June 28, 2015

Anatomy of the Supreme Court's Gay Marriage Decision

Anatomy of the Creation of a Fundamental Right
The Supreme Court's Decision on Gay Marriage

By Dan Riker
June 28, 2015

"Rising from the most basic human needs, marriage is essential to our most profound hopes and aspirations."

-- Justice Anthony Kennedy, June 26, 2015

The Supreme Court's decision in Obergefeld et al v. Hodges, Director Ohio Department of Health, et, al, June 26, 2015 is a landmark in American legal history. An entirely new fundamental right, same-sex marriage, was recognized by the 5-4 majority and made the law of the United States.

Entire essay posted at danriker.blogspot.com and on DailyKos.com.

May 14, 2015

The Trojan Horse in the TPP that Should Make All Americans Oppose It

Cross-posted with DailyKos.com http://t.co/PIkCSRWNUv

Opponents of fast-tracking the Trans-Pacific Partnership ("TPP&quot won one round, but lost the second in the Senate, and now appear unable to block it there. However, the battle is far from over. Passage in the House is far less certain. And even with the Republicans compromising on some amendments progressives want attached, perhaps the most dangerous provision of the TPP will remain untouched, a possible "Trojan Horse" that could nullify much of federal, state and local environmental and consumer protection laws and regulations.

The actual provisions of the TPP are being kept secret, with only members of Congress are allowed to see them. Of course, there have been many leaks of various details. New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman wrote in Politico Magazine last month: "One provision of TPP would create an entirely separate system of justice: special tribunals to hear and decide claims by foreign investors that their corporate interests are being harmed by a nation that is part of the agreement. This Investor-State Dispute Settlement provision would allow large multinational corporations to sue a signatory country for actions taken by its federal, state or local elected or appointed officials that the foreign corporation claims hurt its bottom line."

Consider what this means. Major multinational corporations, many of which moved their headquarters out of the U.S. to avoid taxes, would be able to evade American federal, state and local judicial and regulatory systems that currently have authority over them. The implications are enormously dangerous to the American democratic system of government and justice, as well to environmental, consumer and health safety. Schneiderman describes exactly what could occur:

"To put this in real terms, consider a foreign corporation, located in a country that has signed on to TPP, and which has an investment interest in the Indian Point nuclear power facility in New York’s Westchester County. Under TPP, that corporate investor could seek damages from the United States, perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars or more, for actions by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, the Westchester Country Board of Legislators or even the local Village Board that lead to a delay in the relicensing or an increase in the operating costs of the facility."

The fast track temporarily was blocked in the Senate because supporters could not overcome the filibuster mounted by the progressives over the refusal of the Republicans to simultaneously approve three amendments to the bill that would mitigate some of the potential negative effects of the TPP. Strong arming by the White House and Mitch McConnnell compromising on the amendments led to a victory for fast tracking today. But Republican support in the House is weaker than it is in the Senate.

One of the amendments limits the ability of participating countries to manipulate their currencies. This is critically important because lowering tariffs does no good for American companies if other countries are able to manipulate their currencies to keep them worth less than the American dollar. That makes their products less expensive in the United States, thus giving them a competitive advantage over rival American products.

But none of the amendments deals with the TPP's new system of regulation that sidesteps American governmental and judicial regulation. As long as this provision remains in the TPP, the treaty, and, especially its "fast-track" should be opposed by all Americans.

That the actual provisions of the TPP are being kept secret and that this separate system of regulation is included are more than adequate reasons for Americans to be deeply suspicious of the real purposes of the TPP. It does not appear to be a real "trade" deal. It does not appear to have great benefits to the people of the United States. It appears to be the work of special corporate interests, multinational corporations already operating almost beyond government regulation. The TPP appears to be another case, a major case, of government largesse for major corporations at the expense of the people.

This is not a conservative vs. liberal issue. This should not be a Republican vs. Democrat issue. It is not an issue of federal vs. states' rights. This is an issue of preservation of the existing American federal system that provides states and local communities the powers necessary to protect themselves from hazardous behavior by corporations.

