Progressive Centrism
The Washington Post - By Mark J. Penn - Sunday, September 7, 2003
George W. Bush's negative ratings on domestic policy suggest that compassionate conservatism is a philosophy that is dead with the American public. Instead, people are seeking a progressive moderate -- someone who is strong on defense and earns high marks on personal values but who truly has the interests of the middle class and our growing immigrant communities at heart.
Over the past two decades, we have seen huge changes in Americans' attitudes as they have become increasingly independent, better educated, suburban and moderate. These new voters are increasingly tolerant of alternative lifestyles and are more environmentally conscious, but they have rejected big government programs as the answer to our country's problems.
They are also increasingly skeptical, however, that corporations are paying their fair share, and they see President Bush as failing to protect manufacturing jobs, health care and retirement benefits.
Overnight, Sept. 11 made security and national defense critical matters, rather than the peripheral issues they were in the 2000 election. Voters will want more than on-the-job training from the next presidential challenger. As we have seen with Jimmy Carter, they can be merciless even to an elected Democrat when he is perceived as weak in dealing with terrorists. And remember how they treated Michael Dukakis after he appeared so obviously out of place in a military tank. Former President Clinton's progressive but moderate formula still holds considerable sway today. He was strong on defense yet internationalist in outlook, opening up new markets for U.S. goods while protecting workers' rights and tax cuts for the middle class. It was, after all, Clinton who modernized the military so it was ready to go after the perpetrators of Sept. 11, and Clinton who fought in Bosnia and Kosovo -- over loud Republican objections.
Clinton's was the most successful governing philosophy since FDR's.
It prepared United States for the 21st century with unprecedented peace and prosperity. It far outshines the hollow compassionate conservatism of George Bush. So why would some of the Democratic candidates want to abandon the clear path Clinton showed us?
Why would Howard Dean be so antiwar he appears weak on defense?
Read More...
The Washington Post - By Mark J. Penn - Sunday, September 7, 2003
George W. Bush's negative ratings on domestic policy suggest that compassionate conservatism is a philosophy that is dead with the American public. Instead, people are seeking a progressive moderate -- someone who is strong on defense and earns high marks on personal values but who truly has the interests of the middle class and our growing immigrant communities at heart.
Over the past two decades, we have seen huge changes in Americans' attitudes as they have become increasingly independent, better educated, suburban and moderate. These new voters are increasingly tolerant of alternative lifestyles and are more environmentally conscious, but they have rejected big government programs as the answer to our country's problems.
They are also increasingly skeptical, however, that corporations are paying their fair share, and they see President Bush as failing to protect manufacturing jobs, health care and retirement benefits.
Overnight, Sept. 11 made security and national defense critical matters, rather than the peripheral issues they were in the 2000 election. Voters will want more than on-the-job training from the next presidential challenger. As we have seen with Jimmy Carter, they can be merciless even to an elected Democrat when he is perceived as weak in dealing with terrorists. And remember how they treated Michael Dukakis after he appeared so obviously out of place in a military tank. Former President Clinton's progressive but moderate formula still holds considerable sway today. He was strong on defense yet internationalist in outlook, opening up new markets for U.S. goods while protecting workers' rights and tax cuts for the middle class. It was, after all, Clinton who modernized the military so it was ready to go after the perpetrators of Sept. 11, and Clinton who fought in Bosnia and Kosovo -- over loud Republican objections.
Clinton's was the most successful governing philosophy since FDR's.
It prepared United States for the 21st century with unprecedented peace and prosperity. It far outshines the hollow compassionate conservatism of George Bush. So why would some of the Democratic candidates want to abandon the clear path Clinton showed us?
Why would Howard Dean be so antiwar he appears weak on defense?
Read More...
posted by Pamela J. Leavey at 12:01 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home