In Matt Y's first response to Todd Gitlin's post on his Bulldozers and Big Tent book, artappraiser asks Matt for his forward agenda, if he's not fully pleased with Todd's:

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/bookclub/2007/sep/04/how_big_a_tent#comment-...

She didn't ask me, but I'll pitch in my two cents' anyway in response to her challenge.

I think the two biggest domestic priorities right now are UHC that cannot be taken away, and alternative energy. With a reasonably able communicator in the Oval Office and a pickup of a few extra seats in the Congress, it seems to me there is a chance to get action on both.

I simply don't see these as exclusively lefty issues in the least. On health care the median member of the public, and, even more importantly, the entire business community, knows the system is broken, along multiple dimensions. It's much worse than in 1993. The public has had the opportunity to see the Bush Administration and Republicans in Congress flail about fecklessly in the face of the deterioration.

It seems to me the biggest question mark on UHC is whether a well organized coalition of groups can be put together over the next year and a half, one which is prepared and committed to fight back aggressively by setting the record straight when the vested interests try to shoot it down. The absence so far of a large, active, and effective umbrella coalition of citizens' organizations committed to pushing UHC is baffling and troubling to me.

Alternative energy also is hardly a lefty issue at this point, even if it may have been stereotyped as such until fairly recently. This issue is easy to explain. A reasonably effective communicator in the Oval office should be able to make a powerful case for a Manhattan-type project, with measurable benchmarks, for reducing our dependence on imported oil.

Again, a major challenge is the weak institutional resources available and committed to mobilize against the special interests who will fight this effort. It doesn't help when advocates of various different kinds of alternative energy "magic bullets" fail to set aside their differences to work together for a bold objective with enough resources to have a good chance of success.

On immigration, I think a Democratic president would have to be willing to anger many Latino voters in particular to get something done. The outlines of a grand bargain, entailing putting resident illegal immigrants on a clear path towards citizenship, and much enhanced border security through bolstered physical borders and/or a national ID card, seem reasonably clear. There's plenty there to anger just about everyone.

I hope Democrats do not begin with this issue, however. I am well aware many Democrats do not think it is the right thing to do to move in this direction and either are not troubled by current levels of illegal immigration or think the proposed measures are inherently much worse than the status quo. But your challenge--you've hit the nail on the head--is to articulate a forward-looking agenda with reasonable chances of enough support to be enacted. And that is pretty much where public opinion is on this question.

UHC may not get done in one step, although personally I favor trying, and compromising not on the commitment to universal coverage, but by agreeing to a somewhat more gradual phase-in to get there. One reason I would like to see single payer pushed is that I think it is easier to explain how this could work to reign in costs and ensure people have guaranteed coverage not tied to their jobs than alternative employer-based UHC proposals.

There will have to be restoration of greater progressivity in the tax burden. But I think it is likely to be easier to get that done if the need for it is linked explicitly to the pressing national priorities of UHC and energy.

On foreign policy getting out of Iraq, soon, again is not just what lefties want. At this point it is what the public wants.

As other priorities I hope the next Administration will:

*renew and reinvigorate nuclear nonproliferation and nuclear weapons reduction efforts, wherein the US would along with others also commit to getting rid of most of our nuclear weapons

*assert leadership on global warming

*get back to basics by rebuilding bridges with other nations through refocusing on al qaeda.

All challenging but mainstream stuff in terms of where public opinion is.

Developing enough institutional muscle to fight for and counter the special and vested interests who will fight this agenda could prove to be decisive.

Together these beginning initiatives communicate that the United States is a country which believes in its future as much as its past. Health insurance for all, not tied to one's job, says to the American people that its leaders are serious about having the backs of all Americans, whose efforts will build and create that better future with the help they deserve from their government.