It is time for Americans to put a stop to the TPP.

April 6, 2015

A New Common Sense: Why We need a new Progressive Movement

By Dan Riker

(This excerpt from my as yet unpublished book, Do What Works and Call it Capitalism is cross-posted at www.DailyKos.com and www.progressiveamericanthought.blogspot.com)

"There will always be conflict. There will always be competing interests that force us to engage in the hard job of governing ourselves. And so the anti-government thing strikes me as a perversity. I don't think the founding fathers would recognize it. They were constructing a government of the people....
Once we start regarding it (government) as some alien that we can't control, we're done. Democracy's done. That's the last stage of walking away from the responsibility of governing ourselves. It we can't control it, if it is going to be a purchased government, if we can't institute the reforms that are necessary, then we're done. We're done right now."
- David Simon, Bill Moyers & Company, Feb. 14, 2014.

"The cause of America is, in a great measure, the cause of all
mankind...
"We have it in our power to begin the world over again."
- Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776

Throughout American history there has been constant tension between two competing theories of government: the Jeffersonian vision of an agrarian democracy of semi-autonomous states with the federal government limited primarily to providing national defense; and the Hamiltonian view of a vibrant industrial nation unified by a powerful central government. By and large, the Hamiltonian view won out, but now the nation's ability to meet the challenges of the 21st Century is threatened by a resurgence of support for something approximating the Jeffersonian view.

Abraham Lincoln's statement that government should do for the people what they need done but cannot do for themselves is particularly relevant to the mass, urban, society of 320 million people of 21st Century America. But now we are embroiled in the argument over the proper role of the national government that is blocking virtually all progress toward solving contemporary problems. Indeed, we have one of our two major political parties wanting to significantly weaken the federal government by limiting its scope and reducing its functions, leaving much to private enterprise, or to the states already so financially stressed many have reduced vital services. If the Republicans prevail, what would be the outcome?

University of Oregon economist Mark Thoma provides a succinct answer:
“(T)he private sector will not, on its own, provide the correct amounts of infrastructure, retirement security, health care spending, protection against monopoly and corruption, unemployment insurance, national defense, environmental regulation, education, food and drug safety, bank regulation, innovation, anti-trust action, safe working conditions, support of basic research, stabilization policy...”[ii]

Are these not necessary to a modern civilization? Are these what the people need to have done, but cannot do for themselves? If the private sector will not do them, or cannot do them, or should not do them, and the states cannot afford to do them, who can? The answer should be obvious, but to many it is not.

The arguments today over the proper role of the federal government in some ways seem no different from those between Jefferson and Hamilton, but there is a big difference between the opponents today. Even though Hamilton and Jefferson disagreed over the means by which it best could be achieved, those two shared with the other founders - the other authors of the American Dream - a vision of a nation that provided equality of opportunity and equality under the laws to all citizens, with no special privileges because of birth or wealth, and a nation that also protected the people from governmental violations of their basic rights, and personal freedom.

The opponents in today’s struggle over the control and direction of the national government no longer share that vision. The Party that ended slavery no longer believes in the Constitution's concept of equality of citizenship, or even in the social contract, the fundamental basis of democracy. The wealthy and the big corporations now control the Republican Party to obtain greater wealth as well as to protect themselves against regulation and higher taxes, which are needed to solve many of the nation's problems. There is little concern for the middle class and contempt for the poor.

Many of the largest corporations exhibit the worst characteristics of capitalism. They have little loyalty to the United States, or to the communities where they are located, or to their employees, who are viewed almost the same as they were in the Gilded Age, as interchangeable parts that can be thrown away and easily replaced. They are interested only in increasing profits, as fast as possible, at almost any cost, higher and higher stock prices, and greater compensation for their senior managements.

There is a class war and the rich and the powerful are winning. As a result, the “American Dream,” a notion of equality of citizenship, opportunity and basic freedoms for all, is in great danger.

