Let me just say that even after 35 years of organizing and victories the Religious Rightist footsoldiers still get told to fuck off by the GOP leadership.

You're right.  And change is slow and a long time coming, it always is.

If people don't have the stomach to fight over the long term, they should get out of this game.  

This is probably one of the more important posts you've written of late, with the key point being this:

The ultimate point here though is that we are not a partisan movement and should no longer think of ourselves as such.  We are an ideological movement.  We have ideas, and want to see those ideas driven with power.

It has long been evident to me that our partisanship is a product of our ideology, and not so much the reverse. I'm glad that others are coming around to that realization.

So, since we've realized/accepted this fact about ourselves, now what? Clearly, increasing power for a partisan-based movement is simply a matter of electing more of your partisans, but increasing the overal power of an ideology is not so cut and dry. In Republican circles, their candidates are beaten over the head with their established ideology and held to that standard, while our side of the aisle nearly trips over itself to eschew all ideology (and then they wonder why the public thinks that Dems "don't stand for anything"), as if that is some moral "above the fray" highground.  Getting people in our party establishment, who seem to believe that all ideology is bad, to accept and enforce our ideology as party mantra will be quite the task.
 

"I date the beginning of the open left to the fall of 1998."

So then, to use Perlstein's Goldwater analogy, it was 26 years before Reagan, so let's put a Dem in the White House in 2008, but we shouldn't expect a progressive-dominated Democratic party and country until 2024.

Only 17 years away--better get cookin', people.

I just wrote a harsh response to this on my blog, but briefly: we should step back and think for a second about the suggestion that we abandon partisanship in favor of idealism. That suggestions goes against the core of the progressive/netroots project, which -- as I understand it -- holds that our ideas only have value once implemented, and that thus we are obligated to be both aggressive and pragmatic in implementing them.

To reject partisanship, as Matt proposes, is neither aggressive nor pragmatic; it's a retreat. We might be more comfortable if our progressive ideas are flowering freely rather than tied to the often-problematic Democratic Party, but then, what good would they be? Isn't that the kind of marginalization that doomed the 1960s left?

We are much more effective, and more true to our belief system, if we identify firmly and fervently as Democrats. Of course we have to reshape the party in a more progressive image, which is where primaries and such come in; but to explicitly put our ideas before our party is totally counterproductive.

That's the understanding most of us have been operating under for years, since Dean at least, through the 2006 midterms. Are we to abandon it now just because of a few setbacks?

It's coming, obviously, but what makes you think it will be a more moderate party?  Don't be surprised if the Republicans go hardcore nativist.

I've needed a post like this.

Matt says we must "work to create primary challenges wherever possible."

Democrats.com recently posted a list of 58 Democrats who deserve primary challenges because they opposed the McGovern Amendment to get out of Iraq by 4/08.

http://www.democrats.com/primary-2008-li st

Matt do you want to support this effort?

I prefer to put partisanship first. My ideology and your, yours and the Markos's, etc. will never be in complete alignment. But we live in a winner-take-all constitutional system that assure us that there will always be only two viable parties at any one time. Our ideologies are close enough to one another's that we share an interest in seeing the more progressive of the two parties win.

 ...WHY these anti-labor Democrats identify with the Democratic Party. If working Americans aren't the core constituency of the Democratic Party, then who is???

 Has anybody sat down and asked people like Udall WHY they're Democrats? I'm genuinely interested why someone would join a political party whose values they hold in contempt.

 If the Democrats keep acting like DLC'ers and continue enabling Bush and the Republicans, they WILL suffer heavy electoral losses next year. The drop in polls for Congress this week was just a taste of what's coming if the Dems continue to pretend that the public voted them in to carry on the proud legacies of Frist and Hastert.

 After all, why vote for a faux-Republican when the genuine article is available?

 While the consequences of a Republican victory in 2008 will be extremely dire for the nation, it will finally and permanently discredit the Vichy Dems, and allow the party -- if it's still a viable entity -- to finally go in the direction it needs to go.

 Then again, I thought that the 2002 electoral debacle would be the end of the DLC-nexus, too...

Matt, I will probably comment about the substance of this post later. but right now, I want to take serious issue with the use of the phrase "anti-abortion and theocrat Jim Wallis." It's not that there's anything substantively wrong with the appellation. It's that you use it as a pejorative. It's like saying "avowed homosexual." This is exactly the kind of anti-religious lack of respect that turns many away from more progressive politics when our politics happen to be more in alignment with a greater aspect of the Bible (well, at least the New Testament) than conservative thinking. However any of disagree with Wallis, he is at least trying to bring more religious people into alignment with the majority of the progressive agenda. It's not like harry Reid, another avowed anti-abortion advocate, hasn't been at least moderately good for the Democrats. Not perfect, mind  you. But there's been good there.

There are now essentially three serious political movements in this country superimposed upon our two-party system.

One, the hard right, composed of religious theocrats, gun rights nuts, nativist racists, homophobic bigots, anti-science wackos, militaristic pro-war and torture chickenhawks, necons, and radical libertarians.

Two, the progressive left, composed of progressive bloggers and activists, liberal intellectuals and academics, anti-war liberals (i.e. anti ANY war that makes no sense and is not justified or necessary), labor, minorities, gay and abortion rights activists, and environmentalists (I'm sure that I've left some out).

And three, the right-leaning "moderate" "center", composed of people who for the most part are not struggling to get by, pro-corporatists, big business, the M-I complex, neoliberals, moderate Republicans, conservative Democrats, Blue Dogs, DLCers, the MSM, Clintonistas, and people who still in the 90's.

