Dude, where’s my progressivism?! Why I no longer identify as progressive.

For many years I self identified as a proud progressive. I identified as such because I believed in such things as secularism, universal healthcare, affordable education, various other social safety net programs,  gay rights, gender and racial egalitarianism, I was pro-choice, etc. I didn’t always fall directly in line with mainstream progressive views, but I generally did. While my political self-description has changed, my values really haven’t.  Continue reading

Advertisements

Talking to political adversaries: Tips on reaching across the aisle

Reaching Across or Reaching Around?

With corrupted campaign finance and limited oversight and regulation over the intersections among government agencies (e.g., The White House and The Pentagon) and between government and private industry, big finance and media, one could easily argue that genuine ideological debate in America has taken a backseat to public-to-private reach-arounds masquerading as Republican-Democratic reaches across the aisle.

If the Republican and Democratic parties were mixed drinks, they would be glasses of corporatism with small shots of ideology.

Of course, whether the bartender was George Bush, Barack Obama, John Boehner, or Harry Reid, the patron would be led to believe that they had just bought a straight triple of their ideology of choice; likewise, they would be told that the reason that the other drink tastes so bad is because it is a straight triple of that other, yucky ideology. And almost none of the Senators, Congressmen and women and members of the mainstream media who would be the alcohol regulators at the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) in this metaphor would call any of these bartenders out on this, as they’ve been at the bar drinking for free since lunch time. They are typically too drunk and too hooked on the free drinks to do anything but uphold the lie. This often leads to the trusting patrons of The Establishment being unnecessarily divided. While Republican drinkers and Democratic drinkers do have different palates, they are often mislead into believing that the corporatist solvent in the other Party’s drink is the ideological shot, or solute.

Often times, it would appear that members of each drinking group don’t mind the qualities of the other group’s shot as much as they think; they’re just confusing it with the flat, tainted corporate coke that it has been deeply diluted in.

How do we get past this? Just drink shots. Continue reading

A Liberal/Progressive Case Against Minimum Wage

A person truly concerned with helping others have a duty to make sure that their plans actually help them.

– Alonzo Fyfe

Alonzo Fyfe is doing thoughtful writing about issues at the heart of disputes between progressives and conservatives. In this article he argues that minimum wage policies intended to help low wage earners actually hurts them in a number of ways, such as by:

  • Forcing companies on the edge of viability into closure, leading to layoffs;
  • Forcing companies to increase their prices which, in turn, will result in them losing customers and subsequently laying off staff. I would add that this will also increase the cost of living, which could have a disproportionate effect on people near the bottom of the income distribution;
  • Incentivizing investment in automation. Low-wage positions are often the ones most amenable to automation. By increasing the cost of hiring a person to do a job, a minimum wage policy inadvertently supports the case for investment in automation.
  • Attracting more people to the labour market, thereby increasing competition for jobs.
  • Disincentizing education, as artificially high wages can be earned without education. Of course, minimum wage is far from high, but a teenager living at his parents’ home making $8/hr may feel less need to pursue educational career advancement than if they were making $5/hr. Relatedly, one alternative to minimum wage offered by Fyfe was to provide educational funding assistance such as loans to those making below a certain amount, thereby incentivizing and aiding them in acquiring skills that will benefit them and the broader society.

Fyfe’s line of reasoning is not intrinsically liberal or progressive, as the title of this post might have implied. But it’s the kind of reasoning capable of speaking to those who want a society that lends a helping hand to those on the edge of subsistence.

What do  you think?