I’m going to initially resist the temptation to think this one through and just go with my gut reaction to Ray’s question.

What I would like to think unites progressives is, actually, also a procedural view, but not exactly the one that animates the civic compact produced by the reformer’s roundtable (to which I contributed, by the way)

The reformer’s roundtable agenda is primarily about transparency, fairness, and efficiency in government. These are all good things.

What we progressives add, I believe, is an insistence on devolving and spreading power to the communities and neighborhoods and citizens of Philadelphia.

Our agenda for economic progress is not primarily focused on tax rates—although some need to be changed—but on empowering local communities to rebuild their commercial areas and provide housing for their residents.

Our agenda for crime is not primarily focused on new techniques in policing—although some would certainly be a good idea—but on empowering local communities to work in partnership with the police and prosecutors to find crime fighting strategies that successfully reduce the problems that are most important in each neighborhood.

Our agenda for education is not primarily focused on improving test scores or standardizing curricula—and here, I’m not even going to say these are always good things—but on finding ways to encourage parents and children to form a partnership with teachers and principals that involves them all in providing an education that stimulates, engages, enlightens and prepares students for the future. That requires devolving power to principals and teachers in smaller schools, ending bureaucratic interference with the schools, and holding everyone—from principals to teachers to parents—accountable for the success and failure of our students.

Our agenda for development is not primarily focused on revising the zoning code and making the development process more efficient—although these might be good things—but on insuring that local residents and community members have some substantial control over how their neighborhoods change and develop.

Our agenda for public transit is not primarily focused on finding money for the present system—although we certainly need that—but on developing a vision of a new 21st century transit system that preserves and enhances our neighborhoods, encourages business development, limits sprawl, and reduces energy consumption. We won't find such a vision or the political will to implement it, without an inclusive, democratic transit planning process.

Our agenda, then, is not about insuring that the people who run things in Philadelphia do so fairly and out in the open. Our agenda is about expanding the circle of power. Our aim is to give more people a say in shaping their neighborhoods and communities and the city as a whole. Our hope is that by devolving and democratizing power, we will find among our activists and citizens the energy and innovative ideas that will make this wonderful city a place of growth, vitality, diversity, equality, and civic pride.

I answered the second question, not the first. I tried to point to what I think is the implicit aspiration that unites us.

I didn't say how we are split.

I don't think we are split. I just think we haven't yet figured out how to articulate what animates our movement.

So I'm suggesting that, above all else, we activists believe in activism. We believe in broad, democratic political involvement as the central cure for the ills of our politics and the inequalities in our econony.

My teacher Michael Walzer once called for a politics of politics, that is a politics that takes as its first mission the creation of political energy and hope.

Of course, if you don't all agree with me, than maybe we are split. ;)

Ray--

Tomorrow night a group of people from different organizations are coming together at my offices to discuss such a situation. If you or anyone else is interested in being a part of this, please call me at 215-694-4341. Hopefully this meeting will start something very helpful to the community--at least hopefully it will help steer the candidate debate in 2007.

I think one of the major barriers to developing a coherent platform for Philadelphia progressives is going to be the candidates themselves. There are going to be a bunch of people, some challenger and some incumbent, grabbing the mantle of progressive reform. Since the candidates are likely to get the most media attention, they will play a major role in focusing the debate. No matter what we do, this will muddle our message.

It would be great if a group of candidates could pick a platform and stay on message, but that seems doubtful at this point. There are going to be competing interests and egos that prevent some people from working together.

The long and short is that my position has not changed much in the past few months. I don't think progressives are organized enough to have a major impact on the entire electoral landscape. Instead, we should focus our energy on a number of key races where we can have a larger impact.

---
http://benwaxman.com

Ray, admittedly, I don't understand this post. It seems clear that the others who have responded on this thread get it, but I'm still scratching my head. Maybe I'm not inside enought to get it?

Why aren't the prioritized issues you posted really an "agenda" in and of themselves?

I don't understand why you seek an agenda for the "races" as opposed to a unified progressive community that focuses on issues rather than races so that, (1) no matter who gets elected, they know that there is a unified constuency that will fight for certain goals, and (2) representatives already in office will know that they will take heat on specific issues.

Realizing the potential power of a "progressive" community (whom, correct me if I'm wrong, seems to be white middle class and upper middle class folks who are already politically active) united with the vast numbers of disaffected voters and working class folks who are natural allies on economic issues seems seems to me to be the goal with the biggest payoff. Wouldn't there be a greater payoff in dismantling the barriers that separate those communities than in addressing the split between progressives and reformers - which, for the most part, seem to be overlapping communities to me?

I love your idea of a progressive "compact." Although I'd like to see the label progressive removed, I don't know that doing so is particularly important. But the issues you cited seem to me to be a natural common ground for progressives and those who identify with different labels; and in meeting others on a common ground, progressives have an opportunity to grow their power exponentially.

