There Hasn't Been One Significant Progressive Program Enacted Into Law for the Past 30+ Years

[Yavin4]

So why do Liberals/Progressives get equal blame for everything?

[ThomCat]

1. Because we represent what the vast majority of poor people

want/need, and what is in fact what the vast majority of American Citizens actually want. So these believes and goals need to be discredited.

1. Because anything that helps poor people needs to be discredited. It's not good for the middle class, or for rich people. It takes money away from people who deserve it.

2. Because anything that poor people believe has to be bad, just because poor people can't know anything.

3. Because anything the majority of Americans believes or wants has to be discredited, because it isn't what the Media tells us we are allowed to want. The media tells us that we are only allowed to want what good consumers would want. Good consumers can only want what the middle class would want. The middle class are good consumers. And all of these people become that wonderful political myth, the "moderates" who supposedly represent everyone but don't really want anything in particular very strongly accept agreement.

No minority is allowed to stand out with their "issues." No group is allowed to dominate with their "issues." No "issues" at all are allowed to be important. "Issues" are bad. Bad things. Bad. Just be good middle class consumer moderate people who don't like issues and everything will be fine! Isn't that what we are supposed to believe?

Those of us who are liberal and progressive refuse to believe that crud. We know that issues are Important. We stand up for issues. We defend issues. We even defend people, because people have issues, and those issues are important to people. We don't mind supporting poor people. Especially because so many of us are poor, or have been. We think that supporting poor people, and listening to poor people, and including poor people in important. That's one of those issues.

[jancantor]

5. What about the Violence Against Women Act

also flawed (like ADA) but this has had a MAJOR impact.

[ThomCat]

8. At times of major unrest and upheaval,

when minority communities are so upset that they must be heard and addressed, it is sometimes possible to force a political conversation that will result in some kind of legislative victory.

The people in charge decide that allowing a negative values of allowing a legislative change to occur are at least mostly negated by the positive political value of having that minority community brought into the "big tent" as a subgroup that will nominally support the party. As long as the legislative victory is mediated so that it isn't too extreme.

ADA, for example, happened under George H.W. Bush, which meant that even republicans bought into the idea of supporting the idea of accessibility. But it was so full of bullshit about its scope and bite being defined by the court that it was purely symbolic and had no teeth and value for years. Even now, after it has been thoroughly defined by the courts, all the loopholes mean that every major city with buildings and communities older than 20 years old are largely exempt from the ADA.

If a building was not accessible, you don't have to make it accessible unless you were renovating substantially all of it all at once. For a large building (office buildings, commercial buildings) that meant 60% or more of it at once. But nobody ever renovates 60% of large buildings at one time. Large buildings are renovated one floor at a time, so all large buildings are effectively exempt from being accessible forever! What a shitty loophole!

So, the lesson here is that, yes, can occasionally act and be heard. But it is short lived and likely to result in something we will have to fight for years to effectively implement in anything resembling the way we wanted or intended. But it can be done.

I don't expect that it can be done very often. I don't think that Washington is very receptive to us as a group, or to any legislative message we bring, especially if it comes very often. Though it would be wonderful if I was wrong.

I would love to see progressive legislation pouring out of Washington to prove that I'm wrong. But what are the odds?

[jancantor]

9. I don't get your post at all

You never even addressed my mention of the VAWA , which was revolutionary, progressive, effective legislation, and has caused a complete sea change in (among other things) how law enforcement, the courts, and society deal with and view domestic violence

If the VAWA isn't progressive legislation, nothing is.

The OP set him/herself up by making the claim of NO such legislation in 30 yrs, thus any counterexample refutes that OP. And sorry, but the VAWA is a progressive piece of legislation. Its scope is enormous and its effect is undeniable. It also equally affects domestic violence victims (male or female, despite the name) from all walks of life.

[ThomCat]

10. Sorry,

Yes, it is, but I only addressed one example in order to not be redundant. Both laws are pretty revolutionary but only after we seriously fought to make sure they would be implemented, and implemented well.

In both cases, we got the legislation because of communities who made so much noise that they could not be ignored and had to be addressed by legislation. It was the right message at the right time, but not something that could be generally repeated.

So the message is be a loud community, agitate, and when there is an opportunity, demand it. But once you get that legislation, focus on getting it implemented. The legislation will have flaws, and will not implement itself.

[jancantor]

11. I don;'t disagree with that

I just saw you responding to my post by... not responding and never even mentioning VAWA. As for the op, it's simply wrong. It says NO program (iow ZERO) than any counterexample disproves it. VAWA is a counterexample. It's really that simple. I don;'t disagree about the analysis of the process, that you provided, and fwiw VAWA has a lot of warts. It's far from perfect. But, it clearly refutes what the OP claimed. If the OP claimed 'there's been a lack of..." or "there hasn't been enough of" progressive programs... I'd agree. But he/she didn't claim that, so I offered a counterexample

[butterfly77]

13. +Millions

[stray cat]

2. Maybe because they claim to be significant but they clearly are not and appear weak and corporate

[Odin2005]

3. The American With Disabilities Act isn't significant?

:eyes:

[salvorhardin]

4. +1

It was flawed, but any the effect it had on the lives of those of us who have disabilities was significant.

[Yavin4]

14. I Will Grant You The ADA and the Violence Against Women Act

as two significant progressive achievements. However, my point still stands. If you google Hubert Humphrey's legislative accomplishments, you will see what I am talking about.

[uponit7771]

17. No, significant means whatever the OP thinks it means at the time they typed it.

[jancantor]

6. Yes there has

VAWA - Violence Against Women Act

[OutNow]

7. I understand your point, but to be accurate - ADA

As a disabled person my quality of life and financial situation has improved because of:

Americans with Disabilities Act - 1990
Family Medical Leave Act - 1993
Medicare Schedule D (prescription drug coverage)- 2006

Whatever their flaws, I'd say these are progressive programs and I'd be in deep trouble without them

Now if the Congress would only fix ERISA (pensions) and 100 or so other issues life would be good. :-}

[Hannah Bell]

12. medicare d has benefits for some, but overwhelming drawbacks in the bigger picture.

not a progressive measure, it's bush's gift to big pharma & is defunding medicare.

am w/ disabilities, yes.

[WilliamPitt]

15. The Family Medical Leave Act

[fascisthunter]

16. of course it's deliberate... blame the left for everything

so the right can get away with crime.

"Look over there!"