I call it the Doctrow Doctrine, after Cory Doctrow: "Progressives stand against the world being run by all the power and money accumulated in about 150 people. Liberals are OK with that, as long as the 150 have representation from every minority."
When Bill Clinton signed off on all that financial deregulation that led to 10 million jobs lost in a Global Financial Crisis, you can see a liberal that is not progressive at work. The Bernie/Pelosi divide in their current system is between liberal progressives and liberals that are not progressive. Biden was getting too progressive for them, recently.
You can see how the Blue States are run by Liberals that are not Progressive.
I remember that article, and my dissatisfaction with it. Heath's argument is founded on the notion that buses are for poor people; that promoting buses, rather than trains, is vote-losing socialism.
Heath's arguments could be turned swiftly to support for private medical care and schools, so that there could be a "liberty to choose" position that on the right, and a vote-losing, socialist "give money to the poor for medicine and school" position on the left. I think he'd have a tough time parsing out how his views on buses and cars didn't mean THAT, also.
His argument also failed for me on the assumption that you are moving away from "efficiency" to go left. But a high-transit city may have lower transportation costs in grand sum total than a poor-transit city; as the rich subsidize the buses, they are also taking cars off their own crowded roads, reducing congestion more efficiently than spending more on lanes. Heath completely misses the self-interested reason for the rich to pay for transit, just as so many missed the reason lower-income Londoners would want an expensive congestion tax: London got quieter.
"Heath's argument is founded on the notion that buses are for poor people; that promoting buses, rather than trains, is vote-losing socialism."
To the extent that bus service improves efficiency (which it certainly does!), that's a centrist argument rather than a left argument.
According to Heath, Olivia Chow's 2014 campaign was trying to appeal to voters on the left by pitching bus-service improvements as altruistic (it'll help people who need help), rather than trying to appeal to voters in the middle by pitching them as efficiency-improving (it's the workhorse of the transit system and it's good for everyone). From the introduction to her 2014 platform: https://www.scribd.com/document/241816409/Olivia-Chow-Mayoral-Platform
"I met a woman and new Canadian at the bus stop this past winter named Maria. A full bus had passed by and she was worried about getting to work, getting her paycheque and keeping her job. She was worried about earning enough money for her daughter’s baby sitter. She was worried about having time to get groceries for her family’s dinner. She was worried about the prospects of her son, George, in trying to find a job. As she told me about her concerns, another full bus drove by, leaving her standing.
"When I entered this campaign, I asked myself: What can we do now, for a better future for tomorrow? What are the first steps we can take to get there? What is doable and what is pragmatic? Where can we get support on council to make progress for Maria and her family — and for all the families at the heart of our city?"
This is a great pitch for the 20-25% of voters who are progressive. But for voters who are thinking about how much their own life sucks, they want to know, how are you going to make *my* life better? (This is why I always talk about the healthcare system when I'm talking to older homeowners who are skeptical about new housing. Younger people can't afford to live here because housing is so scarce and expensive; so hospitals can't hire nurses and even doctors; so the healthcare system is under increasing strain. We need more nurses and doctors, and they need somewhere to live.)
For a broader argument about whether public services funded primarily by taxation are justifiable based on equality, community, or efficiency: "Three Normative Models of the Welfare State," Public Reason, 2011. https://www.publicreason.ro/articol/49
I call it the Doctrow Doctrine, after Cory Doctrow: "Progressives stand against the world being run by all the power and money accumulated in about 150 people. Liberals are OK with that, as long as the 150 have representation from every minority."
When Bill Clinton signed off on all that financial deregulation that led to 10 million jobs lost in a Global Financial Crisis, you can see a liberal that is not progressive at work. The Bernie/Pelosi divide in their current system is between liberal progressives and liberals that are not progressive. Biden was getting too progressive for them, recently.
You can see how the Blue States are run by Liberals that are not Progressive.
I like Joseph Heath's framework: equality (on the left), efficiency (in the centre), freedom (on the right). I think of Vancouver's housing shortage as primarily an efficiency problem, making everyone much worse off. https://induecourse.utoronto.ca/lessons-for-the-left-from-olivia-chows-faltering-campaign/
I remember that article, and my dissatisfaction with it. Heath's argument is founded on the notion that buses are for poor people; that promoting buses, rather than trains, is vote-losing socialism.
Heath's arguments could be turned swiftly to support for private medical care and schools, so that there could be a "liberty to choose" position that on the right, and a vote-losing, socialist "give money to the poor for medicine and school" position on the left. I think he'd have a tough time parsing out how his views on buses and cars didn't mean THAT, also.
His argument also failed for me on the assumption that you are moving away from "efficiency" to go left. But a high-transit city may have lower transportation costs in grand sum total than a poor-transit city; as the rich subsidize the buses, they are also taking cars off their own crowded roads, reducing congestion more efficiently than spending more on lanes. Heath completely misses the self-interested reason for the rich to pay for transit, just as so many missed the reason lower-income Londoners would want an expensive congestion tax: London got quieter.
"Heath's argument is founded on the notion that buses are for poor people; that promoting buses, rather than trains, is vote-losing socialism."
To the extent that bus service improves efficiency (which it certainly does!), that's a centrist argument rather than a left argument.
According to Heath, Olivia Chow's 2014 campaign was trying to appeal to voters on the left by pitching bus-service improvements as altruistic (it'll help people who need help), rather than trying to appeal to voters in the middle by pitching them as efficiency-improving (it's the workhorse of the transit system and it's good for everyone). From the introduction to her 2014 platform: https://www.scribd.com/document/241816409/Olivia-Chow-Mayoral-Platform
"I met a woman and new Canadian at the bus stop this past winter named Maria. A full bus had passed by and she was worried about getting to work, getting her paycheque and keeping her job. She was worried about earning enough money for her daughter’s baby sitter. She was worried about having time to get groceries for her family’s dinner. She was worried about the prospects of her son, George, in trying to find a job. As she told me about her concerns, another full bus drove by, leaving her standing.
"When I entered this campaign, I asked myself: What can we do now, for a better future for tomorrow? What are the first steps we can take to get there? What is doable and what is pragmatic? Where can we get support on council to make progress for Maria and her family — and for all the families at the heart of our city?"
This is a great pitch for the 20-25% of voters who are progressive. But for voters who are thinking about how much their own life sucks, they want to know, how are you going to make *my* life better? (This is why I always talk about the healthcare system when I'm talking to older homeowners who are skeptical about new housing. Younger people can't afford to live here because housing is so scarce and expensive; so hospitals can't hire nurses and even doctors; so the healthcare system is under increasing strain. We need more nurses and doctors, and they need somewhere to live.)
For an example of Joseph Heath making a strong centrist argument for public health insurance: "Privatization and demutualization," IRPP, 2004. https://policyoptions.irpp.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/assets/po/sovereignty-in-turmoil/heath.pdf
For a broader argument about whether public services funded primarily by taxation are justifiable based on equality, community, or efficiency: "Three Normative Models of the Welfare State," Public Reason, 2011. https://www.publicreason.ro/articol/49