Republicans oppose all efforts to help the poor, or to restore the economic security of the middle class. They want government largesse for themselves and their backers, but none for anyone else. They are perfectly content with the fact that most of the great fortunes made in the United States now held by their most important benefactors largely are due to government largesse, and/or the corruption of American governments. They continue to press for greater government benefits for rich and powerful established interests: More mining or drilling on federal lands, or offshore; permits for pipelines; lower taxes on the rich and on corporations; government subsidies through tax loopholes and benefits; suppression of unions; restrictions on voting; and reduction of financial and environmental regulation. They even seek to make the fundamental bedrock of democracy, free public education, another source of profit for private interests.

Their height of irresponsibility is that they oppose all efforts to combat climate change. They refuse to accept the scientific evidence of climate change, and its causes, probably for two major reasons: their fossil fuel sponsors are trying to block any controls on their industry and its pollution of the environment; and some of Republicans either are religious fundamentalists, or are beholden to religious fundamentalists, who have scientific and common sense-defying views of the world, its history and its origins.

Sen. James Imhofe (R-OK), who has strong backing from the fossil fuel industry, and now heads the Senate Environment Committee, wrote a book, The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future, [iii] that was published by one of the most extreme rightwing organizations, World Net Daily, through their book subsidiary, that argues, without any proof, that the entire climate change movement is an organized hoax among thousands of scientists around the world. His principal argument against the efforts to curb climate change is that it is an interference with God's work. In 2012 he said on a radio interview program:

"Well actually the Genesis 8:22 that I use in there is that ‘as long as the earth remains there will be seed time and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night,’ my point is, God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous."[iv]

What climate change scientists are saying is that at the present rate of increase the world's temperatures could reach a point when no actions could stop continuing warming, and at some point man could not survive on Earth. However, that does not mean that various kinds of plant life and other forms of life may not be able to live. Thus, Sen. Imhofe does not seem to realize - if he actually is being serious - that there is nothing inconsistent with what climate scientists are saying and what was written in Genesis 8:22. There is nothing in that passage that guarantees that man will survive "as long as the earth remains."

Republicans supposedly stand for conservative ideals of greater personal freedom, expanded economic opportunities, and free markets, but they are skillful in hiding the fact that they really don't. They have made millions believe the falsehood that they are the party of smaller government, lower taxes, and a stronger economy. Using the “Big Lie” technique of repeating untruths over and over until they are believed, they have been very successful in stirring up the suspicion of government that is in the DNA of Americans. They employ various techniques of “dog whistle” politics to ignite some of the nascent racism, nativism and misogynism in their base, unifying them into a major force of opposition to virtually all progressive programs, even though many of the poorer members of their base are, or would be, major beneficiaries of such programs.

Even though Republicans repeatedly describe the Democrats as the “tax and spend” party, Republicans have not been better managers of the economy than the Democrats. Republican Presidents since 1980 have increased the federal budget substantially more than the Democratic Presidents and six of the eight tax increases since 1980 occurred during Republican presidencies.

Reagan increased federal spending by 68%, from an annual budget of $678 billion in his first year to $1.143 trillion in his last. In George H.W. Bush's last year the budget had increased to $1.4 trillion, an increase of 23% in four years. During Bill Clinton's eight years, the budget increased 32% to $1.86 trillion. Then there was George W. Bush, who managed to nearly double the budget in his eight years to $3,5 trillion, an increase of 88.9%. In Barack Obama's six years, the budget has increased only 18% to $4.2 trillion at the end of 2014.[v]

The national debt under Reagan went from $997 billion in his first year to $2.86 trillion in his last, an increase of 186%. His deficits were dramatically larger than of any President since World War II. Instead of government revenues increasing as a result of the expected stimulus to the economy that his tax cuts were supposed to cause under the theories of the supply-side economists, revenues decreased, and did not recover until near the end of his presidency, after some tax hikes.

Even though Reagan's Republican successor, George H.W. Bush, was the last Republican President to increase taxes, he still increased the national debt in four years by 54%. In his eight years of enormous mismanagement in office, George W. Bush increased the national debt by 105%. It was $5.8 trillion in his first year and $11.9 trillion in his last, and the $1.4 trillion dollar deficit in his last year was the highest one-year deficit in the nation's history, even topping inflation-adjusted deficits during World War II.

