideal as an intranet and extranet server, as a document publishing system, a portal server and as a groupware tool for collaboration between separately located entities."

Plone is a 19meg download and runs in your browser. I have no idea how it runs on a server. Out of the box it looks very much like the prototype forum.

[oscar111]

5. Nominate for hmpage{button bott of orig post} + Kick

i have only read the first quarter... rushed... but sounds superb so far.

PS AAR needed for "making a new case to the public and educating them".. Campaigns seem too short a time to me.. and only soundbites carried on the news MSM... so our prez candidate cant educate them very much.

AAR needed for that, before a progressive candidate runs. Otherwise, a prog. will lose, as Hate Radio voters go to the polls.

BUILD AAR, then a progressive can win. IMHO.

[oscar111]

7. Racism: add 2 ur deep framework list: wiki is best, yes

yes wiki is needed.. forums bury key facts in the past archives.

Racism.. i think white backlash is key to the RW victories since '60's. Reagan won before Hate Radio got big. He won on white backlash... and now 2 factors underlie the RW strength...

racism and hate radio.

Fundies are there, but not as big factors, as these two. IMHO.

racists seem willing to lose their jobs {then work for their relatives at menial jobs} and lose firefighters, lose cops, lose college aid, on and on, to "keep those ethnics out of my area ". After all, racists see ethnics as the cause of ALL THAT'S WRONG IN SOCIETY.

racist behavior makes sense once you understand this key delusion error. .. "ethnics cause ALL THAT'S WRONG IN SOCIETY" Not economic causes.. rather, ethnics. So they ignore our economic reasoning.

Focus on racism... factsheets needed to deflate things like "ethnics prone to crime.. it's in their blood"

Polls dont ask Are You a Racist, but it is out there. Polls dont list racism in results.. so we dems have forgotten all about it.
Our thinking has been hijacked by the Poll framework.

[itzamirakul]

11. I really agree with you on the racism backlash...

It is a very important topic, but notice how absolutely NO ONE wants to address it? Everything you say about the backlash is 100% correct.

[knight_of_the_star]

9. We have to be bolder, more aggressive

That's one of the things that lost it for the Democratic Party this last election cycle. You can say all you want agbout voter fraud and suppression and dirty tricks and all that, but the fact that those HAPPENED is sympotmatic of the party's lack of boldness. We have to be willing to charge forward on principle alone and nothing else or we ARE going to lose election after election. That's one of the things that keeps winning it for the GOP, they act like they are doing things on principle alone, and the people like that. Not enough elected Dems are, they seem to be doing things based on what is politically expedient.

[ulTRAX]

13. fish never think about the water they swim in

I'm reminded of something Noam Chomsky once said about the Vietnam War. There were the hawks who believed the US had a right to be there and should do all it takes to win. Then there were the "doves" who also believed the US had a right to be in Vietnam but thought the cost of winning the war were too great.

The more the two sides debates... the hidden assumption was reinforced. Outside this range of permissible thought was the Peace Movement that believed the US had NO right to be there.

Fish don't think about the water they swim in. Likewise, most Democrats don't think about the hidden assumptions that underlie their Party. So what is a systematic way to do a complete rethink?

[Nadienne]

12. So, basically, for now, we need forums

that specifically address the key issues you mentioned, as a way of discussing these issues, and from there, from those discussions, statements (a set of core values and beliefs?) would be drawn up...?

Sounds like a very Democratic process :)

And it sounds much better than discussing the ways rwers are hurting the country. It sounds proactive! Count me in!!

[ulTRAX]

14. If you like this concept...... please support it!

Please post a note of your support for this concept here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=121x3304

[Occulus]

15. this should be a seperate site

associated with DU. A sort of "open tank" into which people can contribute platforms and position papers, which would then be vetted, sorted, and combined to form an official party platform. With members in all 50 state, DU is well-suited to being the core from which a viable third party could spring.

[ulTRAX]

17. on third parties

As a Progressive I have no use for the Democratic Party except as the lesser of the evils. I believe that Democrats actually stand in the way of reforms I want to see enacted. Here's a discussion on that topic: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1430548

But as we all should know, the dynamics of our dysfunctional two party system drag most who stray back into one of the major parties. The US is devoid of common sense election reforms such as proportional representation and run-off voting.

