Tag Archives: democratic values

Budget

Comrades, the Revolution

4 Comments

This is my first diary on Calitics, so please bear with me.  The legislature has now passed a budget deal.  This is a bad, bad, horrible, awful deal.  I will not discuss that deal further, as it prompts me to use language not suitable for mixed company. What it does tell me, and should tell anyone with a pulse, a brain, and a conscience, is that the two-thirds rule is a license to commit extortion.  Enough’s enough!

We must now move to next steps.  These are my ideas, but alternative suggestions are welcomed.  We should agree on our plan as a progressive community, and move forward.  We should all remember that “the perfect is the enemy of the good” and keep focused on the main prize — upholding progressive values.

My five point plan, coming up.

1.  Symbolic but necessary:  a resolution castigating Perata for blocking efforts to remove Denham and Maldonado last year.  Unilateral surrender is never an option.

2.  Defeating the open primary proposal in 2010.  Even if the plan itself is good on the merits (a debatable issue), we cannot give in to blackmail.

3.  Qualifying and passing a majority-rule initiative for June 2010.  Whether it’s a clean 50%+1, the August 1 proposal, Bass’ proposal, 55%, or some other option at this point is irrelevant.  We have to move the ball forward on this issue.

4.  Demand, I repeat DEMAND, that the party chair and the legislative leadership contest every single seat to the utmost.  Unilateral surrender is never an option.

5.  Start working now to elect a Democratic governor and more Democrats in both houses of the legislature.  We need to capture 2/3 in case the majority rule initiative fails.

Let’s go!

California

Maybe you just don’t work hard enough?

Republican precinct ‘targeted’ by Obama tax plan

Voters in Orange County’s second most GOP precinct complain that Obama tax proposal would spare others by hitting them with increases.

OC Register

This was the headline and lede that caught my attention when this little gem was published on October 22 of this year.  The Republicans in one of the most richest counties in America were playing the victimized rich card.  They are going to be victims of the Obama Presidency.

NEWPORT BEACH Janet Miedema feels like Barack Obama has put a big bull’s eye on her neighborhood.

…

In large measure, that’s because most here are the 5 percent of the population that make more than $250,000 and, would likely see their taxes rise under the Democrat’s tax plan.

I wasn’t kidding, was I?  Those who had profited the most in the last eight years are going to be victims of a progressive tax system.  Is this really such a travesty?

“The people I know here are working professionals,” said Ron Williams, after unloading Costco groceries from his Lincoln Navigator. “Attorneys, doctors, CPAs. Some are small business owners. They’re paying mortgages. They worked to get here.

“I come from a very poor family. When I hear how Barack Obama wants to spread the wealth, I want to say, ‘Get an education and work hard, and you can get what you want.'”

Yes, because if you aren’t making the kind of money this guy is making then you aren’t just working hard enough?  I found this one of the most insulting sentences I had read in many years.  

You see, my husband has a Ph.D. and teaches at a Community College.  He’s highly educated and he put himself through school with no help from his family.  He’s worked hard and yet he will never make as much money as these people do.  So, I guess he’s just not working hard enough.

But what about the teachers in Newport Beach?


Teachers in the Newport-Mesa Unified School District expressed mixed feelings about the tentative agreement between the district and teachers union, with some praising the salary increase while others called it insufficient.

On Tuesday, the district and union ended six months of negotiations with a plan that would give teachers an extra 1% retroactive pay raise for this year, followed by a total 19% increase over the next three years. The union’s goal, spelled out in its 1999 contract, is to bring teacher salaries between the mean and the 75th percentile for unified districts in Orange County.

Daily Pilot

1% pay increase in one of the richest counties and cities in America for the people who teach their children.

Median Salary by Employer Type – City: Newport Beach (United States)

Source

So according to this salary site, teachers in the Newport-Mesa Unified School district aver $48,000 a year.  In fact, none of these median incomes are close to $250,000 and wouldn’t even reach that when you consider a combined income.  So are all these people not working hard enough?  The people in our hospitals?  Those who care for and teach our children?

Now granted, this is the “median” income and I’m sure that with the upper levels of these professions the $250,000 is easy to meet.  But what?  Isn’t that adjusted gross income?  Yes.  So, still it’s hard for two people, working at the top of these industries to make the $300,000 to $350,000 that would be most effected by Obama’s tax plan.

And as we all know, the number of people at the top is most likely smaller than those bunched around the median number.  This is not an average.

