Maybe it's not even really the trouble with progressives, it's the trouble of governing with a small majority in Congress with a President of the opposite party. Republicans know that drill from the late 1990's. Either way, things aren't going exactly well for Democrats in Congress right now.
Right after last November, I conjectured the friction between "progressives" and rest of the party - and thus the Democratic leadership in Congress too - would be a problem. That doesn't seem to be in doubt at this point, as Democrats in Congress don't exactly have much to hang their hat on, nor is their base terribly happy with them even as it pulls them farther and farther to the left.
Joe Klein, moderate Democrat to the stars and despised figure among the netroots, offers some harsh words on the current state of affairs within the Democratic Party on matters pertaining to national security. Summarizing passage:
That sort of clarity has been rare in the presidential campaign and almost totally nonexistent among the Democrats in Congress, who are being foolishly partisan on two key issues: continued funding for the war in Iraq and updating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The Iraq-funding issue is particularly difficult. Senator Carl Levin's proposal for a gradual troop withdrawal, starting now, is the right policy. Various Bush Administration officials -- though none in the White House -- have told me that a troop withdrawal is the best leverage we have for shoving the Iraqis into a national-reconciliation deal. But Levin made troop withdrawal a condition for continued funding of the war, which is a kamikaze mission. The bill couldn't muster the votes necessary to overcome a filibuster, much less the inevitable Bush veto. Indeed, with Iraq calmer for the moment, Democrats probably have fewer votes for ending the war than they did last spring. And their continued indulgence in these futile, symbolic gestures conveys a sense of weakness and incompetence. Whatever political value these votes once had -- getting Republicans on the record in favor of continuing the war -- has long since dissipated and may actually work against the Democrats if the progress in Iraq continues.The Democratic strategy on the FISA legislation in the House is equally foolish. There is broad, bipartisan agreement on how to legalize the surveillance of phone calls and emails of foreign intelligence targets. The basic principle is this: if a suspicious pattern of calls from a terrorist suspect to a U.S. citizen is found, a FISA court warrant is necessary to monitor those communications. But to safeguard against civil-liberty abuses, all records of clearly nontargeted Americans who receive emails or phone calls from foreign suspects would be, in effect, erased. Unfortunately, Speaker Nancy Pelosi quashed the House Intelligence Committee's bipartisan effort and supported a Democratic bill that -- Limbaugh is salivating -- would require the surveillance of every foreign-terrorist target's calls to be approved by the FISA court, an institution founded to protect the rights of U.S. citizens only. In the lethal shorthand of political advertising, it would give terrorists the same legal protections as Americans. That is well beyond stupid.
As Dodd said, when the President takes the oath of office, he (or she) promises two things: to protect the Constitution and to protect the nation against enemies, foreign and domestic. If the Democrats can't find the proper balance between those two, they simply will not win the presidency.
Democrats who have visions of actually presenting a viable, forward-thinking agenda in the 2008 elections, rather than just running as the anti-Bush, would be prudent to keep that in mind. If the netroots will let them.
Posted by Eric Earling at November 22, 2007 10:04 AM | Email ThisMy view of the "progressives" is that they're just socialists who choose to use a neater-sounding name. When you look at the root of their overall agenda, government direction of our individual lives is at its core. "Progressives" believe the answer to every problem is more taxes and more government. There's no room for the individual.
As far as giving them their own area of the country goes, we kind of have that now. Western Washington, for example (in the I-5 corridor countries), is populated by many, many "progressives." Oregon is much the same in the western areas. In effect, progressives" have pretty much staked out areas in most of the states as areas populated by them and run for them. It would be nice to get them all into one area, say Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Vermont, but I think the logistics of that wouldn't work.
It's a nice thought, though, isn't it?
Posted by: Politically Incorrect on November 22, 2007 10:42 AMIn the long run, very few will side with Progressives because we all know that collectivism just doesn't work. Even a verbal Progressive like Goldy moved his daughter away from Progressive SPS schools to Mercer Island schools. Only a fool will sign up for a failed ideology.
Posted by: Jeff B. on November 22, 2007 10:50 AMI'll bet that Ron Paul wins the NH primary! NH has the highest per-capita Ron Paul donations of any state. I think Montana is number two. WA is in the top ten!
The thing about socialism is that there is no way that a libertarian can practice his or her favorite form of govenrment within a socialistic region. But a socialist is free to form a commune within a libertarian society, and practice a version of socialism in that way. Limited government should be the norm of this nation, and if you want to bind yourself further, you should join some special association.
Socialists want to use force against peaceful people. Libertarians want people to be free, and only want to use force against theives, rapists and murderers and those who have already made a first use of force against others. The progressives have denounced Gandhi and non-violence, though they do not realize it! Since most of them revere Gandhi, they have no idea that their views contradict each other.
The only form of government compatible with Gandhi, and Jesus for that matter, is a libertarian republic like the one the founders tried to give us in the Constitution. Too bad the people no longer value liberty and the Constitution.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 22, 2007 11:59 AMLiberalism is a mental disorder. No wonder hanging around those people causes difficulties. I am thankful that I don't have to be around too many liberals.
Posted by: Liberal_Crusher on November 22, 2007 03:07 PMIt is indeed difficult for any conservative to consider trading individual freedom for collectivism. But look at Russia, where an apparent majority of people are demanding that Putin return the government to Soviet-style socialism.
The Russians are like convicts released from prison, in that they miss the "three meals and a warm bed" much more than they desire the right to individual freedom.
Socialist Democrats in this country are promising American indolents the very same, and again in trade for their freedoms. I'm certain that behind the scences the Clintons, Obama, Edwards, Pelosi and Reid are laughing at the lazy, gullible fools who would bargain their birthright for a bowl of soup.
Posted by: Saltherring on November 23, 2007 06:20 AMI am not fooled. I still know wrong from right.
Posted by: Independent Voter on November 23, 2007 09:08 AMIt got its name from the joining of two political movements - the Farm Progressives and the Conservative - in the 1930's when it seemed that these two political movements were the only hope against the socialists and their liberal allies.
The recent (1990's to present) joining of conservatives and libertarians under the Republican Party banner is a somewhat similar coalition.
Whether it will succeed is not clear. The religious factions of the Republican Party hold the most power within the current coalition and many (fiscal) conservatives and libertarians are more than a little peeved at the spendthrift ways of the party during the last ten years when the religious right held the reins of power.
In addition the lack of tolerance of the religious right is grating to many libertarians. However, the lack of tolerance of the "progressives" pales in comparison and is more akin to European fascist or communist ideologies than to any American political movement.
Posted by: deadwood on November 23, 2007 10:32 AMhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=495495&in_page_id=1879
Posted by: deadwood on November 23, 2007 10:46 AMIn fact, Reagan had them to thank for getting elected. If the Republicans spent too much money during W's presidency, it has more to do with the influence of the libs on the Pubs.
Posted by: Disagree with Deadwood... on November 28, 2007 04:03 PM