NICE!  Well written.

Another caveat is that those primaries can be hard fought, and we need to battle for years to get what we want.  It's not gonna happen in one election.

sound like a good plan to me

Let's change litmust test to values. How do you determine if someone has the values of a progressive besides the fact they are a member of the party?

Two questions:

What about the Working Families Party? They're careful not to throw elections, but are an important part of pushing the Dems to the left, especially in New York City.

More broadly, why should all our rules be within the electoral sector of politics? Every era of true progressive success has been the result of efforts outside electoral politics (though usually in coordination with electoral efforts) - abolitionism, the labor movement, the civil rights movement, etc.

The real question about the Democratic Party these days concerns whether it can becomes a progressive party.  The unfortunate reality is that it looks progressive only in relation to the truly atrocious Republicans.  Until the Democrats take real steps to undo the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and other anti-democratic accomplishments of the Republicans, the Democrats cannot claim to be a progressive party.  Far too many Democrats are happy to be co-conspirators in the right-wing revolution agains democracy.  The main argument of the article, it seems to me, is that there are only two parties, so the Democrats are  the progressive party by default.  This is both a weak and a sad argument.  Until the Democrats truly become a progressive party, and are not designated such merely by default, then this country cannot be said to have a progressive party.  I say this having voted Democratic and having given money to the party for several decades.  But I've stopped because I don't want to encourage a party that isn't really progressive and hasn't been for a long time.  Not being the Republicans is not a sufficient reason to have any enthusiasm for the Democrats.  The Democrats don't seem more progressive than the Rockefeller Republicans of the 1960s.

7. No Democrat should ever publicly call any Democrat unelectable, or publicly rank candidates based on perceived electability.

Specific Example: Jefferson-D/Carter-D LA-02.

These rules generally make sense when success is the goal. But since success is the goal, how does Rule 7 fit in? If, for example, people in New York had guessed how vulnerable Reynolds was going to be in his Congressional race, wouldn't it have been completely appropriate in the Democratic primary campaign, if there were one, to point out that Davis has serious weaknesses as a campaigner and another candidate would have a better chance against Reynolds?

I could buy most of these, but not #7.

I'm not trying to get lawyerly, what the definition of is is kind of stuff, but

there has been so little progess for decades, AND

the DC-ocracy crowd has fucked ME (oh, and the rest of the country and world) by NOT fighting the fascists,

and they've been viscous about protecting their turf.

I am not going to use fascist memes to attack hillary etc etc, but

they are spineless ass losers who only excel at staying in charge of this losing party.

is that criticsm, or is it just the raw, unpleasant truth?

how many times have they been unemployed and had to cough up 12 grand for a year's worth of cobra ... while you are trying pay the rent AND get some retraining done?

I've been following politics since I was 8 in '68 ? and I am sick of losing and I am sick of people who are fighting to stay in charge of losing.

rmm.

Here are a few more:

A. The name of this association: the Democratic Party. Any other permutation used by you which shortens the actual name is prima facie evidence that you watch too much cable television.

B. If you make a statement that starts with the phrase "the Democratic Party should..." you have just volunteered to actively work to implement what you suggested the party needs to do.

C. If you don't like a particular candidate, you don't have to volunteer for them. This does not excuse you from actively volunteering for someone else. Find someone, anyone, running for public office who you can support and then go help them. There are a lot of good people out there running for public office under the party banner. Not all of them are running for president.

D. Don't complain about what the the party is doing (or not doing), take it over. Run for ward or precinct committee and work your way up from there.

My fortune cookie says: Be cautious about making rules in a fluid medium!

The Democratic Party needs to find its soul.  It won't do this by playing nice nice.  We need people who stand up and point out those in the party who are supporting policies and positions that would have been Rockefeller Republican (or worse) 40 years ago.  The Republicans in Democrats' clothing need to be opposed.  Let's not kid ourselves about this.  Reagan may have stated a commandment that Republicans do not speak ill of fellow Republicans, but in reality Republicans forced their moderates out and turned their party into a right-wing vehicle.  And that victory gave them dominance for 12 years because people believed they stood for something (however repugnant).  If the Democrats are to be a progressive party they need to ignore the dictum not to attack one another.  Those who are not progressive shouldn't be supported in the Democratic Party.  I live in NYC, and I've watched Democratic office holders supporting Giuilani and Bloomburg over Democratic candidates with impunity.  And at the same time, I received phone calls from the party asking me for support--both votes and money.  This at a time when Democratic office holder in the city paid no price for cozying up to Republican mayors.  No, let's not buy into this notion that we shouldn't speak ill of Democrats.  Democrats who are not true to the progressive path should be attacked for that.  Would you advocate being pleasant to the old Dixiecrats in the party when they supported segregation?  Granted, pushing them out of the party turned the South over to the Republicans, but it did, for a while, provide a reason to support the Democrats.  Get over it: if the Democrats are to become a progressive party, there needs be some fights within the party for its soul.  Otherwise let's forget the Democratic Party.  They won't be worth  our time and effort.