One of the reasons I'm looking 50 years down the road is because that is what it may take to break the back of the two party system. It would entail making changes to the Constitution itself... and to date there's been no amendment that really challenges the anti-democratic nature of this document. Aside from the legal hurdles there are immense ideological hurdles. We've all been bought up to understand and validate what the Framers did instead of think critically about the the compromises made at the Constitutional Convention.

I have some ideas of how momentum can be built up for a multi-party system that begins with the states... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=158x2162

But it may mean working within the Democratic Party for a while.

[Festivito]

16. You must read fast. That's good.

I just don't see this as a help for Democrats.

We already have good government ideas up the wazoo. I can't see that we need more -- ideas.

Now, a think-tank machine like the RepubliCONS have! With overpaid-by-our-tax-dollars thinkers who support ridiculous notions for its feeling of power. That's where we need to compete.

We have to do more, with less, with real and realizable facts, and without stealing tax dollars to pay for the think-tank machine.

Segregated mail/phone lists. Curt talking bites.

Swing voters do not read fast. If you do. Good for you.

[ulTRAX]

18. how it can help

I have nothing but disdain for our two party system. I'm not concerned about the helping Democrats become more an obstacle to Progressive change. But the only strategy I can see to moving towards a multi-party system involves a slow transformation of the Democratic Party.

What I see happening is the lack of vision on the part of Democrats is creating a downward spiral. As we saw in the last election, they are afraid to stand up for principles or to even speak the truth. A prime example is Kerry blew a chance to counter the Right's strangle the beast agenda. He worked within the framework of fiscal irresponsibility created by the Right. He would not even expose the true Bush deficit numbers because he needed the bogus accounting to make his fiscal policy look better.

So how is a constituency for fiscal responsibility ever to be nurtured if key issues like fiscal responsibility are avoided by both parties? If there's no constituency, it becomes that much easier for the Right to bowl over the token opposition.

The Democrats have 2 basic choices.... either give in to the DLC formula of moving further to the Right... or to develop a long-term strategy to rediscover and reinvent itself. I favor the latter but I believe a key component should be an emphasis on developing a logically coherent paradigm based on complete rethink of the most basic issues. Call it political psycho-analysis... ideological renewal. It should be free of political considerations. There has to be SOME way to counter the corrupting dynamics of our dysfunctional 2 party system.

[Festivito]

19. It's not a 2-party system problem, it's a bought-out media problem.

Getting rid of the 2 party system is easier than repealing the law of gravity, but, not as hard as stopping all bank robberies.

My plate is not that big.

Kerry's gambit might had worked if not for the medium of church-goer-communications. And, a lack of fair/honest news media that makes such subterfuge look good.

Can you/anyone tell me how much Bush borrows compared to a %600 rebate. Bet y'all can't.

You can't change the world if you can't change yourself.

[ulTRAX]

20. dysfunctionality of the two party system predates meda conglomeration

Festivito wrote: "It's not a 2-party system problem, it's a bought-out media problem."

I think the dysfunctionality of the two party system predates the the trend toward media conglomeration. Therefore I suspect that all the media reforms in the world will not have much of an effect on real political reform. There's also a bit of a chicken and egg process going on here. The media is also market driven so if there's a real constituency for political reform, the media provides a feedback loop... and vice versa.

Festivito "Getting rid of the 2 party system is easier than repealing the law of gravity, but, not as hard as stopping all bank robberies."

You might be correct... too bad that bit of wisdom doesn't fit on a bumper sticker

Festivito "Kerry's gambit might had worked if not for the medium of church-goer-communications. And, a lack of fair/honest news media that makes such subterfuge look good."

Or Kerry ran a terrible campaign. Some will blame everyone but the Democrats or Kerry for this loss... but the only reason I voted Kerry was to get rid of Bush. That's not much of an endorsement. I'm from Mass and haven't voted for him as Senator since he supported NAFTA.

Festivito: "You can't change the world if you can't change yourself."

But it's the very nature of most ideoligies... the filters see the world though to be self-justifying and thus self-perpetuating. Unless we understand this and can find ways to promote self-correcting ideologies... then social change is highly unlikely. I think the way is to get people to begin discussions of core values and let their contradictions reveal themselves.

[Festivito]

21. We know where and how we disagree.

Which came first, two-party-system, or media conglomeration does not point to a solution, that I see.

If replacing the two-party system is your best next move, fine. We disagree. Here.