By contrast, in his eight years in office, the Democrat Bill Clinton increased the national debt by only 31% and he had budget surpluses in his last four years. Barack Obama came into office at the height of the bank crisis and financial meltdown. Despite that, the increase in the national debt in his first six years has been only 49% and he has reduced the annual deficit from George W. Bush's last year by 65% to $492 billion.

Every one of the financial crises since 1900 that caused economic chaos in the nation occurred when Republicans held the Presidency. These include the Panic of 1907 that caused a huge recession and ultimately resulted in the creation of the Federal Reserve System, the Great Crash of 1929 that caused the Great Depression, and the bank crisis of 2008 that caused the Great Recession.

Republican economic policies of the past 30 years, which encourage companies to outsource to foreign countries, caused the losses of millions of jobs, most of them good-paying middle class jobs. Their tax cuts and their opposition to tax increases have caused the national government to be deficient of the revenue it needs to provide the services it has to provide.

The economy has grown better under Democratic presidents. Republicans have held the White House for 20 of the past 33 years and during those years the national economy grew a total of 52.5%, an annual average of 2.6%. In the 13 years Democrats have held the White House, the economy grew a total of 44.9%, an annual average of 3.2%.

Most of the federal government programs that have had the greatest benefit for the greatest number of people in the United States since 1900 were initiated during three brief periods: the Progressive period from 1901 to World War I; during Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, prior to World War II; and in the very brief time before Lyndon Johnson's presidency was destroyed by the Vietnam War in the 1960s. Most of the programs of those periods are enormously successful and popular. Most Americans today view food and drug regulation, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Head Start, and many more as essential government services.

Each progressive period began as the result of a calamity. However, in each case, the conditions were ripe for change. Two of the three progressive periods were set off by Presidential assassinations, of William McKinley in 1901 and of John F. Kennedy in 1963. The election of Franklin Roosevelt in 1932 was the result the Great Crash of 1929 and the resulting Great Depression.

Each calamity brought in a dynamic leader with his political party in complete control of Congress, and each was in a position to have progressive legislation supported and passed. The programs of these th4ree progressive periods have been enormously successful and of great benefit to the vast majority of the American people.

The Nixon, Ford and Carter presidencies, between 1969 and 1981, were full of crises, scandals and economic disruption that included high oil prices, near-record inflation, and high unemployment. Government seemed incapable of coping competently with the nation's problems, and someone came along who said the New Deal and liberal ideas no longer worked, that there was another way, and, by a small popular vote margin - but a landslide in electoral votes - the people bought that argument.

As it turned out, the radically conservative economic policies of Ronald Reagan - basically a return to the Social Darwinist “laissez-faire” policies of the Gilded Age - did not solve our problems. They made them far worse, but the extent of the damage only recently began to be fully realized. As with other periods of laissez-faire government, there was significant economic growth, but as with those other periods, the benefits of that growth went almost entirely to the rich and to the big corporations. While taxes on the rich were lowered dramatically, they actually increased on the middle class. The average hourly wage declined during Reagan's Presidency, and the huge movement of jobs out of the country began.

None of Reagan's successors significantly altered the nation's economic policies, and now we know that 30 years of these policies have hollowed out the middle class, increased poverty, created the greatest economic disparity in modern history, and weakened the economy of the nation, and, as a result, our security.

Barack Obama's slogan of "Change We Can Believe In," struck a powerful chord with millions of Americans. He did not bring the change he promised, and that has been disillusioning to many of his supporters, and has weakened the Democratic Party's appeal. But the fact that the people so clearly wanted change shows that we have reached another of those times in our history when the situation is ripe for change, and when change is necessary to our survival as a democratic capitalistic society.

The "common sense" answer to America's economic and political problems is obvious. There is only one type of government that will do what needs to be done: a progressive government. That can only come to pass if progressives take control of the Democratic Party and then win elections at all levels of government. Republicans must be driven out of office from the city council to the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives.

