There's a basic reason why people are wrong to want party "purity"

[jpgray]

There is no progressive third party in this country with a chance of winning national elections on any kind of effective scale. None. A third party can have the best ideas in the world, but if they are unable to translate a single one into legislation, they're worth my work but they're not worth my vote in the general election, barring IRV. Good ideas are nice, but good actions are better--most good third party candidates will sadly never have the chance to put their ideas into action.

It's true there are some unsavory characters in this new Democratic majority. There are people who are not very progressive, are mealy-mouthed, are beholden to banks, corporations, and all sorts of other bad influences. But there exists an elected minority within this new majority that is -very- progressive. Kucinich, Feingold, Conyers, Sanders, Boxer--you all know these names, and most share their values. Their power to turn ideas into action has just been increased exponentially by the simple virtue of more Ds replacing Rs. The Ds this year are in every case superior to the R they've replaced, but even those who may seem insignificantly different to you have increased the power of each and every liberal/progressive congressperson you treasure. The most consistent period of modern legislated progressive thinking in this country was during the New Deal, but like it or not this would have been impossible without some truly racist and deplorable Democrats from the "Solid South."

You can't have party purity. If we were to only identify progressives as party members, we would have the same division of Congress we have now only with the majority left/moderates divided and the unified minority Republicans holding all the committee chairmanships. Pat Roberts -quashed- investigations into intelligence for both 9/11 and the Iraq war. Singlehandedly, despite a mandate from the people, he quashed it. After 1994 Congress took 140 hours of trivial Clinton testimony while testimony on intelligence/defense failures leading up to the Iraq disaster was given only 20. This is the power of committee chairmanship. This is the power of simply having more people who identify together as a party.

If we did insist on litmus test progressivism for party membership, we'd have all the same heroic Dems up there, they'd just have a lot less power. A moderate or even conservative Dem increases the legislative power of a progressive, liberal Dem. I'm all for electing liberals and progressives wherever we can, but when we can't, just remember that moderate candidate doesn't go up there in isolation--the D next to his or her name does a lot of good all by itself. Kucinich, Conyers and Feingold can now bring legislation to the floor, hold important committee chairs, and enact their ideas. If they were all alone in a party of pure progressives, they would still have all the great ideas, they just wouldn't be able to do anything with them.

[Der Blaue Engel]

1. Amen, jpgray

K&R

[jpgray]

4. Thanks

[Bucky]

2. I bitch about Republicans putting party above country. I hold us to the same standard.

There is only one political litmus test I believe in, JP. It is this: anyone who does not agree with your post here officially has their head up their ass. Despite their zeal and their marketing genius at exploiting God, 9/11, and Old Glory, the Republicans still managed to lose their majorities in the two chambers of Congress. The main reason they lost is not Iraq, but because they valued the self gratification of ideology over the pragmatic test of whether they are making life better for the average American.

I agree with you. We don't need litmus testing, we need field testing. Government is a social science, not a lab science. We must measure our success not by elections or ideological purity, but by the laws and reforms we are able to accomplish and by the security in the lives of ordinary citizens of this country and the greater world that once looked to the United States for guidance and hope.

[jpgray]

3. Yes

Those freaking out right now about Webb's or whomever's supposed conservatism are really confusing to me.

[LWolf]

5. Hmmm

There is some sense in what you say.

Of course, if I take the next logical step, I can say that there is a basic reason why it's wrong to put party before issues. That the party is not always the answer for every issue, and that perhaps politics would be healthier and more productive based on people that formed temporary, flexible working groups to address issues, rather than forming gangs to control the streets of washington.

Perhaps proportional representation, IRV, or some other means of breaking the two-gang stranglehold on politics is the right way to go.

[jpgray]

7. Definitely IRV would make things much easier

But basically you can consider this a coalition Congress--a progressive party and a moderate party that just agree to caucus together as one party.

[Skidmore]

6. Well, gee, is it too much to ask for party integrity?

That's what I want. I want the corruption gone--especially on our side. Some of these new candidates give me hope, but it's the old ones who have been there forever and who are so firmly ensconced that concern me. I'm not convinced that the progressives are going to be given more than a nod and then it's business as usual by the DLCers and others who are firmly locked into the money game.

[jpgray]

8. Integrity in politics is rare

Usually it's the measure of how much you have to sell out to do some small bit of good--remember the Republican tying of the minimum wage increase to a bill that would nix the estate tax. A Democratic majority means progessives don't have to do as much selling out.