In fact, one small demographic, what Pew calls "Enterprisers" who make up just 9% of the population, are the ONLY group whose members generally oppose raising the minimum wage, the ONLY group which opposes guaranteed health care, the ONLY group that thinks outsourcing is good for the economy, and the ONLY group whose members generally think environmental regulations are not worth the costs.

They forgot to add, "...the ONLY group that actually has any experience running businesses."

Someonesane--

Your comment is not accurate.

Unless you want to argue that only 9% of the population has any actual experience running businesses.

I may be a teacher now, but I used to run a business. I know other teachers who used to run businesses, or who do run businesses for summer income or side income.

Furthermore, not everyone who owns or runs a business opposes minimum wage, opposes guaranteed health care, thinks outsourcing is good for the economy, or generally thinks that environmental regulations aren't worth the cost.

Thanks for kicking off this discussion, Kari. My name's Matt -- I'm one of the folks who works at Progressive States. If you click my name you'll see that I'm also a "state blogger" like Kari -- over in my home state of Montana.

I just wanted to let y'all know that I'll be checking this thread (and future ones) for questions and/or comments about the agenda we're rolling out, even snarky ones, Mr. Sane.

Glad to hear you're such an unapologetic capitalist, Kari. Oregon could always use more of 'em. How many full-time employees do you have? How many are "unskilled" or minimum wage-level workers? Do you provide health care to everyone? What environmental regulations do you deal with on a day-to-day basis?

I agree with Jeff that the Pew categories are highly suspect, although it is worthwhile to seek useful ways to segment the electorate and figure out what the patterns of thinking are. I view this as a good start, but not something to build a strategy around until much more fully tested in practice.

Yes, by all means let's begin defining a progressive vision with a lot of detailed programs with wide appeal, however that can be determined. The key will be for a sizable group of leaders to go out and proselytize that vision -- keep reminding people that there is hope of progress in the world, and who is working to achieve it.

Bravo! I really like the Progressive States "platform". Sounds remarkably similar to the Green Party platform....and that's a good thing in my book. This set of values echo those of most citizens....I don't see it as being hard to sell at all. We just need to start marketing it with an eye to 2008. In recent years my beef with my Dem party has been a lack of definition, too broad and varied a scope.

I'm impressed with the idea that business owners can see the value of social responsibility. Why not? Happy employees are loyal and productive employees.

Kari this Progressive Agenda is indeed a worthy and attainable goal. Keep talking.

Jeff -- Very solid points. The mix of smart growth and clean jobs is, as you note, part of an attempt to tie "green" with other issues and offset the economic arguments. "Green collar" job creation is something that is very popular. Obviously, though, mobilizing on the environmental front is also key. While we've found this terminology to be a useful way to encapsulate this set of agenda items, we are also working on pieces that are more clearly simply green. We are talking to several state leaders about anti-global warming initiatives. And we're quite excited about our own work with such great environmental outfits as the National Conference of Environmental Legislators, the Sierra Club, and Smart Growth America (all three are members of our policy task forces; other members can be found here).

All of that being said, this agenda is not complete or definitive. It is, we think, an aggressive agenda for what is still a relatively young organization. We will work with policymakers and other partners on other good ideas and strive to find ways to make all of these issues cut across historic single-issue boundaries.

Finally, I'll make a point of sending your comments around internally so the rest of the staff can digest it.

Pat - Great comment. Phen - Measured optimism seems to be the word and I don't disagree with you there. MCT - thanks for the kudos.

Keep the discussion going, please.

This looks like a really great effort. It looks like it dovetails with the Apollo Alliance (or whatever their actual title is now). I hope there is some coordination going on there?

However, I see a huge piece missing from this agenda:

National high-speed passenger rail.