I suppose that I could also include a fourth group, the politicall apathetic and uninvolved, but they don't really play much of a role and might as well not even exist in terms of political impact, although they do represent some marginal pickup opportunities for any of these movements.

Clearly, there are divisions within each movement and it's not always completely cohesive. But by and large these are the current policy and ideological divisions within out political system. And although Dems are now in charge of congress and likely to pick up more seats and the presidency in '08, it's still weighted in favor of the right in terms of policy and ideology, even if no longer towards the hard right.

The far right first group is obviously very much on the right. And while the left is, obviously, on the left, the middle group still leans way too far to the right (even if not towards the far right, which it never did and which it never could or would except perhaps rhetorically in order to get these peoples' votes). And since they tend to determine which way things break in the policy and ideology tug of war between right and left, they continue to break right.

I think that one bright spot is to recognize that this middle group is really composed of two sub-groups, and that we have an opportunity to split one of them off to side with us, which if done right can swing US politics our way for a generation or longer.

One subgroup is those who "lead" it, i.e. the big business and M-I neoliberal corporatists like the DLC, Blue Dogs and "moderate" Repubs, and of course the corporations, super-rich people, think tanks and media outlets who are behind them.

And the other subgroup is the mostly middle class, middle America, suburban independant voters who tend to support them. E.g. Lieberman and Reagan Democrats, pro-choice secular Republicans, moderate libertarians, pro-fiscal responsibility and low-taxes types, etc.

We will never get the first subgroup to side with us because they are by definition opposed to most of our policies and goals. But we can get a significant number from the second subgroup to join us if we do a good enough job of appealing to them and their priorities (thus the appeal of Obama, who superficially at least appears to have something for both us and this subgroup). And if we can do that, then the first subgroup will have to follow our lead, not vice-versa (and the hard right will be pushed back to the political margins that it came from and belongs in).

Which is why we desperately need progressive thinkers and leaders who can not only articulate fresh and practical new policies and ideas that are inherently progressive yet also appealing to this very large and important middle group, but who also have the smarts, courage and perseverence to fight for them for as long as it takes, as this is going to be a TOUGH and LONG process if we're to win it.

You're right, as the country moves away from the policies and leadership of the hard right, control of this nation's political system is going to be resolved by a fight for the hearts, minds and votes of the middle, between progressives and corporatists (which is why Romney is clearly the designated heir apparant by the GOP powers that be, since he's most likely to both get the GOP nomination and appeal to this middle group, and similarly why Hillary's the top choice of the corporatist crowd).

This is going to get nasty before it gets resolved. And it's going to affect congress as much as it will the presidency, if not more so.

never give up.
never surrender.

-C.

I couldn't agree more. Electing Democrats takes us partly there, but only partly. We have to go much farther.

During the time that the Right has controlled government, they have established deep roots by filling the Supreme Court with their appointess, purging Federal prosecutors who won't work for them, purging lobbyists who won't work for them (K Street Project), propagandizing a significant portion of the public, shifting the country's wealth from the poor to the the wealthy, etc.

We need to do similar work, but with progressive goals and using methods. So not only do we need to elect progressive Democrats, we also need to reinvigorate democracy. We need to implement Clean Money elections and clean up the election system, we need to restore the mainstream media to the role of watchdog of power (instead of lapdog to it), and we need to empower people to think of themselves as citizens who demand and work to create a good society. We can't just grab the reins of power like the Right did, but we must democratize society and transform it so that it actually works the way a democracy should -- a fair and equitable system based on law, not a system based on corruption, bullying, propaganda, and hero worship.

Are you capable of writing anything that is not repulsively offensive and hysterically over the top? "Sadistic extremists" and "Hillary Clinton told 'em to go fuck themselves" are both pretty egregious choices of words. How about a little sense of proportion? You really are a ultra dull and predictable caricature. How about a little original thought or depth? Boring.

Sounds about right. Now that Democrats have majorities, the focus of the netroots should be not just on electing Democrats, but on electing good Democrats.

In 2006 the Heath Shulers of congress were a valuable addition, as they created the majority. But they can look after themselves. The focus should now be on a) filling any safe open seat with the most progressive candidate possible and b) supporting candidates in redder areas, but only so long as they're broadly supportive on at least some of our most important issues. Provided the majority exists and isn't under serious threat, there's no reason not to try and make it a more effective majority for our ends.

The right began taking over the country after the infamous Powell memo in 1971.   In theory, progressives began something similar with the foundation of Moveon.org,  as you note.  

But the real moment when the movement to Take Back America began was when Howard Dean stood up at the DNC Winter Meeting in 2003 and demanded "What I want to know is why Democrats..."   are voting for the war, tax cuts, etc etc.   It was Dean who saw the real problem was with the Democrats as much as it was with the Republicans.  

If Moveon's foundation had been so important, would we really have seen such disasters in 2000 and 2002?  Let's remember, it's Dean who really promoted the phrase, Take Back America, and he may have been the first to coin it.  

So we actually have been at this about four years.   Not long, considering what we have to unravel.

One of the big reasons there is so much drift in the Democratic Party right now is that the Governor has been somewhat silenced by his position at the DNC.   His voice is missed.

Excuse me but I know Congressman Udall very well, and he is no conservative who feels conservative ideas work. He's a man who does a rare thing these days. He votes from his head and his heart, and if he says it you can take it to the bank. I'm sick of those on the left who start with this utter crap about how "if you don't agree with me or see things my way then you're not a "progressive" or "liberal" or a "Democrat." We all know Joe Liberman, we all have to put up with Joe Libermen Mark Udall is NO Joe Liberman. UDALL 08!