Why? It was terrible campaigning to you. It is terrible media to me.

Discussing things is indeed helpful. For this my family will not speak with me.

You ignored my challenge. Didn't even mention it.

[ulTRAX]

24. what challenge?

Festivito wrote: "If replacing the two-party system is your best next move, fine. We disagree. Here.

Why? It was terrible campaigning to you. It is terrible media to me."

No... I believe the entire system is terrible.

As for moving to a multi-party system, I consider that a LONG term goal just as it should be to make the marketplace of ideas work in the media by breaking up the giant media conglomerations.

"You ignored my challenge. Didn't even mention it."

I must have missed it. Out of time now. I'll read back.

[ulTRAX]

27. you're correct... I ignored the challenge

I assume this was it: Can you/anyone tell me how much Bush borrows compared to a %600 rebate. Bet y'all can't."

I ignored it because I had no idea what you were even talking about.

I still don't. Is it relevant to this discussion?

[Festivito]

29. It was suposed to be $600, not %600. My bad.

But, even my mistake supports my point. The Kerry campaign ignoring RepubliCON fiscal malfeasance is reasonable. Nobody understands it. One mistake and forget it. The mistake does not even have to be ours.

What, no one remembers our government sending everyone a $600 or $300 check to jump start the economy? But, behind the scenes, the debt rose over 500 Billion dollars each Bush year.

Now a billion dollars. How much is that? It's FOUR DOLLARS. If each of us 291 million Americans puts in about four dollars, that's just over one billion dollars.

That means Bush borrowed about $2000 per American per year, while sending out a government check for $600, one year.

Imagine hiring someone to handle your personal accounts. He blames the last accountant, he says your debt will no longer be paid by the time your parents will need some retirement help, he puts $6000 on your family credit cards (You, your spouse, one child, all Americans), and then hands you a certified check for $600. He's the RepubliCONs.

This is the underpining of the whole RepubliCON revolution. Take America's taxes, give it to connected wealthies, run the country, democracy, and Social Security into the ground taking that money also. And, nobody understands it.

You didn't. Just blame Kerry for not bringing it up. Then, go generate more ideas, as if we don't have enough ideas. No, I say. Find a way to make people understand, then you'll have something.

[ulTRAX]

30. short vs long term

Since the GOP and the starve the beast crowd would never try to educate the public on the deficits or the shell game that is the federal budget... it has to be left to the press and the Dems. I used to be a regular at the Kerry forum advocating that Kerry bludgeon Bush over the head with the deficit/debt numbers. I said he needed to use Perot style pie charts, use correct deficit numbers... and make the deficit less abstract. I did the math on how much Bush's 574 Billion FY04 would be in stacked $1s.... or how much the Bush debt would be. I tried to get them to use per capita debt/deficit figures. The Dems did NOT use this issue effectively and a pox on their house for that mistake. They chose to work within the framework of fiscal irresponsibility the Right has created because it was politically expedient.

While as the opposition candidate Kerry's blunder is most apparent, not even Paul Krugman or NPR use the correct used the Bush deficit numbers. Surely they knew better.

I believe that the 2 party system is self-corrupting ideologically. In competing for the middle the 2 parties do a dance that can blur the distinction between them. The GOP still talks like the party of fiscal responsibility even though for the past 25 years they've used fiscal irresponsibility as a political weapon. Most GOPers comfortably live with that Orwellian self-deception. Dems like Clinton understood the Right's gameplan and realized the only hope for a Democratic agenda was to balance the budget and pay down the debt. Bush2 made sabotaging debt paydown his number one priority. The parties had reversed positions.

Constituent groups within a party can force compromises of old beliefs and soon that becomes the new agenda. Did the GOP ever care much about abortion until Reagan allied with the Religious Right? Surely Gay rights were not in the Democratic Platform back in the 60s.

My proposal is not to generate ideas for their own sake but to be a values clarification process. Since we don't have a multi party system that where parties have more ideological integrity, members of either party need to take an occasional break and get back to core values. Better yet, try to see what ideas are inherently desirable outside the context of dysfunctional 2 party politics and even US history. Often we blind ourselves to principle because we place the will of the nation's Founders above all elese.

This process is crucial in providing ideological consistency, a vision of where we want to take America, and both are crucial for developing a LONG TERM strategy.