The opportunity exists once again, as it did in 1776, "to begin the world over again." The choice this time is better than it was in 1776. We do not have to have a violent revolution, but there is no guarantee we will not have one if the present course of the country is not altered. Peaceful change can occur, but it will take more than a political slogan, or one leader. This is not a campaign that can be fought once, in one election, with any expectation of lasting victory. A government run by progressives for an extended period of time on behalf of all the people will only come from a concentrated, long-term campaign that captures the minds and the hearts of the majority of Americans.

Simon, journalist and creator of the HBO series, The Wire and Treme, was the subject of a two-part interview by Bill Moyers, the first part on Jan. 31, 2014 http://billmoyers.com/... and the second part on Feb. 14, 2014, http://billmoyers.com/...
[ii] Thoma, Mark. “For Obama, State of the Union Means State of the People.” The Fiscal Times, February, 12, 2013.
[iii] Imhofe, James. The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future. WND Books, 2012.
[iv] http://www.rightwingwatch.org/...(accessed Jan. 23, 2015)
[v] All of the figures in this section come from, or are calculated from, official federal budget data available at http://www.usfederalbudget.us/ and from http://www.whitehouse.gov/ (both last accessed on Jan. 10, 2015)

March 10, 2015

What Would it be like to have a war with Iran? Obscenely expensive in cash and lives.

My post at http://danriker.blogspot.com/2015/03/what-would-it-be-like-to-have-war-with.html

March 5, 2015

What Trickle-Down Economics has done to the U.S. The Rich have all the Money

That's the title of an article of mine published today on the front page of www.Truth-out.org: See it here.

February 5, 2015

For once I agree with Rand Paul. I also don't think Loretta Lynch should be Attorney General

Cross-posted at DailyKos.com, progressiveamericanthought.blogspot.com and danriker.blogspot.com

By Dan Riker

I have more reasons than Paul cited. First, what he talked about.

He is opposing her because she supports the current laws allowing civil forfeiture of property when the owner has not been convicted of a crime. The Huffington Post reports that in her role as U.S. Attorney in New York she has seized about $13 million in private property. Her office once held $447,000 in private property for two years without ever charging the owner with a crime. When questioned before the Senate committee considering her nomination for Attorney General, she said she supports the current law.

I agree with Paul. This may be the only area of agreement with him. There are so many other areas of disagreement between us, I certainly would not vote for him. But I applaud his position here.

Now, here are my principal reasons for opposing her confirmation.

In other testimony before the committee, she said she supports the death penalty, saying she believes it deters crime. There is a world of evidence collected over many years that disputes that belief. There was evidence in England when there public hangings that the hangings actually caused more crime. We are among the greatest users of the death penalty, in company with China, North Korea, Yemen, and Iran. Isn't that wonderful company to be among? It is time for this nation to join with other civilized nations and ban this barbaric practice. Maybe the Supreme Court will do the right thing this term and end its use in the United States forever.

Lynch also says she opposes the legalization of marijuana. I have questions whether extensive use of it may lead to various kinds of health problems, but current scientific studies of marijuana use do not support my concern. There is plenty of hard evidence that cigarettes are far worse for our health and they are legal. And the same is true about alcohol and it is legal in much of the country. We tried outlawing it and we created organized crime.

We created the drug cartels and a huge prison industry by declaring a war on drugs. It has been the longest war in our history and our least successful. We have more than tripled the number of people in prison since 1985 when mandatory prison sentences for drug offenses were made federal law, and most of those people are in prison for non-violent drug offenses. And nothing we have done has stopped the use of drugs. It just has increased the cost.

When I was in law school back in the 1970s, one of the assigned books in criminal law was then already a classic, The Limits of the Criminal Sanction, by Herbert L. Packer, a professor at the Stanford University School of Law. My copy of this book, first published in 1968, was the 76th printing. That shows it was widely read, particularly in law schools. I have to believe that Loretta Lynch has read it. It is a very scholarly analysis of criminal law. His fundamental thesis was that the greater the penalty applied to a criminal offense, the more valuable success in that crime became. And it was especially true when it came to illegal drugs.