And this is the myth that the rich in our Country continue to push, that if you just work hard enough, you too can be rich like me.  But as we know, everyday people work hard, very hard to just make ends meet, to just put food on the table for their families and to meet their modest monthly expenses.  They are working hard too.

And of course, this is why I’m a Democrat.  Hard work is valuable at every level of our economy and that every job keeps all of us going.  I pine for the day where the man who dig ditches is just as honorable a profession as the one who heals the sick.  The irony in the Republican line of bullshit is that well, it’s just not true.  They don’t value hard work, they value money over people.  

Money over people.  Just as we see in our failed health insurance industry, bottom line over human beings.  

I know in the last six months I’ve given up being humble and have taken the stance that not only is being liberal the right thing to be but the morally superior thing to be.  I gave up in trying to apologize for those who wish to keep everyone feeling as if their work just isn’t good enough.  That their contribution to society is just not important enough.

And the irony of it all?  That in Orange County, many of the people who work hard everyday and fail to make six figures salaries are registered Republicans.   And they bought the line that Obama wants to take their hard work away from them, they bought it big.

So how can we employ a workable model in this County to show these average working men and women that the Republican party isn’t really looking out for them.  The Republicans who blocked tax hikes in the State Legislature were merely protecting those who made $300,000 or more (That was the cut off for raising taxes on income when the budget was being obstructed by many of the Republicans who represent the OC).

They signed pledges that they wouldn’t raise taxes, no matter what, they wouldn’t raise taxes.  But just who are they protecting?  Many of the Republicans who are proud to have their children in their public schools were asked to write checks to the School District to cover the gaping hole that the budget cuts were going to leave their schools.  Yes.  That’s not a tax?


I, __________, pledge to the taxpayers of the ___ district of the State of _______ and to all the people of this state, that I will oppose and vote against any and all efforts to increase taxes.

So again, who bears the burden of the costs?  Those who can least afford it of course!  Those districts with higher populations of the poor can’t ask for huge checks to their district.  They just find that they fall even further by the wayside in funding.  So, public schools, the place where all should be seen as equal, fails on every level possible for the sake of protecting those who can afford to send their kids to private schools.

How do these people even keep their jobs?  How do Republicans, who only stand in the way of funding the many important services that Republicans and Democrats alike depend on keep their jobs!?!?!?!

They don’t have to put forth a solution; they don’t have to put forth ideas to really solve the budget crisis or the revenue issue.  There are concrete things Republicans can do to help how the budget is allocated to schools, etc. by guaranteeing that when a line item in a budget is not spent, rather than reverting back to the general fund and that piece of the budget being cut for the following year, they could reward those who stay on budget and have a surplus at the end of the year.  But no, that would be a real solution.  They would have to do something.

Of course this is personal to me.  Not only did my husband, Gary Pritchard, run for state senate but we are facing our own hardships in this economy.  I guess we just don’t work hard enough?

I found myself facing a chronic illness that has made it difficult for me to work my forty hours a week.  But since Gary’s student loans have gone up in their payments, our house has lost $150,000 in value and our credit cards have been maxed to make ends meet, I can’t cut my hours back.

I have even explored the possibility of modifying our mortgage to allow me to work less hours.  Did you know that you have to have a debt to income ratio of 70% before they will even consider you a hardship?  Since our debt is only 50% (Granted, this did not include student loans and credit card debt or afterschool care costs)we are not doing badly enough.

I do know that, I know we are the lucky ones (we have health care that covers mostly everything we need covered) and we both still have our jobs.  But to consider $1,300 enough to cover expenses in Orange County is quite absurd (heating, electricty, water, trash, food, gas, insurance, etc).  I guess it continues to be that wallstreet still has no clue about mainstreet and Republicans still have no idea who they serve.  Joe six pack doesn’t make this kind of money and neither does Joe the plumber.

So when are people going to stop letting those who, yes, who have worked just as hard as they, think that the trickle down is enough to reward the hard work of those who are in the “median”?

I know I’m preaching to the choir.  I know that I’m not telling you anything that you don’t already know but I still can’t help be find myself frustrated knowing that there are millions more who are suffering far worse than anything my own family is going through and there are people out there who think they just aren’t working hard enough.

This is the divide we face.  This is the class warfare that the right has been imposing upon the people in their quest to divide and conquer and it’s worked well until Obama made it impossible to keep lying as they do.  Nice huh?  