I don't care much about the next election or the Democratic Party as it now exists. I see the Democrats standing in the way of the reforms I want. I care about making the US a more democratic and Progressive nation in 50 years. That process starts with a vision rooted in core values we're passionate about.

[Festivito]

33. I certainly support passion.

Good luck finding those passion generating ideas.

[ulTRAX]

34. engineering a paradigm shift is not going to be easy

I'd like to believe Democrats would be passionate about democracy.... but we know, or should know the Dems are AWOL on democracy to the point it's outside the realm of permissible thought to even call for reforms of our anti-democratic federal government. I think this is a prime example of the problem.

I believe all social and political and social problems ultimately have their roots in dysfunctional ideologies by which I mean the filters by which we perceive reality... filters which include areas of permissible thought and areas that are off limits. As such they usually compromise both explicit and implicit core assumptions. The latter have to be deduced by an outside observer. Tricky.... but potentially enlightening.

Ideologies broadly seem to fall into two categories. The first are those which as self-justifying where people deprive themselves of the ideological tools to ever disprove that ideology.... think religion. Therefore they tend to be self-perpetuating. They have a strong system of ideological armor that keeps them within the system. Others are open-ended and self-correcting... think the scientific method.

I'd maintain that the vast majority of us are mired in the former but since we're surrounded by all the self-justifications... we're are happy as clams.

So if the path to social/political change is to though dismantling dysfunctional ideologies, how can we encourage those stuck in self-justifying ideologies to question their belief system? One way I know to break though this intellectual fog is to engage people in a discussion of core values.... and hopefully they will discover their own internal contradictions. I don't think this is going to be easy. The process is going to take years. We have to do what the Right has done... slowly change the political debate so it reflects Progressive values. What I'm looking for is a paradigm shift. Expect sustained resistance.

For example I'm sure most Democrats would say they DID support democratic values even though all the evidence is the Democratic Party actually supports an ANTI-democratic federal system. What they support is not democracy.... on an implicit level they typically have a misguided faith that the Founders got it right and there's no need to do any further thinking about the matter. Dems are as blind to this internal contradiction as those on the Right are blind to the fact they are no longer fiscal conservatives. I know because I've been debating them for years... and this thread is a perfect example: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=158x2162 It's an example of where L's implicit imperative is to validate the current system not to promote democratic values.

As for passion, that starts with a handful of people who are enthusiastic about their beliefs and can argue their points effectively.

[Tinoire]

22. I'd love to help

but I'm afraid I would have little patience for compromise with more-to-the-right Dems over issues such as war, occupation, free trade.

I would be happy to help

- wholeheartedly, if it's a very progressive think tank (think Kucinich-type ideas)

or

-with behind the scenes research, if it's a more encompassing Liberal/Dem type think tank.

First I'd like to see how it starts to shape up, what kind of people jump on board.. because I'm spread too thin to immediately commit to another start-up venture without knowing the direction it's going to take (to spell it out clearly, I don't want to waste my time on anything that's not the opposite of the PPI from the very get-go, iow don't want to waste time with disruptors who want to sell us on the idea that the PPI & the DLC have "swell" ideas).

I nominated this for the front page earlier because this is a terrific idea!

Wishing you luck and keep us informed. I'll check your site from time to time. If you ever need me, PM me.

[ulTRAX]

23. Kucinich-types

Tinoire wrote: I'd love to help but I'm afraid I would have little patience for compromise with more-to-the-right Dems over issues such as war, occupation, free trade.
I would be happy to help
- wholeheartedly, if it's a very progressive think tank (think Kucinich-type ideas)or
-with behind the scenes research, if it's a more encompassing Liberal/Dem type think tank."

While I'd like to think that such an exercise would lead us to a more progressive platform... more in line with other advanced democracies... there's a certain unpredictability to this process. I believe that much of what we came to believe was done on auto-pilot. We're handed a range of permissible thought and we find our place in that system. We're not brought up to think about the system itself. So as far as Kucinich being a model... I think he represents the left wing of the Democratic party... but that party is not that Progressive.

There may be some unpredictable results in this exercise because we're also not brought up to think about core principles. Ya, we all want to think we're true to them, but do we actually implement them in practice? For example if we claim we believe in civic equality... does that end with voter registration or other common sense reforms? Anyone who truly believe in civic equality would look deeper. They'd see that civic inequality is at the core of our federal system. A Wyoming citizen's vote for president weighs 3.5X that of a vote of a California citizen. 15% of the US population gets 50% of the Senate Seats. How can one claim to believe in civic equality and NOT have realized this arrangement is unacceptable?