In fact, this piece doesn't seem to be on the progressive agenda at all. Yet, I think this is the one piece of infrastructure that is missing from America that, if added, will allow us to tie together the other disparate parts -- especially if it is properly coupled with supportive local transit (including intra-state and regional baby-bullet systems) and supportive land use (transit oriented development). Not only could it be a massive jobs program, many of those would be so-called green collar jobs, and the groundwork would also be laid for other initiatives such as reducing VMT and carbon emissions.

Where is the leadership on this issue?

Still absolutely loving the feedback. Garlynn, I'm with you on national passenger rail. That's probably not a state policy, though. But you're right -- who is talking about it?

Global warming is a sleeping giant and it is poised to wake up a bit this year. Between California and the Northeastern states that are already in with both feet and expected action in Massachusetts and the Rocky Mountain West, I'd be real surprised if we didn't see these mountains move. I know I've heard talk of more adventurous global warming measures in Oregon. What's going on out here?

There are, in my opinion, only two legitimate agenda items for progressives. One - STOP THE WAR NOW. Two, adopt universal single payer health care.

Once we have accomplished both of the above, let's talk about two more. But until the first two are accomplished, nothing else matters.

BlueNote -- I have to say I'm right there with you personally. Getting out of Iraq and accomplishing health care for all need to be huge prioties for the progressive movement.

A couple things to think about, though. Progressives have more power in Oregon than they've had in years. But that state power can only do so much to impact the war in Iraq. As for single payer health care, there are at least very solid movements toward health care for all in Oregon -- I'd recommend jumping into that discussion yourself.

But just as having too broad of an agenda and too many priorities can prevent you from getting anything done, blinders can prevent us from making progress in places where we have opportunities today.

SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!

I believe in Democracy! I believe in a civil, peaceful, and that a strong nation insures Democracy, and the freedoms Democracy provides which includes free enterprise.

I know that if you are liberal/progressive, or conservative that the belief in Democracy has been spread over both groups in blood since the start of our nation. I believe we will not have our freedoms, and liberties without a strong, healthy Democracy thus we have a common interest in a strong, competant, and sincere governance.

We have had over the past 30 years a struggle that continues today as to the extent we as a national government have responsibilities to our fellow citizens, and the most vulnerable in our Democracy.

The question for me becomes can a Democracy sustain itself with large disparities between the wealthy and the poor. Is a middle class a requirement to having a free society?? Have we had examples of prosperous, civil, and a free society with a ruling wealthy class over a vast impoverished underclass??? I think not as the greatest human experiement would not be happening since it was these kinds of disparities between citizens that inspired it's existance to begin with!

I believe a sincere evaluation of Republican resurgance to power since Reagan has reflected the loss of the balance that maintained a healthy, active, and thriving middle class. I believe that the rapid losses of the middle class has been a contributing factor to the loss of civil liberties, and freedoms, as well as our nations overall worsened health. We are decaying from the middle outward, and where as the rich will undoubtedly be the last to feel the effects, should conditions be left to worsen their price will be quite severe indeed, history is unmistakened on the subject.

Happy Thoughts;

Dan Grady

Boy, for such a self-righteous bunch that claims to pride itself in recognizing nuance and resisting the urge to generalize, some of you sure don't hesitate to assume stereotypes or leap to unwarranted, erroneous conclusions and whatnot. For example, I'll wager I'm less a fan of Ayn Rand and her Objectivist philosophy than most here are devotees of Karl Marx's theories on class struggle. (For what it's worth, though -- piece of trivia for ya -- Hillary Clinton at one point acknowledged admiring Rand's work herself. Of course, it's rather obvious she leans towards Marx when political push comes to shoving laws restricting freedom down our throats.) And honestly, I don't think I've ever voted Republican for a significant political office in my life: I'm waaaay to into opposing war and respecting individual freedom to do that.

Wow, Kari. Two employees? You're a regular captain of industry, aren't you. In the spirit of respecting your privacy I'll refrain from inquiring how much of your business derives from shifty politicos and other shady operators suckling from tax-dollar spigots and slurping at government slop buckets.