What do you do if both the Republican and Democratic candidates are unacceptable to you? There are obvious examples, like the Dem is corrupt or something, but what if a 3rd party candidate simply shares your values more, or would clearly be a better holder of the office in question?  I ask out of genuine curiosity of what one should do in that circumstance, given the rules.

I agree with a few comments above, a good list but #7 doesn't belong at all. Electability indeed varies via locale and situation and we're foolish to pretend otherwise. It's inevitable candidates will be evaluated by how the nation will perceive them, particularly the vital swing states like Ohio, Florida and Virginia. Stealing or forfeiting a point or two via electability is the entire race in a polarized electorate.

The idea is not to dismiss electability. Just the opposite. There is a desperate need to study it further. Obviously it's not quantitative but judgments certainly can be made.

Don't reject electability simply because we applied it wrong in 2004. There were two distinct contrasting arguments there:

* Kerry was most electable due to military background and knowledge, and how that would play in a post-9/11/Iraq landscape

* Kerry was among the least likable due to bland New England senator, particularly since likability is vital in ousting a presidential incumbent

The primary voters handicapped poorly. Big deal, short sample 0-1. Learn from it and don't make the same mistake again.

I know one thing, if we continue to evaluate candidates via issues and not charisma and likability we're doomed to narrow defeats. I host debate watching parties among apolitical types every presidential cycle and I wish I had audio tapes from my group. This forum would be shocked at the discourse, overwhelmingly focused on personality. When there's an extended policy yarn the line forms outside my two bathrooms.

Rule 2:  So if Wm. Jefferson is elected in LA 2, we should support him?

If Jefferson were to run for DNC chair, we should not try to force him off the ballot?

If David Duke registered as a Democrat, what should our response be?

Should there not be some litmus test regarding absence of corruption? How about rascism?  Etc.  How egregious will the transgressions away from a progressive standard need to be to earn criticism?

If we are going to purify the Democratic Party toward a more progressive image, which is exactly what is being discussed by running primary challengers against Dem-registered Rockefeller Repubs, how do you build the case against the sitting Democrat without some tests or criticism?

If we are going to accomplish anything, much of the movement will be incremental and probably require some cooperation from some GOPs.  What constitutes support of someone in the  GOP?  Is it only voting for them?  That may be easy to follow.  If Wm. Jefferson was running againt a GOP, would you just not vote?  I've seen that argued here many times as supporting the opponent.  Is saying, "GOP Sen X was brave in his effort to forge a compromise with the Democratic Senators in to pass the bill on [whatever]/override a veto/etc." considered support?

I'm not saying  these rules are innately bad.  But they strike me as naive, particularly as they  are written as absolutisms.

Also, IMO, they require serious election reform, probably to the point of a constitutional amendment, requiring either completely publicly funded elections (no 527s) or vastly limiting the amount of money one can raise/spend in an election.

Still, I thought it would be interesting to actually list the pragmatic rules that I feel progressive must follow in order to build a progressive governing coalition.
...
4. There are no litmus tests to join the coalition. No one has to read or sign off on any document stating support for a particular policy. If someone wants to join, registering as a Democrat should be the only requirement.

While I understand the "big tent" appeal, rule #4 seems too broad.  Should we support a member of the KKK just because he says he's a Democrat?  Thats a level of commitment I'm not willing to endorse - and I think despite these rules Chris wouldn't follow this to its conclusion in such a way.  A whole range of possible positions or advocacies, such as neo-Nazism, human sacrifice, MAMBLA or overt fascism, are outside the limits of what Dems (or anyone remotely mainstream) are or should be willing simply to strengthen a "coalition."  

If we accept that is true, the question then becomes: what is a supportable candidate?  A candidate such as Senator-elect Casey was certainly not ideal to most liberals/progressives.  However, there were mitigating factors.  First, he was obviously the lesser of two "evils".  Second, he did strengthen the party in the Senate.  Third,  his positions weren't so unacceptable that regardless of how bad his opponent was, that supporting him was feasible.  

If Senator-elect (just as an example, no offense is intended) was not just pro-life, but believed in outlawing homosexuality, the creation of a theocracy, the elimination of the minimum wage, a national sales tax to eliminate the income tax, the elimination of public schools and any number of other 'deal killers' would a progressive who failed to support him, or supported another candidate, really be harming progressive ideals?  Would failing to do so be anything more than the prostitution of ideals for power?