When we return to core values... and try to construct an internally coherent paradigm, we may end up challenging the very direction of the Democratic Party. We may even see it as morally and intellectually bankrupt... obviously less than the GOP but surely we can do better. My belief is our two party system corrupts the very soul of the Left in America. Periodically we need to go though a values clarification process to counter that corrupting influence. Otherwise we'll end up like the DLC. As for research... I think that's best left to a time after the values are clarified and policy proposals are being drawn up.

[Rockerdem]

25. Good idea, but

There needs to be a parallel bricks and mortar institution to complement the bits/bytes T-tank. Real-life think tanks succeed because they not only develop ideas, they pay pros to appear in various power forums to spread them. If we just crank out policy papers and let them drift in cyber space, not much will be accomplished, imho. Maybe DU is not the best place, or maybe it needs a funded partner willing to do the grunt work. One way or another, its going to take some donations to make it effective like the other sides infrastructure that has burrowed itself into the power nodes.

[ulTRAX]

26. I'm using the term "think tank" figuratively

Rockerdem "Good idea, but There needs to be a parallel bricks and mortar institution to complement the bits/bytes T-tank. Real-life think tanks succeed because they not only develop ideas, they pay pros to appear in various power forums to spread them."

I'm using the term "think tank" figuratively. I see it as an exercise in values clarification to be done free of political considerations. I want to strip away all the pragmatic concerns of current 2 party politics... all historical context that as Americans must abide by our current federalist system. I'm looking for a complete rethink... to find ideals we can be passionate about. I'm looking to create a vision of where Progressives want to take America in 50 years. Policy ideas that flow from these core values and political strategies can come later. That's when the process becomes more formalized.

[orpupilofnature57]

31. Progressive is an ambiguous word, tears the needed fiber of LIBERALS

Progressive implies, an agenda to simply, get along with everyone,fuck that, everyone is not right any of the time, so why appease THEM.Liberty is what we protect,power is what they respect.

[ulTRAX]

32. please try rephrasing

I'm having a hard time following that.

I certainly don't believe Progressives are wimpy liberals... I believe the reverse.

The Think Tank proposal is to do a values clarification process to find the most compelling ideals may have been compromised away by US history or two party politics. I have no desire to compromise this discovery process with political considerations. That will destroy the core of the project. Let's find what we believe in first, then worry about selling it later.

As for liberty.... it's a dual edge concept... freedom to and freedom from. I'm sure the Right likes to believe it stands for liberty... at least for those in the GOP coalition... business and gun owners. They don't want freedom for reproductive rights or citizens to use trial lawyers.

I like the formula in the Rights Of Man.... everyone is free to do anything that does not hurt another. I believe that laws that exceed legitimate state intent are an abuse of state power from which citizens should be protected.

[starroute]

36. Progressives originally meant believers in Progress

Twentieth century liberalism came out of a long tradition of belief in Progress, starting in the mid-1700's. By the late 19th century, most people in the West believed in some variant of a progress-based agenda incorporating rationality and freedom from superstition, elimination of poverty and social backwardness, and the conquest of nature.

In the 20th century, that naive ideal of progress took a lot of blows. The two world wars made a lot of people skeptical about whether progress existed at all, since human beings clearly weren't getting any more rational or freeing themselves of primitive prejudices. Others came to see "progress" as merely an ideological cover for imperialism and the destruction of traditional cultures. Still others (especially libertarian types) grabbed onto technology or the free market as the real essence of progress, while discarding all the squishy stuff about rights and equality. And the extreme right seems to consider everything that used to be associated with progress as part of a world-wide satanic conspiracy.

You speak about putting together a "logically coherent" set of positions. But I believe that logical coherence among policy points is an illusion, at best, and at worst a straitjacket. What's really needed is philosophical coherence -- and for that, you need a philosophy.

The bases of such a philosophy are already in place on a theoretical level -- holism, complexity theory, emergent systems, non-zero-sum games -- but what's needed is a more popular and mythic projection of those same ideas. I believe that the result will be an image of the future that has many things in common with the old image of progress, but far more improvisational and pragmatic and shorn of the rational elitism, utopian expectations of ending all human suffering, and occasional totalitarian impulses of 20th century progressivism.

