http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/144783/3_reasons_why_progressives_are_so_frustratedI thought this was an interesting analysis of progressives in our party versus Third Way Democrats, and I haven't seen it posted here yet.
It's too long to quote very much of it, so I'll quote one paragraph about the Third Way Dems (which Bowers says include "the White House, the Democratic leadership, and indeed perhaps most Democrats in Congress") and the last three paragraphs since I think they're key, not only to why this is an interesting analysis, but also to why I haven't seen much discussion of it here, so far.
These are the three major examples of the difference between the left-progressive view of government and the Third Way view of government. To solve major problems, from health care to climate change to the financial crisis to education (an example Kilgore discusses in his piece), the Third Way philosophy is not for the public sector to take over where the private sector has failed (which would have meant temporary bank nationalization, carbon tax, single payer / expanded public options, and equitable education funding) but instead to use a heavily subsidized and moderately regulated private sector (which meant purchasing toxic assets and loan interest loans to struggling banks, non-auctioned cap and trade, health insurance mandate with subsidies, and charter schools).
-snip-
That last point is made particularly difficult for progressives due to the Obama administration's demonstrated willingness to use its political clout to back members of the coalition who break with rank and file opinion to the right, and to crush those who break with rank and file opinion to the left. While the Obama administration will give support to Blue Dogs facing primary challenges from Progressives, they have also been willing to support right-wing primary challenges to Progressives if those Progressives break with administration policy. As Rahm Emanuel has often done throughout his career (see here and here), the White House is is using their leverage against Progressives, not on behalf of them.
Overall, this leaves progressives on the short-end of an ideological divide within the American center-left, with relatively little organizational ability to shift that hierarchy, and facing the very real prospect of being squashed if they step out of line. This is why so many progressives are frustrated right now.
The choices in this environment are to lash out and hurt the coalition's leadership for the sake of revenge, give up altogether, and keep struggling through a long slog to try and make whatever gains you can. I go with the latter, because I want to keep fighting over the long haul, which makes splitting with the coalition or just giving up not real options. However, after writing this all out, I hope I at least articulated why some people are frustrated enough to choose other paths for themselves.
I want to make a few points here.
1) Bowers did support Obama:
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=47952) This analysis Bower did has obviously, judging by the posted comments, angered many progressives who think they could win with a third-party progressive candidate.
3) Even though this analysis annoys many progressives, it still isn't getting cheers from diehard Obama supporters since it's a cold analysis of just what his policies have been, including favoring Blue Dogs to Obama's right over progressives to Obama's left.
Which might be why we haven't seen a lot of discussion of it here, so far.
Hell, I hesitated to post about it, but finally decided it was too interesting not to mention.
For what it's worth, I think progressives could split from Third Way Democrats IF the US had campaign finance laws favoring democracy over wealth, including the Fairness Doctrine.
We don't, of course, and that has hobbled progressives and liberals who don't serve the interests of corporations and the wealthy.
That doesn't mean, though, that the Third Way is anything to cheer about. Especially when -- as one person commenting on this wrote -- the result of Democrats thinking they might be able to use private corporations to achieve public ends turns into those corporations using the government for their own profit instead.
Bowers isn't offering any real solutions here (the path he's choosing for himself isn't ideal, and the basic conflict between progressives and Third Way Democrats is so clear it's obvious why many progressives would find it impossible to accept). But the analysis explains a lot of the disagreements on this board.