14 April 2009

quickly

I've been reading a lot of articles talking about how Congressional Democrats are the victims of dropping approval ratings, while the President's remain quite high, and how that's (obviously) bad for any attempts at pushing a truly progressive agenda. And, once again, instead of charging full-speed ahead into the Republicans, countering their unconscionable misinformation ("lies") with truth, justice, and a John-Wayne-haymaker-sized dose of reality, many of those who purport to "lead" the progressive contingent are still trying to placate the crazies on the other side of the aisle.

Health care, unemployment insurance, environmental protection, reimagining/fixing capitalism, social security... That's actually what got the wheels in my head turning. "Social security." It's a tried-and-true Republican tactic to hit liberals/progressives/Democrats on national security, since we (I say this like I'm a contributor to the "movement" as a whole) often seek to cannibalize the military budget to pay for big, sweeping social welfare programs, and if you don't want to fund development of the Multiple Kill Vehicle (may it rest in peace), well, you might as well just bend over for Osama and his little rascaly band right now (even though the radical, fundamentalist, evil wing of Islam hates homosexuality with a fire that the reddest of necked people could only dream to).

Why don't we just expand the definition of national security, "reframe" (to steal a line from a fellow much smarter than myself, Jeffrey Feldman) the argument to make the case that security really should involve more than explosives, body armor and huge rubber tires. Keeping Americans secure should involve all of those causes nearest and dearest to the hearts of the progressive. A secure America is one that isn't worried about losing its home from medical bills, or having a child grow up severely disabled because of environmental contamination, or needing to work well into their 80's because people concerned only with next quarter's profit outlook played fast and loose with their retirement fund. If we're safe, but not secure, what have we gained?

There has to be a way to make people understand. Maybe this'll help?

[ASIDE: I imagine someone else has already thought of this. Perhaps it's been tried, and failed. Perhaps not, though. END ASIDE]

No comments: