More Progressive Summit

As promised, here are some more detailed thoughts about the Progressive Summit. 

First, a huge batch of kudos to Michael Morrill and all the folks at Keystone Progress for organizing a wonderful event.  The seminars were all interesting, the panelists excellent, and the debates informative. 

My recap of the events I attended (because I am sure you are all so curious):

The gubernatorial debate, well actually conversation, was very interesting.  I went into the event already supporting Joe Hoeffel, and he did not disappoint.  He came out strongly in favor of women's rights, LGBT rights, and a progressive tax structure.  To my mind, he is the only true progressive running. 

With that said, I was hoping to learn a little more about Onorato during the debate.  As a Philadelphian, even one with considerable interest in politics statewide, I really didnt know very much about him.  I knew that Pittsburgh had grown considerably under his watch, but I didnt know his stance on progressive issues.  I was very disappointed in his comments.  To my mind, he came off as arrogant and abrasive, and while we all acknowledge that elections are not popularity contests, he really didnt help himself. 

Wagner was also disappointing, sounds disconnected from the values of the crowd he was talking to when discussin LGBT issues and women's rights.  It was not so much his stance, but they way he presented it.  In the notes I made, his answer on gay marriage was basically: I dont favor it, but I do have some gay friends and they are nice people.  That is not the sort of considerate response worthy of progressive support.

I also attended 6 seminars during the course of the program.  I will only list the highlights below:

1.  The blogging forum:  Obviously, my blogging habits needed a little work, so it was great to hear Chris Bowers discuss strategies for effective blog messaging.  My rededication to blogging in this space is a direct result of the discussion during that forum.

2.  The debate between Sen. Daylin Leach and Tim Potts focusing on the need for a constitutional convention in PA.  Leach did a fantastic job of explaining his opposition to a convention and left me convinced that his position was correct.  In a nutshell, the argument by Potts is that a convention is needed to address problems with the legislature, such as the 11:00 voting rule, and other assorted procedural issues that are preventing efficient legislating.  Leach argued, effectively, that a convention would be impossible to limit to only procedural issues due the many interests involved, and that the constitution is not the proper vehicle to advance social change issues, such as gun control, that would inevitably enter the discussion. 

3.  The final panel on Progressive Messaging featured a first-rate panel and very lively discussion of what it means to be a progressive.  From the 4 panelists we received 4 definitions of a progressive and 4 different themes for effective communication.  For me, the takeaway message is that Progressives continue to have their agenda items help back because of the amorphous nature of the movement itself.  Even if being a progressive means something different to every progressive, the movement needs some universal definition of its ideals to enable consistent messaging.