He wrote that the use of criminal law to try to control the use of narcotics and other drugs was the greatest example of the misuse of the criminal sanction. "A clearer case of misapplication of the criminal sanction would be difficult to imagine."

Just before that sentence he lists the results of reliance on the criminal sanction to control drugs - and keep in mind, this was written in 1968 before mandatory prison sentences and many of the other expansions of the war on drugs.

"The results of this reliance on the criminal sanction have included the following:
(1) Several hundred thousand people (ed. now more than 2 million), the overwhelming majority of whom have been primarily users rather than traffickers, have been subjected to severe criminal punishment.
(2) An immensely profitable illegal traffic in narcotics and other forbidden drugs has developed.
(3) This illegal traffic has contributed significantly to the growth and prosperity of organized criminal groups.
(4) A substantial number of all acquisitive crimes - burglary, robbery, auto theft, other forms of larceny - have been committed by drug users in order to get the wherewithal to pay the artificially high prices charged for drugs on the illegal market.
(5) Billions of dollars and a significant proportion of total law enforcement resources have been expended in all stages of the criminal process.
(6) A disturbingly large number of undesirable police practices - unconstitutional searches and seizures, entrapment, electronic surveillance - have become habitual because of the great difficulty that attends the detection of narcotics offenses.
(7) The burden of enforcement has fallen primarily on the urban poor, especially Negroes and Mexican-Americans.
(8) Research on the causes, effects, and cures of drug use has been stultified.
(9) The medical profession has been intimidated into neglecting its accustomed role of relieving this form of human misery.
(10) A large and well-entrenched enforcement bureaucracy has developed a vested interest in the status quo, and has effectively thwarted all but the most marginal reforms.
(11) Legislative invocations of the criminal sanction have automatically and unthinkingly been extended from narcotics to marijuana to the flood of new mind-altering drugs that have appeared in recent years, thereby compounding the preexisting problem."[ii]

As a prosecutor, Ms. Lynch has been outstanding. That is a crime-fighting job, not a law-making one. The role of Attorney General is different. Yes, there is crime-fighting, but there also is law-making, or, at least law-influencing. For example, the present Attorney General has stopped enforcement of federal laws against marijuana in states where it has been legalized. That is an act of discretion, but also of common sense.

The Attorney General of the United States is the leading legal administrative official of the United States and has great influence over legislation and over how existing laws are enforced. It is very important that someone hold this position with a forward-looking view, not one based on the past, refusing to see and acknowledge the wrongness of the war on drugs.

One of the greatest mistakes of our past has been the War on Drugs, including the criminalization of marijuana. No sensible person can expect to enforce a law against a plant that can be grown under artificial light in anyone's closet without violating the Constitution in wholesale amounts.

The legalization, or at least de-criminalization of marijuana would save millions of people from criminal records and prison sentences that ruin their lives, and, at the same time, save billions of dollars in law enforcement and prison costs. It also would eliminate a major source of profit of the drug cartels.

Our Attorney General needs to have better judgment that what Loretta Lynch has displayed.

Packer, Herbert L. The Limits of the Criminal Sanction. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1968. p. 333.
[ii] Ibid. pp 332-333

December 31, 2014

Statement of Purpose of a new Progressive Movement inside the Democratic Party

A Proposed Statement of Purpose of the new Progressive Movement
This is a proposed statement of purpose for a new progressive movement to take over the Democratic Party and gain control of governments at all levels. It is based on the 1912 Progressive Party Platform, which contained a number of commitments that still are relevant:

- Limit political campaign contributions and expenditures.
- A “living wage” for all industrial workers.
- A social insurance program for everyone covering health, unemployment and old age.
- Government should create industrial research laboratories.
- One national health agency overseeing all aspects of health
- Federal regulation of all corporations operating in interstate commerce.
- Construction of a national highway system
- Impose a high tax on large inheritances.