The right didn't get into the think-tank business in a big way until the 1970's, and by then they had already spent twenty years articulating the philosophical structure of a new kind of conservatism. That radical conservatism of the 50's and 60's has formed the underpinnings of the New Right ever since.

There is important work to be done, and I agree with you that it needs to be done publically and communally. (As opposed to the privately-funded and often secretive think-tanks and lobbying groups of the right.) I just don't believe that a large, general (and heavily Democratic Party-oriented) message board like DU is the place to do it, or that technical issues like fiscal policy are the appropriate starting point.

[ulTRAX]

37. not sure whether we agree or not

STARROUTE wrote: "You speak about putting together a "logically coherent" set of positions. But I believe that logical coherence among policy points is an illusion, at best, and at worst a straitjacket. What's really needed is philosophical coherence -- and for that, you need a philosophy."

I thought I was clear that creating policy positions should come only after the core principles were enunciated. I think we're in agreement only using different words.

STARROUTE wrote: "The bases of such a philosophy are already in place on a theoretical level -- holism, complexity theory, emergent systems, non-zero-sum games -- but what's needed is a more popular and mythic projection of those same ideas. I believe that the result will be an image of the future that has many things in common with the old image of progress, but far more improvisational and pragmatic and shorn of the rational elitism, utopian expectations of ending all human suffering, and occasional totalitarian impulses of 20th century progressivism."

Maybe we are discussing different things. I'm looking for a bottom up reexamination of political and social axioms. For example... what constitutes morally legitimate government? Is the Constitution producing such government. What are a person's inalienable rights? What is democracy?

STARROUTE wrote: "There is important work to be done, and I agree with you that it needs to be done publicly and communally. (As opposed to the privately-funded and often secretive think-tanks and lobbying groups of the right.) I just don't believe that a large, general (and heavily Democratic Party-oriented) message board like DU is the place to do it, or that technical issues like fiscal policy are the appropriate starting point."

I never said fiscal policy was a starting point. My biggest concern about a place like DU is that it reflects the dysfunctional ideology I'm hoping to challenge. But otherwise I think that the proposed web model is workable. If not here than elsewhere.

[starroute]

38. I think we're probably in agreement on most points

The one difference I see is on how deep the reexamination goes.

Concepts like legitimate government or inalienable rights do not exist in a void.

The traditional divine-right argument for kingship was that kings received their powers directly from God, so that to rebel against them was not only treasonous but blasphemous. This went along with a hierarchical view of the universe, the basis of feudalism, in which all earthly rights and obligations trickled down from the top to the bottom of the social order.

The founding fathers rejected this and believed instead that (1) God acted in the world only through the individual human soul and (2) all individuals were therefore equal, except to the extent that some were better educated or more perceptive than others. This also led them to believe that rights were inalienable in the individual -- that they came directly from God and could not be granted or withdrawn by someone higher up in the pecking order -- and also that the only legitimate form of government was one based on the informed judgments of individual citizens.

The fundies seem to have rejected both of these positions in favor of a far more primitive belief that their God intervenes directly in the political process and is perfectly capable of rigging an election in order to frustrate the will of the (unacceptably secular) majority.

But what do we on the left believe? If you believe there is such a thing as legitimate government, you must also believe that such a government is the channel for some form of higher power -- whether you call that power God, Nature, Science, Synergy, the World-Soul, History, Destiny, the Social Contract, the Popular Will, the Mandate of Heaven, or any other name you choose. But how you conceive of that power, and how you believe it interfaces with ordinary human institutions and concerns, determines what form of government you endorse.

It also determines what you take the proper functions of government to be. Police powers? Courts? Settling civil disputes? Maintaining infrastructure? Redistributing wealth? Promoting education and health? Regulation of business and industry? Certification of safety standards? Encouragement of research and development?

There are a whole lot of different opinions currently out there, from the hard libertarian position that the only real function of government is securing property rights to the classic liberal position that there is no problnm short of finding true love that government can't solve. And most of the arguments between them tend to devolve into unprovable assertions about what's "fair" or what "works."

I'm tired of those arguments. I want a set of basic premises that everyone can discuss without resorting to handwaving. And ultimately, I want to dig all the way down to bedrock and come up with something as solid for our time as "We hold these truths to be self-evident" was two hundred years ago.

