No, this is not an issues vs centrist vs less filling vs tastes great vs - oh, I'm already bored with this sentence.
Just to be clear, I'm not going to make a case for or against our new President. Nor am I going to make a case for or against one of the many groups engaged in the heated debate over what the Democrats have done since the election, what they're doing now, and what they may or may not do in the future.
What I am going to do is speculate on the change we voted for, and - here is the important part - will continue to vote for. Because if it hasn't happened yet, then we're not finished fighting for it.
To begin with, I should say up front that I am disappointed with the results so far. Who's fault is this? Wrong question.
Fix the problem, not the blame.
The problem seems obvious: we're not getting what we were promised. But somehow, I think that's not the actual problem, but merely a symptom. Hopefully, most of you will have already guessed where I'm going with this.
But for everyone else, I'll say it baldly: The problem is that while we have Democratic control of Congress and the White House, these might not be the Democrats we're looking for.
And that's okay. I repeat: That's okay.
I doubt that anyone seriously believed Americans would wake from the long national nightmare of the attempted neocon coup and proceed to take the hardest left since NASCAR invented the 40-yard racetrack. If you did believe this, them I think you might be as naive as the person who just believed that NASCAR did invent a 40-yard racetrack. But one thing seemed clear: Americans were ready and willing to kick the 'cons to the curb and try something new. Moderate Republicans, having already been kicked to the curb, saw their chance. Since they weren't welcome in the "new" GOP, they joined the winning side. I don't mean this to say that they cynically abused voter dissatisfaction. Well, not all of them. But even if they did, it's better than the alternative, which would have been to let the George Allens and the Conrad Burns's have another go.
No, thank you. As much as I was unhappy with the rightward drift of the Democratic Party, I was far less happy with the rightward bull rush of the GOP, and by default, the nation. No, Jim Webb and John Tester (two examples of our new breed of Democrats) weren't my ideal candidates. But I would have voted for them if I could have. It is equally true that they would lose my vote if a superior candidate challenged them in the next primary (this is academic, since I don't live in either VA or MT).
Having said all this, does that mean I think the Democratic tent got too big? Of course not. We just need to move the tent.
We need to elect a better class of Democrat.
Of course, I need to elucidate. But I thought I'd throw the line break in so that all the lazy, reactionary readers can stop there and start writing flaming replies to what they decided I was saying before I finished saying it. For the rest of you, here goes.
Obama isn't the problem. In fact, (IMHO) he's a damn sight better than many, even now. Nor is the problem Webb, or Tester, or Reid, or Pelosi, or even Joe ME-berman. With the exception of the last, these were the people we were given to vote for, and we voted for them (or, at least, against their opponents). They're not ideal, but they're what we have to work with. For now.
Putting pressure on them to behave better is appropriate, but expecting them to behave differently than they have is missing the point. They're not the end result. They are steps in the journey. Sooner or later, some of these people will be seen in the same light that LIE-berman was seen when Ned Lamont jumped in. Was Ned Lamont ideal? No. He was improvement. Of course, he had the rug pulled out from under him, but that's why we keep fighting. A better class of Democrat.
One of the things that seems to be missing in all the debate is the fact that Democrats don't march in lock-step. Well, it's said, but I rarely see anyone make the connection. Correct me if I'm wrong. Anyway, the strength of the GOP is (or was) that they do (or did) march in lock-step; thus, support is manufactured, and more importantly, nearly universal. The strength of not marching in lock-step is evolution. The Democratic Party, by virtue of not succumbing to groupthink, can evolve, grow, change. Today's Harry Reid is tomorrow's Russ Feingold. And so on.
The 2008 elections were proof positive of that. The 50 state strategy, the fightin' Dems, the emergence of strong, centrist candidates, etc - it all came together to sweep out the neocons. So my question would be his: If the Democratic Party can be made to lean to the right on order to swallow up the Arlen Specters and lock up Congress and the White House, can they not also be dragged to the left through hard work, pressure, and voting in more and more left leaning candidates as we go on?
But isn't this all just an extremely long-winded way of saying President Obama isn't good enough? Thank you, Straw Man, but no. President Obama is who I thought he was when I gave him my vote, which isn't exactly a ringing endorsement. And that's okay, because he's not the result I voted for. He's a step in the correct direction. Maybe he delivers the goods, maybe he doesn't. I'll be keeping pressure up either way. I'm happy to work with what I've got, because I know what to do if or when it doesn't give me the results I want.
Keep steppin'.
Shall we?
UPDATE: I find it not just a little sad that a call for moderation and an attempt to build a bridge draws little to no debate, whereas the several diaries above which invite flame wars are leaped upon instantly. I have no desire for personal glory in this, but if I'm the only one saying it, I wish there could be more interest. Perhaps someone more eloquent, knowledgeable, or well-known (on DailyKos) could revisit this idea and bring it more attention.