The 2015 Commitment of a New Progressive Democratic Party

In a time of grave national problems, the people have called upon the Democratic Party to reconstitute itself into a party of the people, free of financial and corporate special interests and extremist ideologies, a progressive party, born of the nation's sense of justice, and dedicated to the restoration of government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

We hold with Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln that the people must insure that their Constitution fulfills its purposes and safeguard it from those who, by perversion of its intent, would convert it into an instrument of injustice. In accordance with the needs of each generation the people must use their sovereign powers to establish and maintain the equal opportunity and justice for all citizens, for which this Government was founded, and without which no democratic republic can endure.

Political parties exist to secure responsible government and to execute the will of the people. The Republican Party has turned aside from these great tasks to favor the rich and powerful at the expense of the people. Some elements of the Democratic Party also are too closely aligned with these special interests.

As a new progressive movement takes control of the Democratic Party, that new, reinvigorated Progressive Democratic Party then will break the corrupt alliances between government and the powerful corporate and financial interests, returning the control of their government to the people.

We hold with Abraham Lincoln that the purpose of government is to do for the people what they need to have done but which they cannot do for themselves.

We oppose the use of public institutions for private profit. Instead, we pledge to reinvigorate the core institutions of government to better serve the people.

We promise to safeguard and protect the natural resources and environment of this nation. Its resources, its business, its institutions and its laws should be utilized, maintained or altered in whatever manner will best promote the general interest of the people and their descendants.

We pledge to protect the natural rights of all our people asserted in our Declaration of Independence of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as well those rights guaranteed to all citizens under the Constitution.

October 3, 2014

In This Changes Everything Naomi Klein provides accelerant to the re-ignited Climate Change Movement

My review of This Changes Everything is posted at http://www.dailykos.com/blog/Dan%20Riker/
and at[link: http://www.progressiveamericanthought.blogspot.com| http://www.progressiveamericanthought.blogspot.com] and at
http://www.danriker.blogspot.com

September 23, 2014

Breaking the Political Gridlock with a Progressive Movement

PArt II, Chapter 2, of my as yet unpublished book, Let's Do What Works and Call it Capitalism, is posted at: http://www.dailykos.com/blog/Dan%20Riker/ and at
http://progressiveamericanthought.blogspot.com/2014/09/breaking-political-gridlock-with.html
as well as on my blog, http://www.danriker.blogspot.com

September 19, 2014

I have added a Table of Contents to the Books About Progressivism Page. Many books just added.

TOPICS IN THE PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN THOUGHT "BOOKS ABOUT PROGRESSIVISM" PAGE
at http://www.progressiveamericanthought.blogspot.com

They are in this somewhat random order. The order probably will be changed eventually.
There now are more than 700 books in this Bibliography

General American History, Politics & Government
General Histories, First Progressive Era, Progressivism Defined
Law & The Constitution
Founding Fathers
Andrew Jackson
The Women's Movement, Feminism, & The Right to Vote
Populism
Socialism
Communism
Conservatism & Conservative Reaction to Progressivism
Business, Finance, Wall Street, Banking and Economics
Jm Crow, The Great Migration, Civil Rights, Racial Discrimination, Voting Rights
Religion & Philosophy
Society, Sociology and Social Change & Reform
Education
Foreign Policy
Journalism, Muckraking & General Non-Fiction
Novels & Fiction Writing
Labor Unions and Workers
1st World War
2nd World War
The Cold War
The Vietnam War
The War on Terror
The War on Drugs
The Roaring Twenties & Prohibition
The Great Crash, The Great Depression, The New Deal
John F. Kennedy, the "New Frontier" and the 1960s
Theodore Roosevelt
William Howard Taft
Woodrow Wilson
Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover
Franklin Roosevelt
Harry Truman & Post-War America
Dwight Eisenhower & the 1950s
Lyndon Johnson and the Great Society
Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford
Jimmy Carter
Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush & the Counter-Revolution
Bill Clinton
George W. Bush
Barack Obama
Robert LaFollette & Wisconsin Progressivism
Other Progressive & Feminist Leaders
21st Century America