News

Will the real Progressive please stand up?

With the living wage passed, Progressive Maryland faces questions over strategy

BY ETHAN GOFFMAN

With gloomy news showering down upon workers lately, July found Montgomery County with a rare piece of good news: $10.50 per hour.

If you work for projects funded by the county, that is now the minimum wage.

The living wage is a premier program advocated by Progressive Maryland (PM), an advocacy organization that lobbies for workers’ rights.

By identifying issues that appeal to basic fairness, the organization has been surprisingly successful in an atmosphere generally hostile to progressive issues. According to Tom Hucker, the organization’s Executive Director, PM succeeds by focusing on "issues that the public believes in but the politicians have yet to act on."

Yet in Montgomery County, and particularly Takoma Park, Progressive Maryland has its detractors, who question its strategy of supporting politicians who are likely to win, as opposed to those with more progressive platforms.

No one can doubt that PM is effective, and that its actions will help workers. After four years as Progressive Montgomery, the organization incorporated statewide in 2001.

"We started Progressive Maryland," Hucker explains, "after having numerous discussions with community groups and faith-based groups and labor unions who felt that there was a real vacuum at the state level, and no one who brought people together across race and class lines."

The living wage has been their flagship issue, with the basic principle that those who work full time are entitled to a decent life. With the minimum wage at an historic low and rental costs at historic highs, providing basic needs has become simply impossible for some families.

As the Progressive Maryland web page explains, "Most adults in poverty are working full time, and the rate of poverty is growing."

Many work multiple jobs; some work as much as 90 hours per week. Hucker believes that the government should hire contractors that work "to end poverty, not to support it."

For those concerned with the ability of the county to pay higher worker salaries at a time fiscal difficulties, there is more good news. According to a study by the Brennan Center for Justice, a living wage virtually pays for itself. The increase in city budgets where living wages have gone into effect ranges from 0.0 percent in Ypsilanti Township, Mich. to .079 percent in Berkeley, Calif.

Why? Hucker explains that low-wage jobs lead to tired, demoralized, and unproductive workers and high turnover rates, which guarantee low productivity. Paying workers decent wages is a keystone of demand-side economics, since those workers will then turn around and buy products.

Besides living wages, Progressive Maryland’s other key issues also appeal to a broad political spectrum while empowering working families. Its 2002 report, "Looting The Treasury: The Best Loopholes Money Can Buy In The Maryland State Tax Code," is a landmark in documenting why in Maryland (and many other states) low and middle income families pay a relatively higher tax rate than corporations and the wealthy.

The report has already been instrumental in spurring legislation that would have closed corporate tax loopholes; for instance, forcing Maryland businesses with New Hampshire mailing addresses, and little else there, to pay Maryland taxes.

Although Governor Ehrlich vetoed this legislation, the fact that it was initially passed is significant. As Hucker points out, "no one was talking about corporate loopholes before that report came out."

Progressive Maryland is also working on "clean money" legislation that would allow campaign financing through the state, similar to statutes already enacted in Maine and Arizona. Politicians who renounce private funding are eligible to receive state financing.

Rather than mortgaging their political futures to special interests with large budgets, they are therefore able to campaign–and vote–based upon the issues.

Progressive Maryland’s agenda is remarkably close to that of Linda Schade, the 2002 Green Party candidate for state legislature who currently runs the Campaign for Fresh Air and Clean Politics.

Progressive Maryland did not endorse her 2002 campaign; of the three candidates they did endorse, none comes as close to their positions as Schade.

Although the results of that campaign have descended into personal rancor between Schade, Hucker, and a few others, beyond the tension are important questions of progressive political strategy. How closely should progressives tie themselves to the Democratic Party? What, if any, should be the role of third parties?

On the one hand, United States elections are structured to favor a two-party system. Ralph Nader’s role in the 2000 elections, which some argue allowed George W. Bush to claim the presidency, vividly illustrates the spoiler role third parties may play. On the other hand, parts of Maryland are a virtual one-party monopoly–a situation that, according to critics, fosters corruption and stifles new ideas.

Hucker’s rationale for withholding the endorsement from Schade is simple: "She never had a prayer. It would be like winning the lottery."

In Montgomery County, according to Hucker, the primaries are the real election, with the actual election simply validating those results.

"Why not just run in the Democratic primary?" he asks. The day she announced her candidacy with the Greens, he explains, she lost the Progressive Maryland endorsement.

Schade counters this assertion with the fact that a poll one week prior to the election showed her actually winning a seat, ahead of candidate Gareth Murray. She also claims that the Progressive Maryland membership was denied a voice in whether to endorse her–that the decided was made behind closed doors.

"It was anything but an ethical and transparent endorsement process," Schade said.

A last-minute canvassing drive by Progressive Maryland probably played a part in Schade’s loss; Murray received some 15,000 votes to her 10,000. This drive was subsequently investigated by Maryland’s state prosecutor for breaking a statute against door-to-door campaigning on the day of the election. The charges were dropped.

Schade further responds to Hucker’s dismissal of her campaign: "apparently 35 percent of people in this district don’t agree with him...10,000 people were very excited to vote for a Green."

Kevin Zeese of the Campaign for Fresh Air and Clean Politics questions Progressive Maryland’s choice to endorse only Democrats.

"A one-party system doesn’t work very well," he said. "Is Progressive Maryland just going to pick people who are going to win, and not progressives?"

Schade contrasts the 900 volunteers her campaign mobilized to Progressive Maryland’s paid canvassers. And she questions the positions of the three Democratic candidates Progressive Maryland did endorse. Sheila Hixson and Peter Franchot, she points out, accept substantial funds from corporations and Political Action Committees.

"How does this fit Progressive Maryland’s support of clean campaigns?" she said, adding that Hixon has been instrumental in raising campaign funding limits from $4,000 to $20,000.

She also points to Murray’s lack of support for campaign finance reform, and to his alleged homophobia.

"Are these candidates progressives should be endorsing?" she said.

Besides the ability to win, Hucker gives another key reason for withholding support from Linda Schade: "She didn’t build a multi-racial coalition, and that’s essential to win in this district." As an African-American Minister, Murray provides representation for a huge part of the county’s population. Hucker describes the old delegation as "what Montgomery County used to look like."

Hucker characterizes Takoma Park politics as isolated, ineffective, and out of touch. Schade agrees that Takoma Park activists are too often "focused internally," but argues that her campaign took place throughout District 20.

"I had volunteers from all over the county," she said.

She points out that early in the campaign, she and Murray endorsed each other. She also cites her strong civil rights record, particularly her leadership of the Justice Action Coalition, an organization that fights police brutality, and her endorsement by African-American leaders Ron Daniels and the Reverend Graylan Scott Hagler, and by the National Black Police Association.

Sam Pizzigati, a Progressive Maryland board member, summarized political differences this way: "In the United States, among folks working for progressive social change, there has always been tension between ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ strategies. That tension is natural–and unavoidable–because no one side to this divide has all the answers. The truth is we need both inside and outside approaches."

Tension between groups might be unavoidable, but the differences between PM and the Schade campaign seem to be destructive, not creative or productive.

Schade said that although she had courted their support and was continually rebuffed, she still respects their vision.

"They do pick some good issues," she said. "I would love to be working together."

For his part, Hucker says, "We’ll work with everybody that wants to work with us."

It remains to be seen whether these are merely words; whether local progressive organizations will be willing to work together and able to devise a coherent strategy.