Wisconsin's Second District: A Wealth Of Progressives To Pick From-- Guest Post From Kelda Helen Roys

With Tammy Baldwin going off to represent the whole state of Wisconsin in the Senate, her very Democratic Madison-based House district (62% for Kerry and 69% for Obama) is up for grabs. The two top contenders, Mark Pocan and Kelda Helen Roys, are both well-regarded, progressive state reps. It's very difficult to know who to root for. When I ask people I know in Madison, they're divided too-- sometimes passionately. Kelda wrote the guest post below for DWT. I hope it sheds some light. You can find more about her at her campaign site. -- Howie

Expanding Our Definition of Progressive

by Rep. Kelda Helen Roys

Here, the spirit of “Fighting Bob" La Follette lives on. Here, hundreds of thousands of citizens took to the wintry streets for weeks to defend collective bargaining rights. Here, Blue Dogs don't bark. Madison, Wisconsin, and the surrounding counties make up one of the most progressive and active constituencies in the nation, and I am running to represent it in Congress.

Wisconsin's 2nd District is blessed with strong liberal voters, which makes it a great district for an outspoken, progressive advocate like me. Moreover, we have a proud legacy as one of the birthplaces of progressive thought, having sent both La Follette and Rep. Tammy Baldwin to represent us in Washington. So, rather than running against a right-wing conservative, I have to run against several other good Democrats. All of us are “good progressives” by traditional standards-- in Congress, we'd probably vote the same way far more often than not.

My time serving with good progressives in the legislature and as a statewide pro-choice advocate has led me to conclude that being a reliable progressive vote on the issues is no longer enough. Indeed, simply asking candidates to answer an issue questionnaire or check boxes about their positions cannot begin to deliver the structural changes our political system requires.

We need a new definition of progressive-- one that doesn't stop at a candidate's position on core values, but demands a progressive approach to politics-- one that puts our values into action in the political sphere.

The national progressive movement must focus on supporting candidates who will not only vote the right way to change our laws, but work to change our political system itself for the better.

Corporate-Free Campaigns

How should we define a progressive approach to politics? First, it must address the root cause of our current political dysfunction-- the dominance of corporate money in politics. It's a much-lamented but rarely acted-upon fact that big money fuels every aspect of our political process, from campaigns to lawmaking to enforcement. The system is rigged in favor of the rich and powerful at the expense of the rest of us, and those entrenched power structures make meaningful change-- and action-- nearly impossible. We must change how we fund our campaigns, and stop excusing this corrupt system by saying, “Well, the other guys do it too.” How can we as progressive activists expect change when our 'progressive leaders' are chasing the same corporate PAC money as Blue Dogs and Republicans? A progressive approach to politics should start by calling on candidates to forgo any corporate PAC dollars. Further, candidates should vigorously work toward full public financing of campaigns and to overturn the abominable Citizens United Supreme Court decision.

Movement Building Instead of Deal Making

Elected leaders often think their job is to issue press releases, make floor speeches, and make deals with legislators and lobbyists. Progressive policies will never become law if they're constantly being traded away by our so-called progressive politicians. When Democrats fail to stand up for Democratic values, we should no longer accept excuses like, "Well, it's better than what you'd get from the Republicans." Too often, elected officials would rather denigrate the progressive base and make excuses for why their goals weren't realistic than actually engage in work to realize those goals. Sustained change is only possible if we build broad, issue-based movements for social change and justice. Leaders should see ourselves as champions of and participants in these movements-- and to be responsive to their demands. We should build momentum for movements, among the broader public, and invest our time and political capital in advancing progressive values in the marketplace of ideas. This means being active in community and issue organizations, developing the next generation of progressive leaders, and helping disenfranchised people have a seat at the table of power.

Exercising Power

The third component of a progressive approach to politics revolves around the answer to the question: “What would you do if you had the power?” Is a policy good enough simply because it is better than what Republicans offered? When we as progressive leaders have the opportunity to set the agenda, we should push for the boldest change we can-- not just what a reasonable moderate would see as politically possible. For instance, a progressive approach to health care reform would have begun with single payer, and then perhaps ended with a public option. It is our responsibility to set the terms of the debate. We need to bring the center to us rather than giving comfort to the false notion that the right answer can always be found in the political middle. There are plenty of moderate and conservative Democrats out there, eager to compromise and capitulate-- they cannot be allowed to set the parameters of debate.

Integrity of Action

Finally, a true progressive leader must be willing to take risks and be bold. The standard is not whether something is politically feasible, or electorally advantageous, but whether it is the right thing to do. She should be willing to lose her seat to stand up for what is right. When legislative leaders or the media dismiss an idea, or corporate power brokers make threats, he must have the fortitude and integrity to do what is right against the odds. Ultimately, each of the above elements - "walking the walk" when it comes to corporate money, helping build progressive movements, and exercising power for progressive ends-- is about integrity. Leadership demands nothing less.

My call for a expanding our definition of what it means to be a progressive elected official is in some ways borne of frustration-- my own frustration about a lack of strong progressive leadership that, in part, spurred my decision to run for Congress. I know many of those who care passionately about building a progressive world share similar concerns, and seek greater accountability from our elected leaders. While I have set forth these few criteria as central to our success as progressives, no doubt there are many more we ought to consider-- if you accept the premise that it is no longer enough to just be a "good" vote on the issues. I am eager to hear your thoughts, and to work together to build a vibrant, powerful, and effective progressive future.