Fundamentally, these are people who believe that they saved the Democratic Party from itself in the 1990's and early part of this decade, even though outside of presidential elections it was the worst electoral run for Democrats in seventy years.
I would agree that this belief implicitly describes a major perception fault-line dividing the predominant party/progressive activist elite and the new emerging activist leadership.
This has been described before many times but to put it in the simplest (Brooks-ian)terms: there are the children of 1972, the children of 1992, and the children of 2000. The children of '72 transformed the country culturally but were inept at the nuts-and-bolts of electoral politics and were oblivious of a conservative counter-revolution happening in less-urban parts of the country. They have been stuck in the attic by the children of 1992 for about 20 years, but were let out (with conditions) by the children of 2000.
The children of 1992 have nothing but contempt for the children of 1972, holding them responsible for the catastrophic presidential defeats of '68, '72, '80, '84, and '88. They currently dominate the party leadership and they hold as articles of faith the perception that modern America is basically a center-right nation that only votes for Dems if Dems confine their progressive message to pocketbook topics and embrace a basically conservative posture on crime and national security issues.
The children of 2000 basically see the modern political environment as one of perpetual crisis engendered by conservative over-reach. It's the sense that conservatives have gone too far that fuels their outrage in general and deep frustration at the children of 1992 specifically. The feeling is very similar to a sense of betrayal, that the children of 1992 let conservatives over-reach on their watch and without really trying to stop them and never having apologized for their failure. The children of 2000's acute sense that things have to change have embraced the proud posture of the children of 1972 and allied with them generally while studiously (but perhaps not sustainably) avoiding too much of a public emphasis on comprehensive philosophy and ideology.
Personally, I find it hard to forget the dark years of the eighties especially the 1980 massacre in the Senate where a generation of liberal giants was swept out of power and no one saw it coming. The party was genuinely in dire straits then. However, I see the current environment as being fundamentally different -- a discrete evolutionary step beyond -- from anything else post-WWII.
This is a great comment, to an excellent post. I like your concept of "children of '72, of '92, of '00." Especially the implicit alliance between the children of '72 and the children of '00.
Many of the Children of '72 continued to fight Reaganism in the '80s, but opted to do other things besides politics after 1988, allowing the Children of '92 (and the Right) to have the field in 1992 and beyond. I think Chris has been critical of this (us) for, in his view, allowing the Right to become ascendant. There is some truth to that, but the Children of '72 are getting on now, and many have money (and experience) to contribute to the efforts of the Children of 2000. We all (1972 and 2000) ought to be able to work together if we remember to let the new folks take the lead now.
We sure could protest and we vote. Interestingly, the radio station that's sponsoring the petition link in my sig plays the real music from the 60's and 70's along with music from the 90's and 00's.
that the current progressive insurgency was born during the fight against the Clinton impeachment and the election theft in Florida (and in the SCOTUS). I personally was considering myself a moderate right up until the 2000 elections. That's when I - and I think many others - realized that the conservative revolutionaries were succeeding in fundamentally transforming the political process - with the aim of ultimately changing culture and society, and of course of perpetuating their own power - and that the DLCers were only enabling them.
