This diary could also have been titled: “What is a progressive socio-economic agenda?”
I try to turn off all the lights in my house that I’m not currently using them in order to cut down on my carbon foot print. I think this is pretty progressive of me when compared to turning all the lights on in my house just for the heck of it, and not caring about my carbon footprint.
But to reduce the word “progressive” to only mean these sorts of things is dangerous in regard to the carbon foot print promoted by neoliberalism, which states that “market forces”, the production of private debt (as opposed to government spending) and profit motive will solve our ongoing climate emergency, pollution and ecological collapse.
If having a healthy planet was declared to be a basic human right in classical liberal terms, and in terms of the progressive movement of old, then that right would have a necessary corollary: A duty for government to fund the actualization of that right.
Why? Because government is just a bank that writes laws. And as the publics’ bank, it’s duty is to fund the rights protected by the laws it writes.
Everything gets funded by either government spending or banks lending. Government created dollars are our net incomes, the way we pay off our private debts. Private bank created credit is our debt.
When government spends dollars into the private sector, we own them free and clear. We don’t own bank credit, we only borrow it.
So, in political economy (but all too often overlooked/ignored in mainstream economics) the question has always been: What should government fund in the course of issuing the national currency? And what should private banks fund?
The progressive answer is: Government should fund basic human rights in order to actualize those rights. The progressive movement was a movement to expand classical liberalisms’ commitment to funding education at all levels as a cornerstone of human rights within a democratic society to other areas of social life. The progressive movement fought for a positive rights doctrine theory of the state: You have a positive right TO government to help you actualize your rights, and when it comes to basic rights, to government funding those right in the course of issuing our currency.
The neoliberal answer is: Government should support the markets when it spends, and the markets will deliver social justice. Neoliberalism has a negative rights doctrine theory of state: You have the right to be free from both government interference and the interference of others. But government has no duty to fund the actualization of even your most basic rights — except those clearly stated in the Constitutional, like the right to a fair trial.
FDRs’ Second Bill of Rights was an amazing progressive agenda of establishing a positive right = state duty to many large areas of social life:
In contrast Hillary Clinton broadly accepts a neoliberal framework, also known as The Washington Consensus, though she makes some exceptions to the general minimalist state doctrine in regards to rights. For example, reproductive rights, for which she does fight to maintain some federal funding.
But it seems apparent to me that reproductive rights have suffered hugely precisely because of the rise of neoliberalism. It’s tough to maintain a positive rights doctrine about this or that while also promoting a negative rights doctrine more generally.
The pertinent question when it comes to the Sanders/Clinton debate is: In what ways does Sanders support our dominant neoliberal world view, and in what ways does he go against it? And the same for Clinton?
Sanders’ answers the progressive question of what is a basic human right = government funding thus:
Health care, higher education, postal banking and a healthy planet.
How does Clinton answer the progressive question?