So we continue to fight, we continue to fight for those who don’t even agree with us but we want to fight for their rights too and their hard work so that it’s not taken and siphoned up to large corporations and industries that don’t have to follow the model the Republicans set forth.  (Oh, don’t get me started on the toll roads that most can’t afford to take asking for a billion dollar bailout).

So, I’m going to keep fighting for Orange County and for all of those who work hard everyday.  EVERDAY, no matter what it is they do.  I just ask that you help Gary and I try to retire our debt from our campaign.  

Thanks for reading.

Uncategorized

How Dignity Could Give Democrats an Electoral Mandate

Democrats are divided over whether appealing to the moderate center or galvanizing their progressive base is the better strategy. Given the public’s declining confidence in Republican leadership, either strategy may enable Democrats to win at the polls. But neither approach will give them the electoral mandate required to govern effectively and retain the public’s support once they’re in office.

Fortunately, choosing between these two strategies is unnecessary. There is an alternative to left-right politics and by adopting it Democrats can remain true to progressive principles while attracting millions of voters from the non-ideological middle.

The step beyond the “New Deal,” the “Fair Deal,” and the “Great Society” is a “Dignitarian Society.” The slogan is Dignity For All.

What does this mean in practical terms? How would we translate it into legislation? In a word, what is the platform for the party that champions a dignitarian society?

Before answering this question, I want to qualify my answer. While it’s tempting to guess at what others would want, that’s contrary to the spirit of the dignitarian process–which requires asking the people whose lives are affected what they want.

So, with this proviso, I’ll simply indicate the kind of legislation that I personally would expect from my congressional representatives if they want my vote. I hope others will add to this list, which is only a start:

* Compensation for my labor that enables my family to live with dignity.

* Access to quality education for family regardless of our financial circumstances.

* Affordable basic and specialized health care for my family.

* A system for funding campaigns that enjoins lawmakers to put the public’s interests above special interests. Incumbents should be barred from using the power inherent in their position to gain an unfair advantage over challengers.

* Protection of my privacy and autonomy against unwarranted intrusion from my fellow citizens or the government.

* An equitable tax policy. The word “equitable” acquires meaning through national dialogue. What we agree to be fair is fair, until we change our minds. Periodic renegotiation occurs in the form of a democratic political process that gives electoral weight to the interests of every citizen, no exceptions. This means devising a way to give electoral weight to the interests of those too young to cast their own ballots. The interests of one-third of Americans (those under 18) are unrepresented in the electoral process. As the electorate ages, the result will be calcification and national sclerosis.

* A national defense that deters would-be aggressors and defeats them if they mount an attack, and international policies that avoid giving the kind of offense to others that incites their revenge.

* Participation in global treaties that foster international security and environmental sustainability.

More important than any of these particulars is to elect candidates who are committed to searching for political and economic models that protect the dignity of all. We shouldn’t expect our political representatives to be more dignitarian than we are. If we ourselves presume ideological or moral superiority, our politicians will simply mirror one or another brand of it back to us in an ongoing attempt to find favor with a majority of voters. The result will be more of the same — uncivil stalemate and toxic stagnation.

A dignitarian society has no room for a permanent underclass. It disallows prejudice and discrimination toward all the groups that have rallied around the various flags of identity politics. It transforms the stalemate over abortion and gay marriage into a civil discussion of whose rights to dignity are being abridged. It proclaims everyone’s right to a sustainable environment.

What causes people to experience indignity? The precise and universal cause of indignity is the abuse of power. Make a list of the most distressing issues of recent years: corporate corruption, the lobbying scandals, the Katrina catastrophe, sexual abuse by clergy, Abu Ghraib, domestic spying, etc. Every one of them can be traced to an abuse of power by individuals of rank. Often the abuses had the blessing of people of even higher rank.

To effectively oppose the full range of abuses of power vested in rank, we need a word that identifies them collectively. Abuse and discrimination based on color and gender are called “racism” and “sexism,” respectively, and absent these labels, it’s hard to imagine the gains we’ve made against them. By analogy, abuse and discrimination based on the power inherent in rank is “rankism.” This word provides a vitalizing link between the methods of identity politics and the moral values of democratic governance. Having a generic name for abuses of power makes them much easier to target, and targeting them is precisely what’s called for to yield the political realignment that will make governing — as distinct from winning office — possible.

