Forum:Declaration of Progressive Values
From Campaigns Wikia
I have found the following which I propose as a philosophical statement in support of progressive reform of the governmental/political process {ie. a rational response to the current governmental paradigm}.
The Declaration of Progressive Values
1- Patriotism- I am a loyal patriotic American citizen who loves the United States of America
2- Justice- I fully respect and abide by our country’s Constitution and Bill of Rights
3- Service- I voluntarily serve my nation, state, and community
4- Citizenship- I believe that positive citizenship in everyday life is a civic duty
5- Democracy- I believe our government is truly legitimate only if it is "of the people, by the people, for the people"
6= Freedom- I believe that no man’s freedom is secure until everyone’s freedom is fully protected
7- Openness- I believe healthy democracy requires informed citizens, so government must work in transparency, not secrecy
8- Peace- I believe that our best defense in a non-aggressive foreign policy that spreads global equality and human rights by moral example
9- Opportunity- I believe the greatness of any society is measured by how it treats those who are more vulnerable and disadvantaged
10- Faith- I believe all forms of worship should be honored and respected, and I believe in the separation of church and state
11- Truth- I believe that human reason and reality-based science are God-given gifts that help reveal the wonders of the universe
12- Individualism- I have absolute respect for human diversity and I defend the right to be different
13- Stewardship- I am committed to protecting the planet Earth and preserving our natural environment for the health and enjoyment of all generations----
[edit] Questions and Answers
I have a couple of questions about the progressive platform. Admittedly I have an agenda.
- Assuming that we have a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" (#5) And assuming that one of #6's 'freedoms' is the right to privacy, would it be unfair to say that in some instances a government made up of people could have a collective right to privacy, thus coming into conflict with #7?
- I would say no for 99% of subjects. Right now, everything under the sun is being withheld from public view due to "National Security", while the current administration is pulling the rug out from under our security in the first place. (my opinion, anyway). I think the only way that we can have a government of, by and for the people is if the people have access to the information they need to make a good decision. Chadlupkes 19:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've never specifically labeled myself 'progressive', but I agree with the points above almost completely and have been lumped into the same 'damn liberal extremist' category as Chad, so I thought I'd give this a whack.
- The government is not a man, nor a woman, nor an individual of any kind. Government is a system of powers and responsibilities imbued on an individual or individuals. In the case of a democratic republic like the United States, they are imbued on citizens (who run for office), by citizens (who vote for them), for citizens (specifically their constituents, whose will they are elected to represent). The individuals of whom the government is comprised have a right to privacy in their capacity as individuals, but the government, which is comprised of people acting in the capacity of that system, has no such right. The powers and responsibilities imbued on the members of a government belong to those who imbue them, and those individuals have the right to know how they are being used. The people cannot be expected to imbue that power without as much knowledge as possible about how that imbuement (is that a word?) will be used. --whosawhatsis? 09:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- Would you extend #12 to support extreme liberal, conservative, or hateful views, for instance Nazism, Stalinism, or racism?
- At their core, Liberal, Conservative, Nazism & Stalinism represent a moral framework for how people should act. I don't have a problem with that moral framework being presented so people can evaluate it, because I have confidence that in the normal state of affairs they won't get any support. However, hate speech or racism are social diseases and need to be treated as such. As Mr. T says, pity the fool is better than pounding the fool. Chadlupkes 19:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Voltaire wrote, "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." An individual has a right to hold any beliefs he wants. He does not have the right to act on those beliefs in ways that violate the rights of others. Democracy is based on the assumption that opposing extremist minorities will cancel one-another out, leaving a majority whose beliefs represent the best interest of the population at large. It doesn't always work, (resulting in segregation and other forms of tyranny of the majority), but historically, these problems work themselves out over the generations, each one being more open-minded than the last (is that where the term 'progressive' comes from?). --whosawhatsis? 09:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- Would you continue to support #8 in the middle of, for instance, threat of a nuclear strike?
- #8 is an ideal. It should be the goal and dream, and something to strive for. I don't object to having a military, but the use of the military should be minimal. In the case of a nuclear threat, I would approve of taking out the capability of the threat while minimizing casualties. If there's a missile on the pad, knock out the missile before it launches or while it's in the air. If we have to play to people's egos to get them not to push the red button, do it. Specifically on North Korea, I think direct talks are necessary, if for no other reason than to calm the guy down. Chadlupkes 19:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- A government has the responsibility to protect the rights of its citizens. It should not use its power for acts of aggression that will create threats to those rights, but in the case of an immediate threat (an invading army, or the high-tech equivalent), it must use that power to protect them. --whosawhatsis? 09:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- Is mentioning God in a political platform (#11) inconsistent with a separation of church and state (#10)?
- No. The creator was mentioned in the Declaration of Independence and I believe the Preamble of the Constitution. Whether that creator is referenced by individuals as God, Jesus, or Mom, it doesn't matter to a platform, especially a list of values statements like this. Chadlupkes 19:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- This was one of the few problems I had with the statements above. Phrases like "God-given" are often used in ways that are not meant to refer specifically to the Judeo-Christian deity, but I would prefer a word like innate, intrinsic, or inalienable. --whosawhatsis? 09:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Don't infer my political views from my questions; some of these points I actually agree with. I'm merely playing devil's advocate ;) Compaqdrew 13:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- How can our government be "of the people" instead of "of a certain class of people" when only a select few are capable (monetarily) of even running for office?
- Any particular avenue for people to get engaged, educated and empowered to make the changes they wish to see in their world can be considered the answer. Campaigns Wikia, the Internet and any media can only be a part of that process.
- In answer to the question, it's the responsibility of citizens to not let any door shut in their face, and it's the responsibility of everyone in authority to never shut the door in anyone's face. (Metahorically speaking.) Our government is what we make it to be, and the best thing we can do is learn how to leverage our influence on that government. Chadlupkes 18:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
