Are We 'Progressives' or 'Regressives'?

Yesterday I read the actual Republican Party Platform as posted online, just for kicks. As I was reading through an endless list of punchy titles (I actually physically recoiled several times), it struck me just how un-American this document seems. So many barely veiled religious references, the discussion of removing essential resources from those most in need, I actually has a visceral reaction to what I was reading. What shocked me most of all was the negative, narrow, limited vision of what America could be.

The third paragraph of the GOP platform 'preamble' states in no uncertain terms the "the American dream is at risk." This is followed by reams of positions that seem to be entirely regressive, not just a matter of maintaining the status quo. For instance, the platform seeks to eradicate abortion access, ban pornography, and return to a traditional judeo-christian definition of marriage as that between a man and a woman exclusively. In the same vein it seeks to reduce taxation on corporations as a means of remaining globally competitive, preventing something the GOP refers to as debt explosion, while at the same time suggesting that it is critical that the United States has a highly trained and skilled workforce. I'm not sure if the GOP missed the memo about the state of the student debt crisis, but they apparently think that highly trained and skilled workers evolve in an education vaccum. Does that even resemble the American anyone wants, knows, or loves? I doubt many dictatorships could top this initial 'wish list'. It seems so backwards that I can only say it is the exact opposite of a progressive way of thinking, it is infact a regressive way of thinking and acting.

Out of fairness, I also looked into the Democratic Party Platform. Here the difference are stark just in the choice of words and the broad range of ideas and issues presented. For instance, the Democratic document speaks of "too many being left out or left behind" in the current political climate. I think all Americans can identify with that sentiment, which is why candidates like Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders hold so much appeal as outsiders. The platform focuses more on ways to help America achieve the so-called 'American Dream', as opposed to stressing that the concept is under attack. With the help of Bernie Sanders guiding the platform in a progressive direction, one at least feels somewhat hopeful when coming away from the document, even if they note (rightly so) that it is still not progressive or proactive enough. It's not that I am all about an exclusively progressive outlook for the Democratic Party of the future, but currently I am caught by just the differences in tone. This is not about the presidential candidates, it's just about the ideas and language in the document as presented. While reading this second document, I came away with a very different feeling.

America is not about one side of the aisle or the other, it's about the very best of ideas coming together. I understand the two-party system, the checks and balances, and that no single party has yet managed to achieve an entirely 'utopian' [if we take their platforms to be a model] society. The red team wins some games, sometimes it is the blue team. The balance is what we see today, it is 'western' culture, this mix of ideals and ideas. However, what happens when this system breaks down? 

What if, let's imagine for a moment,  the blue team uses steroids or other performance enhancing drugs, and the red team does not (or vice versa), would we be ok with that? You can easily see these 'influences' as a matter of the moneyed interest driving candidates to vote against their constituents interests. What if it happened for eight years in a row. America would look very different, as it always does, when a two-term President with a majority house and senate leaves office.

Human Beings are fascinating creatures when you think about the way we form societies. For example, the power of the US Supreme Court is pivotal for shaping policy and precedents. We need to recognize our own limitations, but also give ourselves enough credit for having the bravery to reach higher and be better. This wired-in world is so different from the one that I was met with back in the early 1970s. With information comes knowledge, knowledge bringing empowerment, it gives us a more realistic picture of the actual urgency and priority of issues.

So if we have any one party with an eight year stranglehold on government, eventually a lot on their wish list is brought forward for debate. Let's step away from the American two-party system, and open the doors to other parties, independents like Bernie Sanders, and imagine how remarkable these debates would be if instead of just two teams on the field, we see a round-robin tourney of multiple viewpoints representing the nuanced positions that real people, the voters in this case, care about. That is where ideas like the Brand New Congress hold great appeal for those who can see beyond the two-party system. Even if the small handful of independents or third parties in congress can't sway the vote, at least their positions can be heard and evaluated by the people. That is the America I want to see, the America that the people deserve, and the America that is bound in the living breathing document that is the United States Constitution. So the question we should really be asking is not if we are Democrat or Republican, but are we Progressive or Regressive as a society.