Over the past century, total world production has increased an incredible twenty-fold, placing increased pressure on the ecology of our planet. Everywhere we look -- in the atmosphere, oceans, watersheds, forests, and the soil -- it is now clear that rapid ecological decline is setting in and threatens to extinguish all economic activity if something is not done soon.

This fact, however, seems to be completely lost on Wall Street analyses and the federal government who assure us that continual economic growth will lead to prosperity for all and a cleaner environment.

After reading about various interesting events that had taken place in virtual venues within the world of Second Life, it finally sunk in. This might have a potential as a civic space, where I could talk to people all over the world about the idea of dignity as a human right.

Second Life is a massive virtual reality environment. It's not so much a game as a global conference call that takes place in fantastic imaginary settings. All sorts of activists could set up kiosks around the virtual public square. People with common interests could meet and coordinate for political action. One day there might even be ways to facilitate voter registration. Enthralled by the vision of cyber-democracy, I set up an account.

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.

I'm posting this for David Brown, a Link TV producer who is making a documentary of YearlyKos. Here's an opportunity for 15 minutes of blogosphere fame!

(Feel free to spread the word!)

****

An increase in the minimum wage is once again hovering around the Congressional docket, as Democrats try to wedge it into various bills while Republicans try to sink it.

And once again, as reliable as clockwork, defenders and opponents are snapping into action, dusting off briefs and arguments, updating the analysis for inflation and generally doing the same dance we always do (I'm a defender).

There's got to be a better way.

Facts matter, so I'm not for a second saying that progressives should ignore the superior research, summarized below, that supports an increase. But I think we should also fight this one on basic fairness. It's simply shameful, in an era of sharply increasing economic inequality, for Congress to incessantly cut rich people's taxes yet refuse to help low-wage workers.

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.

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...

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.

The recent failure in the Senate to repeal the estate tax stands as a rare victory for sane fiscal policy.  The NYT editorialized about the event under the heading "What Passes for Good News."

In fact, the Senate vote came alarming close to ending a tax on inheritances of the richest half-a-percent of households, with a majority of Senators (57--but they needed 60 for a repeal) supporting a measure which would have cost the treasury $800 billion over 10 years at a time of ballooning budget deficits and war.

Of course, the politics of the repeal were the focus of most analyses--would the White House be adhered to or get rebuffed on an issue dear to them--but the economics of the tax cut are deeply revealing of the fundamental flaw of economic policy today.

And that flaw is this: we have, over the past three decades, shifted from we're-in-this-together (WITT) economics to you're-on-your-own (YOYO) economics.

With their focus solidly on the gay marriage amendment and estate tax repeal, the conservative movement is busy rearranging deck chairs on...well, not quite the Titanic, but on a rotting ship of state.

Here's a test: name one economic policy, other than tax cuts, associated with outgoing Treasury Secretary John Snow.

Give up?

Now think about this: what is the economic policy of the Bush administration? What about the Congress? What about the Democrats?

The diary below was originally posted earlier today in the Intrepid Liberal Journal.

The conservative shift in American politics undermined the economic security of working people. Increasingly, individuals are absorbing more risks, working longer hours and earning less. Meanwhile, corporations and government benefit from less accountability to tax payers, consumers and employees. Renowned economist Jared Bernstein proposes in his new book, All Together Now: Common Sense For A Fair Economy, (Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.) that we're ensnared in a "YOYO economy". The acronym YOYO means, "You're On Your Own." Bernstein's book illustrates how the "YOYOists" have schemed to transfer the burden of economic risk onto individuals and their families.

There are moments when you know the world is changing.  This morning was one of those.  

Did you notice?

President Jimmy Carter posted a diary on Daily Kos.  The diary is in support of the senate candidacy of his son, Jack, but the mere apearance of President Carter left many people -- myself included -- overwhelmed with emotion.

Jack's daughter Sarah, how has handled most of the family posting duties at DK, has offered to take questions from bloggers and pass them along to her grandfather.

What follows is my response to that offer.

Hamas won a solid victory in Palestine, raising considerable concerns around the world as a "terrorist" group gains power. There is no question that the rise to power of an extremist group of any sort is worrisome. And Hamas does advocate terrorism and oppression of women. Hamas are extremists. But so are many governments that America supports. The extremism of Hamas is a concern. But there is one problem with opposing the Hamas government: they were democratically elected.

Whatever our approach to dealing with the Hamas government, we have to start from this beginning: they were democratically elected.

Tom Friedman has come back from vacation with an astonishing slap in the face of George Bush and Dick Cheney over their continued support of the failed politics of the past as opposed to the politics of the future. He says that the current biggest enemy facing this country is not Islamism, Communism, or other such ideologies, but Petrolism, or the practice of sustaining a country through oil revenues. He calls for a new policy of Red, White, Blue, and Green.

If this had come from someone from Greenpeace or Earth First, nobody would raise their eyebrows. But coming from a man who was at one time one of Bush's biggest enablers is a sign that the Bush administration has run desperately adrift and is losing some of its key supporters. This would explain the photo-op meeting yesterday by the Bush administration and many former Democratic and Republican administration officials which was all spin and no deliverance.