Dignitarian politics respects the free market as an inherently anti-rankist economic mechanism, but tempers market forces with institutions of social responsibility that insure that concentrations of financial power are not turned to monopolistic exploitation or used to gain unearned educational or political advantages. You shouldn’t have to be rich to attend quality schools, or command a fortune to stand for office.

A dignitarian society provides genuine equality of opportunity. In a dignitarian society, loss of social mobility, let alone division into master and servant classes, is unacceptable. There’s a way out of poverty within a generation in a dignitarian society. It’s a society where the American dream is alive and well and a beacon to humankind as it has long been.

It was the Democratic Party that championed the “New Deal” and the “Great Society,” and in both cases it won a mandate from voters that enabled Congress to deliver on these promises. By advocating a dignitarian Society that overcomes rankism, Democrats can once again preside over the political realignment necessary to advance liberty and justice and dignity for all.

Uncategorized

A Dignitarian Manifesto

When it comes to politics, new language and new thinking are different things. Whatever new language progressives used in 2004 failed to change the electoral outcome, and at most it’ll help them eke out a few victories in the coming years. New language is like changing the window treatment, not the window, not the view, not the perspective.

What’s required for social change, and it could come from either party, is the kind of political realignment we get once every 50 years. Such realignment pulls a sizeable majority from the vast non-ideological, sensible middle of the political spectrum, and creates a real mandate for fundamental social change. Like those that FDR and LBJ presided over. Like the universal health care and campaign finance reform that we need now.

America may well be approaching another such tipping point. To actually tip, we need a core unifying idea to rally around, and equally we need a name for the situation we’ll no longer put up with. For the unifying idea I suggest the slogan “Dignity For All.” (The bumper sticker goes ‘Dignity4All’ and they’re being created by a woman in Kansas.) The constellation of behaviors and practices “up with which we will not put” all fall under the heading of rankism.

Rankism is defined as abuse of the power inherent in rank. It’s the culprit. It’s the cause of indignity. It’s the source of the most vexing political problems troubling Americans, from Katrina to Abu Ghraib to corporate corruption to bought politicians and elections. But most disturbingly, it is the cause of the emergence of an entrenched class locked in permanent poverty. America without the American Dream is not America … and the Dream is fast becoming a mirage. This trend must be reversed, and it’s going to take once-a-generation political realignment to do it.

The goal then is to build a dignity movement that provides grassroots support for democracy to make its next evolutionary step. In the sixties the step we needed was to overcome racism; in the seventies we trained our sights on sexism; now the challenge is to target rankism—in all its guises. And they are many: bully bosses, sexually abusive clerics, professors who “borrow” research results from graduate students or exploit them as assistants, politicians who threaten privacy and liberty, condescending doctors, arrogant bureaucrats, coaches who humiliate players. Wherever there is a hierarchy, it’s susceptible to abuse by power-holders of high rank.

But neither rank nor hierarchy are inherently, necessarily abusive. Actually, we admire, even love, people who earn high rank and handle it with grace and respect for those they outrank. What we cannot abide, what causes indignity, is abuse of rank. In a word, rankism. And we do need a word. It wasn’t until the women’s movement had the word “sexism” at its disposal that it made the gains it’s now known for: equal pay for equal work; the right to choose; Title IX, etc.

To bring about social change, it’s not enough to know what you’re for; you also have to know what you’re against. The dignity movement is for a dignitarian (not a faceless egalitarian) society and it is against rankism.

That’s it in a nutshell. Like any far-reaching analysis of social justice, the full story is a longer, more complex one. This web site is a primer on the dignity movement. There’s a 1 minute video for those in a hurry. The full treatment (interpersonal and institutional rankism and how to confront them) can be found in my book All Rise.

The goal is to make rankism as defendable as racism has become, which is to say, not very. It didn’t used to affect your career advancement to be identified as racist or sexist, but now it stops you in your tracks. As the dignity movement gains momentum, it will be equally disadvantageous to be known as rankist. If you’re interested in joining the movement to help us bring that day closer, please let us know.

Economy

Set a spell, Congress. we’ve got a couple things to chat about…

This past week, much to everyone’s surprise, Democrats in the House of Representatives managed to slip a proposal to increase the minimum wage into a bill funding the Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services.

Faced with the specter of having to vote against increasing the wage floor from its current embarrassing level of $5.15 to $7.25 by Jan. 1, 2009, Congressional Republicans snapped into action and pulled the bill.