[ulTRAX]

39. how should the Left deal with a dysfunctional Democratic Party?

STARROUTE wrote: "But what do we on the left believe? If you believe there is such a thing as legitimate government, you must also believe that such a government is the channel for some form of higher power -- whether you call that power God, Nature, Science, Synergy, the World-Soul, History, Destiny, the Social Contract, the Popular Will, the Mandate of Heaven, or any other name you choose. But how you conceive of that power, and how you believe it interfaces with ordinary human institutions and concerns, determines what form of government you endorse."

Fortunately such questions can be left for later. While I certainly want to reexamine old axioms and follow new ideas to their logical end, I have no desire to endure some stifling philosophical discussions on the secular equivalent of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. My personal belief is we're all connected on some deeper level of consciousness, but since my suspicions and other's religions are at this time empirically untestable, I personally believe in the formula in the Declaration of Independence: government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. Since I believe that all belief systems should be self-correcting... core beliefs should be periodically revisited and adjusted to account for new information.

STARROUTE wrote: "It also determines what you take the proper functions of government to be. Police powers? Courts? Settling civil disputes? Maintaining infrastructure? Redistributing wealth? Promoting education and health? Regulation of business and industry? Certification of safety standards? Encouragement of research and development?

There are a whole lot of different opinions currently out there, from the hard libertarian position that the only real function of government is securing property rights to the classic liberal position that there is no problem short of finding true love that government can't solve. And most of the arguments between them tend to devolve into unprovable assertions about what's "fair" or what "works.""

I'm well aware that this opens a can of worms... and yet the "Left", and I really mean the Democrats, need to have a more coherent core paradigm/philosophy. I don't see any compelling vision from this Party only the standard pabulum and over the last 4 years a deep fear and hatred of Bush. That's not a way to win elections or develop a popular base for a real progressive agenda.

The Dems have made a strategic blunder by not maintaining the ideological underpinnings of the Party. In not paying attention to the basics, they have weakened any passion for their ideals. By following the DLC strategy, Dems are creating a downward spiral and relegating themselves to the role of obstructionists.

I believe the true Left... Progressives, Greens, whatever... need to have their own strategy on how to deal with a dysfunctional Democrat Party that refuses to advocate true progressive reforms. They should not fall for the approach people like Dean are taking with DFA. That's just building up the infrastructure of a dysfunctional Democratic Party. I believe the Left must work with the Democrats not as the lesser of the evils, but as a vehicle to move to a true multi-party system.

[ulTRAX]

40. A shameless bump!!!!!!!! ;-)

Discussions in the thread of why Kerry lost include the topic that the Democrats don't stand for anything anymore. This project is an attempt to refocus on core values and build a coherent paradigm from the bottom up.

[Jim__]

41. Sounds like a great idea.

This is the type of discussion I most interested in, focus on a topic, a long term exchange of ideas; hopefully some final resolution.

I'm not familiar with wiki (I did look at the site). I'm not sure how it works if people can just go in and edit a page. It could be frustrating if you propose an idea and then someone goes in and edits out all your suggestions.

If the wiki format can be made to work, I would love to see this tried.

[ulTRAX]

42. WIKI

If you've been to Demopedia, it's wiki based. Nothing is ever lost when an article is revised. All the old versions are there for comparison. If there's vandalism, old versions can be restored.

[info being]

43. Its a good idea, but...

I'm not sure we'd do any better than Dennis Kucinich's platform. The problem is that Dems will never get behind such a bold, ideological platform because they'd be implicating themselves for past policies / votes.

Maybe a way to position it is that, "The Republicans have been wrong on these issues...and so have we. Now is time for transformation."

Without a willingness to adopt an approach as radical as renouncing themselves, they'd be unable to put forth any sort of worthwhile platform...regardless of how many great ideas any of us might have.

In other words, I don't think lack of *ideas* is the problem.

[ulTRAX]

44. short-term vs long-term

I don't underestimate the amount of resistance to a radical transformation on the part of Democrats. Yet look what the Right has done in the past 30 years.

There's no reason the Left can't do the same. What is needed is a vision rooted in a coherent and compelling Progressive paradigm, and long-term strategy that confronts the ideological and legal obstacles to implementing that vision.

We need to stop focusing on the next election and begin thinking about where we want America to be in 50 years. We need to think about how each election is really a building block towards a 50 year plan.