So, why isn't a compact of exactly the issues you listed and in the order in which you listed them, an "agenda?"

I, too, would like to know what commenters feel "are the major differences amongst us in coming with solutions to the problems involving these issues areas?"

#1 Crime/Violence
#2 Education
#3 Jobs,
followed closely by ethics and public transit.

For my two cents:

I would guess off the bat that the primary differences would reflect the fact that each of these issues has significant funding implications, and where those resources get generated seems to be a very thorny problem indeed. But as a whole, would the greater community of Philadelphia support policies that are funded by progressive tax structures? I think so. Such policies would split people like Mandel, but wouldn't the high percentage of low income families in Philadelphis support reforms paid for by business taxes? What about labor unions?

Beyond that, I see that the issue of crime/violence could potentially split "progressives" from other communities that would have similar economic goals as the progressive community. More specifically, viewpoints with different priorities for gun control and tough on crime initiatives and spending on social programs to address "root causes" seems to me to be a potential source of friction.

I think that few would feel divided over making these 5 issues top priorities. But there will be lots of divisions over how to solve each -- the past debate over job creation (business tax cuts and incentives, etc.) versus job improvement (living wage, benefits, etc.) versus work force improvement (education, transitional support, etc.) has shown that even areas of agreed importance can really bring people to blows when the financial pie is limited, even if we all would love to see all approaches supported. Similarly, "interested in stopping violence" isn't really a useful way to distinguish among candidates, but it's not obvious that you can expect each to match a set balance of policy priorities like police distribution, social services, neighborhood involvement, etc. -- nor that such a constellation could be boiled down in a way that makes it easy for folks to get behind it.

Maybe this is in part an answer to DE.II -- yes, we agree that these issues are an "agenda" as in a list of essay topics, but there are still a lot of different ways that they can be discussed and handled, some of which will feel more or less "progressive" even if all of them are to some degree "reforms" (or attempts to be such)... I like Marc's notion that what we believe in is activism, or at least broad public involvement in critical local decisions, but even that isn't always enough to help come up with a policy checklist or other way to decide which candidates and measures to unify behind.

Just thinking aloud, no answers yet... :)
acm

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
— Margaret Mead

I haven't read all the comments in detail but wanted to just share a bit of what I have been talking about with some of the people I work with, many of whom are facing a real and growing housing crisis in our city. For people without healthy, safe, accessible, affordable homes the connections between this lack and other issues-like education, jobs, environment, health, transit, etc. are obvious. In my discussions these issues are not at all seperate. I don't have the answers but I know that developing the capacity of citizens to organize themselves together and supporting issue based campaigns and tying these campaigns together across diverse constituencies can make a very big difference in people's lives and in how we solve real problems and run our city. I know there are different approaches to how change comes about, different theories of change. I am spending time with some of you in discussions about how to learn from each other so that we have a fuller spectrum of strategies and tactics rather than a narrow slice to chose from. It is very encouraging. Be well, Jethro

The issues of:
#1 Crime/Violence
#2 Education
#3 Jobs
are not progressive issues, they are broad based or populist issues that nearly everyone will support in the simplistic terminology politicians use such as making our neighborhoods safer; or improving our schools; or providing more jobs. While they are good goals, and should be pursued, I would like to argue that the real needs for Philadelphia are:
#1 Systematic Reform
#2 Improved Communication
#3 Process.

Under Systematic Reform, the current Philadelphia governmental and political process is largely dysfunctional: from the lack of open primaries for vacant offices; to the fact that there effectively is not a two party system in many aspects of the electoral process; to the fact that the district Council members operate their districts like fiefdoms and that the rest of Council goes along with this process; to the fact that the zoning and building codes are obsolete, obtuse, myopic, outdated, archaic, and often times contrary to broader policy goals; to the fact that there is yet another delay due entirely to politics in reassessing real estate values at full value for purposes of assessing real estate taxes.

Under Improved Communication, the communication by the government is behind the times, and there is much too little interaction with the citizenry. From the lack of public access cable; to the still abysmal web site (e.g. try to find out who to call at the Streets Department with a question about a broken street light by going to http://www.phila.gov or ask why a web site for a major city should have 85 validation errors in its coding of its home page as of 11/29/06 at 10:26 p.m. (go to http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.phila.gov )).

Under Process, there are too many cases where there is either no real process or a dysfunctional process or a broken process. For example, there are no real penalties or enforcement of a whole range of widely ignored laws from billboard ordinances to recycling laws; to the fact that despite many attempts and efforts to improve the L & I permitting process and information to entrepreneurs it is still nearly impossible to figure out what permits and licenses are needed to open a simple storefront business; to the fact that that the Zoning Board of Adjustment has been making up rules for decades.