This is what these brave souls do in election season when they don’t want to have to go back to their districts and answer questions as to why it’s ok to cut hundreds of billions in rich people’s taxes but deny the working poor a boost.

Well, I say: “Not so fast, guys.  Let’s chat about this for a few minutes.”

Not let me get this straight.  Last month, you passed $70 billion worth of new tax cuts, mostly by extending earlier Bush cuts on dividends and capital gains.  When tax cuts target investment income, the benefits flow to the wealthy, and these cuts are exhibit A: they reduce millionaire’s tax payments by $43,000, and those of middle-income families by $20.  Sorry, that’s not a typo.  It’s what you get when you put the YOYOs in charge of fiscal policy.

Wait a second, where you going?  I’m not done.  Set a spell…

After you finished that master stroke, you came alarmingly close to repealing the estate tax, a gift to the Paris Hilton’s of the world that would have cost $1 trillion over 10 years.  A few stalwarts blocked you, but you’re sure to be getting back to this one first chance you get.

Other than that, let’s see…you made a lot of noise about gay marriage and flag burning, and you guys in the House just passed the Iraq War Resolution supporting the administration on Iraq and rejecting the setting of a date for troop withdrawal.

Oh, and you raised your own pay by $3,300.  In fact, you’ve raised your own salaries by about $35,000 since the last minimum wage increase.

But when it comes to raising the minimum wage, you pull the bill.

Let’s review a few facts.  The Federal minimum wage has been stuck at $5.15 since September 1, 1997.  Come this December, you will tie the longest spell on record for ignoring the labor market’s wage floor (i.e., the Reagan years, from 1981 to 1990, when Bush I signed an increase).  And since it is not adjusted for inflation, its buying power has eroded by 25% since then.

That’s why the current minimum wage, in real terms, is at its lowest value since 1955.  Compared to the average wage, it’s at 31%, the lowest level on record going back to 1947, meaning those stuck at or near the minimum wage are falling further behind the rest of us.

As always, your rationale for not raising the minimum is that it would hurt low-wage workers, whose employers would have to fire them when the wage mandate priced them out of the labor market (one can’t help but note that this concern doesn’t come up when you mandate your own pay hikes).

That would be a plausible argument, were it not for the fact that tons of careful research has disproved it.  The federal minimum wage has been raised 19 times by Congress since its introduction in 1938.  Eighteen states, covering about half of the national workforce, have minimum wages above that of the Federal level.  And over 100 cities have living wages—a higher minimum that applies to workers on city contracts or at firms with local government subsidies. 

In other words, more than any economic policy, we’ve had hundreds of “pseudo-experiments”—rare in economics—that allow us to test the impact of wage mandates on various outcomes.  These experiments allow us to compare before and after, or, even better, compare nearby places that face similar economic conditions but have different minimum wage laws.

The question that has received the most scrutiny is whether increases in the minimum wage lead employers to lay workers off.  You probably don’t want to hear the results from me, but here’s how Nobel laureate in economics, Robert Solow, put it: “The main thing about this research is that the evidence of job loss is weak. And the fact that the evidence is weak suggests that the impact on jobs is small.”

A great example comes from the last Federal minimum wage increase, back in 1996-97.  The usual suspects predicted massive job losses among those affected by the increase from $4.25 to the current level of $5.15.  Instead, low-wage workers experienced the strongest job market in 30 years.  Poverty fell to historic lows, particularly for the most disadvantaged workers, such as less-skilled minorities and single-mothers. 

On the other hand, there no such body of evidence supporting your claims that cutting taxes for the rich actually accomplishes anything beyond distributing wealth up to the scale.  Did I mention that profits as a share of national income are at a 39-year high?

Now, don’t get me wrong.  I’m not implying for a nanosecond that an increase in the minimum wage would offset the damage you guys have done over the past few years.  In that scheme of things, raising the pay of about seven million low-wage workers by less than two bucks is a token gesture which you will hopefully be forced to make so you can show your faces again in public.

But it would make an important difference to those workers, so you should do it.  The fact that I even have to argue with you about it is what’s so painful.

Uncategorized

Dignity—A Unifying Value for American Politics

Both political parties know that a unifying core value expressed in a pithy slogan translates into votes. FDR’s Democrats had “The New Deal”; LBJ’s party advanced “The Great Society.” Republicans rally to “lower taxes,” “smaller government,” “strong defense,” and “family values.”

What core value, what slogan, could move us beyond the toxic standoff that paralyzes American politics today?

