I'm not a frequent poster here, political science major or even policy wonk but I listen to debates, positions, concerns and wonder if it is possible to be a small government progessive? And if, so isn't that the sort of position that could be a winning majority?
Many polls have indicated that there are majority positions for much of the Democratic agenda. At the same time, election after election Republicans tap into several themes that seem to win elections:
- Social conservatism (i.e. "values").
- Low tax, small government libertarianism.
- The fear and security vote.
Within each of these issue "camps" are voters who simply will not be swayed by any positions a Democratic candidate will present. You have the hardline anti-abortion/stem cell crowd, the corporatists, and the neocons and/or isolations.
But we don't need large voting swings, only small ones. I'm personally a small(er) government liberal. I support most of the progressive agenda but I don't always believe that just throwing government at the problem is the solution. It seems to me that we need to stake out a position that is doing MORE with LESS.
Holding people responsible for their lives and decisions but making sure that they get a fair shake in employment, in the courts, and a responsible share of the national resources.
Being tough on crime and terrorism but true to a real commitment to personal liberties and privacy. Funding community policing, providing resources to critical first responders but ending unjust reactionary practices like 3-strike laws and mandatory federal sentencing guidelines.
On issues like energy, health care, medicare, etc. we need to find a way of addressing the needs, remaining progressive but also of funding what we legislate. It's not enough to just create costs and entitlements without responsibly addressing how to fund them. And the funding question cannot always be answered by increasing taxes. It cannot be dishonestly addressed by saying that every one of these initiatives is going to be funded by only increasing taxes on the wealthiest x%.
On the national security front, I'd think it's a winning position to say that we need to work through international diplomacy while retaining our right to act unilaterally when absolutely necessary. We need to actually support the troops by making them safer. First, by not putting them in harms way to further a political agenda. Second by equipping and training them properly. Finally, by investing our limited dollars in systems and technologies that aren't pie-in-the-sky projects but technologies aimed at putting systems and not people in the most dangerous places.
I guess this has become somewhat of a rant from me. I don't have the policy answers -- it is way beyond my expertise but I would like the folks who are much more informed and smarter than me to consider the feasibility of a small government progressive message, platform, agenda, philosophy?