If the Democratic party is to be anything other than a means of accumulating power, it also has to stand for something.  If that makes it a relatively smaller tent... so be it.

Chris this is wonderful, and very simple.
its obvious you're up to something else.

it is, as we say in math, a basis. a bundle of vectors that can recreate your space.

alright to refine this a bit we have to think more about what it means to be american.

i would add the ninth - revolution number ..

9. We, as Americans, must be willing to pursue liberty and democracy even unto the internet.

"*    4. There are no litmus tests to join the coalition. No one has to read or sign off on any document stating support for a particular policy. If someone wants to join, registering as a Democrat should be the only requirement."

Under this rule, Zell Miller circa 2004 would still qualify. Or does a violation of rule 5 release us from the obligation to respect him under rule 4?

Speaking of rule 5, what about Bernie Sanders? Does the fact that he caucuses with the Democrats make him count as a Democrat? What if he'd had a conservative Democrat for an opponent? Under these rules, is there a difference between supporting Sanders against a Democrat and supporting Lieberman?

These rules were great for the current election when there was an overwhelming need to provide congressional opposition to Bush. I agree with the most important rule that we should try to make the Democratic Party our vehicle for change. We can and should fight like hell in primaries to get electable progressive candidates, and third parties are not a viable option in our current electoral situation.

But I agree with "downtown democrat" that we will probably have to fight for the soul of the Democratic Party if we are to accomplish progressive change. We cannot refrain from criticizing democrats who stand in the way of this change, or even opposing their election in some cases. Many of these 8 rules are basically tactical in nature and should not be set in stone.

As for electability this is a tough issue. I get very tired of Democratic primary voters making this their top priority and ignoring the progressive credentials of the candidate. The media "horse race" mentality unfortunately plays into this very unhealthy political thinking. But even though I hate this as the top priority it has to be some part of the way we think about a candidate. Of course we need to get them elected.

So let's support the Democratic Party in elections and push them hard to do the right thing when in power. But we will need to fight the elements of the party that are preventing progressive change.

I like the way our two party system presents to voters an established coalition.

Now that we have begun to relearn the dangers of single issue politics the rules Chris posted seem entirely reasonable.

However, there is a lurking problem on the horizon that I think needs to be considered in the context of these rules. IRV. Does not instant runoff voting dilute the party building these rules imply? Will it not perpetuate the issue hiving that has plagued the party as of late?

Why is it that for every rule, Joe Leiberman came to mind?

Good rules.

I've got problems with 6 & 7.  We need a rigorous debate during primary season, and I'm not entirely sure what criticizing fellow Dems "in the same manner that Republicans criticize Democrats" means.  How exactly do Republicans criticize Democrats?  Do all Republicans criticize Democrats in the same way?

Would Lamont's lambasting of Lieberman have broken rule 6?  Would Webb's questioning the electability of Harris Miller have broken rule 7?  While it's true that we should all work toward some semblance of decorum in the party, I don't like the rigid, "united we stand," Stepford Democrat feel of rules 5-7.  Let's concentrate on a positive agenda rather than definitively ruling out opinions/tactics.

Party should ensure that noone that runs and loses in the primary is able to return as an opponent of the primary winner.

A final comment on the "eight pragmatic laws of progressive Realpolitk."  What we need is less Realpolitik and more Ethicalpolitik.  A politik in which we can speak of what things are rather than speak with our ear to the political winds. A politik in which we spell out an ethical set of policies without trying to maneuver for advantage.  Enough triangulating.  Enough of the Dick Morris in the White House we got with the DLC Clintons.  Progressive Realpolitk, indeed.  Enough.  This oxymoron is what has all but killed off the Democratic Party as a progressive party.  Money and Realpolitik.  Rules for fools.

I agree about supporting the party's nominee, but with two caveats: corruption and a disdain for the democratic system.

For example, I did not support the Democratic candidate Secretary of State of State in Massachusetts because he outright refused to debate his primary challenger and was refusing - all along - to debate his challenger in the general election (up until just a few days before the election, when he agreed to a FIVE MINUTE debate at an UNDISCLOSED, SECRET location. I don't care if he won the primary; I voted for the other candidate.

The only other situation I could envision that would cause me to do the same thing is if the Democratic Nominee was found with $90,000 in his freezer.

Sounds like this is a loyalty oath. Sorry, but I am going to question electabillity, I am going to question a person's views, signing up as a Democrat is not enough for me.

Number 8 is going to lead to the breaking of rules one through seven.

I'm a big, big fan of rule #6.  After seeing Arnold quote Westly in slamming Angelides, I'm kinda partial to that idea.

