Digby has a great post on the need for Democrats to take the opportunity to proactively push a progressive policy agenda in the wake of current economic turmoil. The Paulson plan and $700 billion for Wall Street has all the hallmarks of conservative shock doctrine: step into a crisis and put through an aggressive policy structure that moves the country drastically rightward while empowering a small handful of interests (in this case, Wall St. financiers and the GOP operatives who provide them with filthy lucre).

Fundamentally speaking, there is zero reason why progressives (or at least Democrats) cannot take the same legislative opportunity to effect a strong move leftward. Digby quotes an emailer who lays out a strong case for doing just this. She goes on to make the case for the how and the why Democrats could take the opportunity in front of them to shift the Overton window of how we think about policy in America for a long time to come.

But the Democrats are failing to take advantage of the complexity of the situation and use simple politics to sell it. They should say that the economy is failing and we need massive government action to solve it. That’s what Democrats do in a crisis like this. But they need to make the political message about the Democratic agenda for restoring the economy not about rescuing “the financial system” which nobody understands anyway...Let’s have the argument and let the American people decide. If the Democrats win it they will have a mandate for real progressive change in the middle of a crisis that demands it. If they play their cards right they’ll end up neutering the failed conservative ideology for a generation, put in place some important and long neglected structural changes and mitigate the worst of this downturn at the same time. There’s no reason that the Shock Doctrine can’t be used for good.

Digby’s emailer and Rick Perlstein both suggest the goal for Democrats should be to put in place a new version of FDR’s New Deal. I hate to disagree with Perlstein, one of our nation’s finest historians, but I wonder if a better model for progressives today (keeping in mind the origination for any policy plan as of now will be in the legislature) would be Huey Long’s Share Our Wealth campaign. Share Our Wealth was a more radical plan than the New Deal, which did appropriate some parts of Long’s vision for how the crisis of the Great Depression could provide opportunity for wholesale change in the American economic system.

Here are the bullet points from the Share Our Wealth campaign:

1. No person would be allowed to accumulate a personal net worth of more than 100 to 300 times the average family fortune, which would limit personal assets to between $1.5 million and $5 million. Income taxes would be levied to ensure this. Annual capital levy taxes would be assessed on all persons with a net worth exceeding $1 million.
2. Every family was to be furnished with a homestead allowance of not less than one-third the average family wealth of the country. Every family was to be guaranteed an annual family income of at least $2,000 to $2,500, or not less than one-third of the average annual family income in the United States. Yearly income, however, cannot exceed more than 100 to 300 times the size of the average family income.
3. An old-age pension would be made available for all persons over 60.
4. To balance agricultural production, the government will preserve/store surplus. This is made so no food is wasted.
5. Veterans are paid what they are owed
6. Education and training for all children to be equal in opportunity in all schools, colleges, universities, and other institutions for training in the professions and vocations of life.
7. The raising of revenue and taxes for the support of this program was to come from the reduction of swollen fortunes from the top, as well as for the support of public works to give employment whenever there may be any slackening necessary in private enterprise.

Some of the more aggressive policy visions being put out by some bloggers, intellectuals, and unions have scope that goes far beyond the financial markets. Speaking broadly, there are better options than just looking to Wall Street and no further. As David Sirota has noted, no one has yet explained why if we can throw $700b at the financial markets, we can’t spend a comparable amount on health care, education, greening the economy, and the social support system. Now is the opportunity to be the most aggressive in defining what is possible with American public policy and government spending. In attempting to make that definition, we have to look far beyond what may be easily achievable and set out what would be most beneficial, knowing that the GOP and corporate, centrist Democrats will work to undercut the program as much as possible.

To the extent that the Share Our Wealth program created both political demand and political cover for large steps in the government’s involvement in the economy under the executive’s New Deal program, a progressive shock doctrine today originating from the legislature could do the same. Long presented America with a truly populist, progressive economic agenda. The response was strong and Share Our Wealth chapters around the country could well have carried Long through a presidential campaign, taking enough votes from Roosevelt to allow a Republican win (Long projected that four more years of suffering in the Depression under a Republican would bring the country to the point where they would elect him president in 1940 and empower him to enact his policy agenda).

From a political standpoint, the problem with relying on Obama as the author of a policy solution is that he cannot be the left flank as a candidate as he has no power to institute his legislative agenda. What is presented now, then, becomes incredibly important. We shouldn’t hold back or strive to compromise before we even sit down at the bargaining table. We should be presenting the most aggressive progressive economic program we can come up with. It should be pushed by outside groups and championed by key legislators on the Hill (Calling Pete Stark, Chris Dodd, & Donna Edwards). Our congressional challengers should embrace this plan now and make clear to voters that if they want to stabilize the economy not just for next week but for the next 100 years, a dose of progressive shock is in order.

A progressive shock doctrine will not be passed into law while Bush is in office, but we can move the Overton window during the short term of this crisis. That would facilitate the election of Barack Obama. Once in office, Obama could give signal that he’d embrace whatever legislative Share Our Wealth program is created now or he can step forward and do an FDR style New Deal — somewhat less aggressive, but benefitting from the recent rise in populist sentiments supporting large-scale change in government economic policies and social programs.

The strength of the call to action now will determine what is politically possible in January 2009. Let’s not hold back.