The answer lies in a single word—Dignity.

This core value takes wings on the inclusive slogan: “Dignity For All.” The bumper sticker reads “Dignity4All,” and it will soon begin appearing on cars across America.

The idea of a universal right to dignity may at first seem too simple to pull together the disparate elements of this divided nation, but it’s not. Dignity is what people want, on the left, on the right, and most importantly, in the vast, non-ideological middle.

Dignity is not negotiable. People will stand up for their dignity, and once they’re on their feet, it’s usually not long before they’re marching for justice.

Two hundred years of bloody world history have shown that there is no direct path from Liberty to Justice. But if we interpose a steppingstone, we can build a bridge to justice. The name of that stone is not “Equality,” it’s “Dignity.” By establishing the right to dignity, and then enacting legislation that protects everyone’s dignity equally, we can give concrete meaning to Thomas Jefferson’s evocative claim that “All men are created equal.”

A “dignitarian society” pulls together what’s best from the three broad strands of civic culture dominating politics since the French Revolution—Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity. The polarizing stranglehold these ideals exert on the contemporary imagination, when any one is prioritized over the others, is a major source of the incivility that infects our politics today.

Conservatives see themselves as Liberty’s defenders; progressives pride themselves as the champions of equality. Both parties promise Fraternity, but neither delivers it.

Dignity is more encompassing than Liberty, Equality, or Fraternity. It’s the missing link that when restored will yield an electoral mandate to make good on America’s founding promise of “liberty and justice for all.”

The politics of dignity puts the “We” back in “We the People.” It spans the conservative-liberal divide. It closes the ideological fissures that separate libertarian, egalitarian, and fraternitarian ideologies and breaks the stalemate that has stalled the advance of justice since the 1960s.

A dignitarian society does not tolerate indignity—towards anyone. When this principle is translated into policy, it rules out acceptance of a permanent underclass. It disallows prejudice and discrimination toward all the groups that have rallied around the various flags of identity politics. It transforms the stalemate over abortion and gay marriage into a civil discussion of whose rights to dignity are being abridged. It proclaims everyone’s right to a sustainable environment.

Like liberty and justice, dignity is most easily defined in the negative. As a precursor to banishment or enslavement, we’re all attuned to pick up on the slightest hint of indignity.

What causes people to experience indignity? The precise and universal cause of indignity is the abuse of power. Make a list of the most distressing issues of recent years: corporate corruption, the Katrina catastrophe, sexual abuse by clergy, Abu Ghraib, domestic spying, etc. Every one of them can be traced to an abuse of power by individuals of high rank. Often the abuses had the blessing of people of even higher rank.

To effectively oppose the full range of abuses of power vested in rank, we need a word that identifies them collectively. Abuse and discrimination based on color and gender are called “racism” and “sexism,” respectively. By analogy, abuse and discrimination based on the power inherent in rank is “rankism.” This coinage provides a vitalizing link between the methods of identity politics and the moral values of democratic governance. Having a generic name for abuses of power makes them much easier to target, and targeting them is precisely what’s called for if democracy is to resume its evolution.

However principled the cause, no party can present itself as a champion of dignity so long as its members reserve the right either to indulge in rankism. This includes treating political opponents with indignity. Humiliation and condescension—toward domestic opponents or foreign enemies—are inherently rankist postures, and as such they have no place in a dignitarian society.

How would a society that makes dignity its linchpin differ from ones shaped by ideologies that accentuate liberty, equality, or fraternity? The difference is one of nuance, not opposition, for a dignitarian society combines the strengths of all three traditions.

A dignitarian society promotes individual freedom, while at the same time tempering the uninhibited free market with institutions of social responsibility that insure that economic power does not confer unwarranted educational or political advantages. For example, you shouldn’t have to be rich to attend good schools, or command a fortune to stand for office.

A dignitarian society provides genuine equality of opportunity. In a dignitarian society, loss of social mobility, let alone division into master and servant classes, is unacceptable. There’s a way out of poverty in a dignitarian society. Everyone earns a living wage and has access to quality health care.

The politics of dignity sees democracy as a work in progress. Democracy’s next step—one that will enlarge liberty, deliver justice, and foster fraternity—is to overcome rankism and build a dignitarian society.

Dignity is an idea whose time has come. The party that takes dignity as its core value can mobilize the energy not merely to win at the polls, but to win with a mandate to fulfill our nation’s implicit promise of “Dignity For All.”