I agree with these principles 100%. Since I live in a liberal region of the country, most of the time I spent talking to friends or coworkers about politics this season involved promoting concepts similar to Chris's rules here. Here's an example of the type of thing I would tell people:

"The basic strategy is this: use the primaries, and the very early pre-primary period to actively support progressive candidates. This can very effectively move the Democratic party to the left, because candidates are desperate for help in these early stages, and will move to the left in order to get effective help from progressives. When the general election comes, be a good foot soldier and vehemently support the Democratic nominee regardless of what happened before the primaries. This gives progressives better standing to influence the next cycle of primaries. This is going to work very well over the next few years, because with Pelosi and others in the leadership, the progressive wing controls the Democratic party for the first time in history."

If we are serious about wanting change, then we all need to make an effort to communicate these ideas to the people we influence, such as peers, family, etc.

methinks the stickler is #3. There will always be factions and they will be the hardest to convince its in the best interest of all to not play games.

Overall, I agree with the rules but there are occasional exceptions.  I am thinking about the Stevenson governor race in IL the early 1980s when the Lt Gov candidates were unknown and a LaRouche emerged as the candidate.  The guy was a complete whack job running on a platform of death penalty for drug dealers.  There was no way to get rid of him so Stevenson had to run as an independent with the guy he wanted as Lt Gov.  These screwups should not happen but sometimes they do.

The other deal is criminals like Jefferson.  Zero tolerance.

"7. No Democrat should ever [...] publicly rank candidates based on perceived electability."

This is not in the service of realpolitik! Quite to the contrary, in fact. Realpolitik requires a continual examination of electability. Not taking electability into account has been one of the major flaws in Democratic strategy over the past four decades, and one big reason we've occupied the White House so seldom in that time.

I'd expand number 6 just a bit, to dishonesty and clearly unethical behavior.

#7 may be overstretching, although I reject many of the criticisms against it. I'd say it's our job as a movement to redefine electability. As we saw in the Il-06, the "electable candidate" might not have been as electable as Cegelis. I believe you wrote to that effect yourself.

If we do the hard work of changing that bit of conventional wisdom, I'm not sure rule 7 is necessary. We can always re-examine it after we've taken the first step.

I know there are seeds for this sort of change in opinion within the movement. For example, John Lapp spoke to my class Monday night, and he clearly and explicitly understands that you can't try to create an image for a candidate, and what works best is someone who is genuine, and who has personal roots in the community.

We need to push that sort of understanding a little farther, to say that person-to-person contact and support wins elections, and (even if Republican electability doesn't work this way) to make the conventional wisdom makers understand how important grassroots energy is to the Democratic party.

If we take on this hard work we might do a great service to the party without the need for a rule number 7.

I disagree with #s 1, 2, 6, and 7.

More demonstration of my continuing drift away from both the Democratic Party and the Progressive movement.

I think the list of rules is interesting, but doesn't really form a pragmatic and meaningful set of political principles for progressives. Status quo Democrats will readily agree to abide by these rules in primaries against progressive challengers, and accuse a progressive of violating their own rules when the going gets rough.

Ultimately, we're talking about taking on DCCC-backed candidates, in scenarios like Cegelis v. Duckworth in Illinois, and, of course, a primary challenge to Ellen Tauscher and other Blue Dog Democrats in 2008.

Better to formulate a strategy where self-identified progressives find and support each other wherever possible.  This means using the resources of the internet, in conjunction with local progressive groups, and Democratic Party programs, to recruit and train progressive and electable candidates, and raise early money for primary campaigns of such candidates.  It means forming regional progressive entities to recruit and provide campaign workers to move quickly into a district and raise the chances of a successful primary candidate to win both the primary and the general election.  In addition, such regional entities can assist with media, research, and strategy.

In sum, while it's all well and good to seek a level playing field in Democratic politics, what is more important is a winning strategy to ensure that progressives increase their numbers in Democratic caucuses at the congressional and state legislative level.  That will reguire innovation, early beginnings to campaign organizations and fundraising, and willingness to be a lot tougher than the Liebermans and Tauschers.

I tried to pick what I thought was the most important rule of all the eight.

I was unsucessful. These progressive rules are all highly valuable and egually important.

Well written.

I need to disagree loudly and often with the people who want to talk about "electability". It's a bogus measure of who you think other people will vote for and it says nothing about what you yourself value in a candidate. It's baaad democracy.

I'm shakiest on #1. I have a lot of friends in the Green Party around here and I think on a lot of issues and state/local referrenda we wind up working together. As far as electoral strategy then oh yes absolutely I agree that the current correct strategy is to shift the major party we have in the direction we want. But I also want to fix the system so that we're not artifically locked in like that.