But I gotta know this: Why all the hired contractors? Can't afford to pay the bennies on fulltimers? And isn't "contracting" just another name for "outsourcing"? Or does the disparaging import of that term kick into effect only when the jobs end up putting money in the grubby hands of swarthy foreign hordes? I find it highly instructive how nationalistic the left can get on economic matters when it suits their cause du jour.

So anyway, I guess the point and the question is whether all or maybe only the vast majority of business owners are members of the "enterpriser" designation in the Pew survey classification (flawed a study as it is.) Of course, when I made my earlier comment it was, as someone else noted (though I'd cast a vote for Hillary before I'd choose the word), "snarky." But honestly, what percentage of small business owners in Oregon would do away with, say, the state-mandated minimum wage if offered the chance? Remember, in 2002 the measure to increase it passed by a meager 33,000 votes statewide. How many farmers, ranchers and timberland owners, especially outside the Willamette Valley, are fed up with smart growth and radical environmentalism (Anybody ever hear of Measure 37?). And while I suppose free universal health care probably sounds as good to a business owner as it does to anybody else, they're probably much more cognizant than the average person that very little of value in this world actually is "free," least of all good medicine and life-saving technology, so any claims or promises by government worshippers that they're going to make it so are foolish pipe dreams destined, like most state-run schemes, to abuse, oppression, controversy and breathtaking waste.

How many farmers, ranchers and timberland owners, especially outside the Willamette Valley, are fed up with smart growth and radical environmentalism (Anybody ever hear of Measure 37?).

SS--how many of the people suing against Measure 37 have been farmers worried about what defelopers would do to their livelihood? Wasn't there just some decision on a destination resort in Newberg which would provide lodging without taking up farmland? And about Prineville/Crook County and Measure 37 (as I recall, those folks said "we won't relax our standards, how much compensation are you expecting?") --are those folks all supporters of Measure 37?

Not every small employer (and those make up more of Oregon's economy than big business as I recall) echoes your views. Matter of fact, most of them are taking care of business and may not even know this blog exists.

I see a lot of "someone sane" talking about political figures and generally about business. But what kind of business is "someone sane" in, how many employees? What part of the state?

Someone Sane:

Ah, trolling is fun, isn't it? You should know, however, that when I read comments from a troll like you, I do two things. First, I feel kind of sorry for you. Second, I make a donation to a Democratic group. I think I'll make a dontation to the DPO this time.

I'm not rich, but I think I have enough money that I can send a check every time you spew nonsense and still stay solvent.

Kari: how about updating your ActBlue page? You could add a bunch of Dem./Progressive groups. I'm thinking DPO, FuturePAC, SDLF, Bus Project, DFO. Others?

It would make it easier for me and others to use the Troll Defense Fund. And it gives us a good way to measure the "service" trolls are performing for the progressive community.

Still absolutely loving the feedback. Garlynn, I'm with you on national passenger rail. That's probably not a state policy, though. But you're right -- who is talking about it?

"National" passenger rail isn't a state policy issue, but high-speed rail can be. Generally, high-speed rail is competitive with air travel over reasonably short distances -- say, 300 miles or less. And short segments of high-speed rail can be handled as state or bi-state projects.

Locally, for example, Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia could be working together to push for a high-speed rail line from Eugene to Vancouver BC. California and Nevada might work on Los Angeles to Las Vegas, or perhaps California could go it alone on SF-LA.

Eventually, all those 200-500 mile projects create the beginnings of a national network that can be tied together as a federal project.

So in that respect, I'd say "high speed passenger rail" should be on the progressive agenda of any state that (a) has two or more major metropolitan areas to tie together, or (b) shares a logical high-speed rail corridor with an adjacent state.

In Oregon, we should be looking at a corridor from Eugene to Vancouver, Washington -- and not waiting for someone back in DC to make the first move.