To be fair, if you blame the 12 Democrat senators who voted for the torture bill, if you blame Sherrod Brown for voting for it, if you blame Reid for giving up a filibuster, the you have to put the blame on yourselves (ourselves). How many of the "true progressives" who were unhappy with Clinton/Gore's comprimises on the welfare reform, on NAFTA, voted for Nader in 2000? That was the ultimate enabling act.
Our nation is in grave danger today. Our liberty is being eroded everyday. Yet the progressives still have not learned the lesson of 2000...
Very few today would admit that they voted for Nader in 2000. At the time, a lot of the "progressives" were unhappy with Clinton/Gore because of the welfare reform and NAFTA. I remember hearing repeatedly from my friends that Clinton was "the best Republican president" we've ever had. Therefore a significant portion of the left wanted to vote for Nader as a protest vote. They rationalized that 1) these votes would be in states with large Gore leads such as California and Florida; and that 2) there was not a big difference between Gore and Bush anyway, so even if Gore lost it wouldn't make much difference. God how were they wrong!
We did not lose 2000 election because of media bias, Republican dirty tricks, or the hanging chads. If the left did not sabotage Gore, there wouldn't even be an opportunity for Bush to play the tricks. We lost 2000 because a significant portion of the progressive movement tried to be clever and got burned.
"Standing on principles" is either a facade used to fool voters (a la Bush) or a lazy excuse for not using your brains. No successful politician ever did that. Abraham Lincoln didn't. FDR didn't. We all know Bill Clinton never did. A society always needs a few to "stand on principles." Those are the (sacrificial lambs) "heroes" of the society. They are John Brown's, Martin Luther King's, whose sacrifices enabled the politicians on their side (Lincoln and LBJ) to push for progress. However, to disallow our politicians to make compromises, to disallow them ever to yield to the opposing side, and to ask our politicians to be the sacrificial lambs on our behalf, is foolhardy and political suicide, no matter how evil you think the opposing side is.
We were burned once already when some of us tried to take revenge on Clinton/Gore's compromises. We're going to lose much more if we don't learn our lessons and don't allow our politicians any room for manuvering. Yes, everyone loves the hero who stands up to the bully and wins. But that only happens in a fairy tale. The Chinese student who stood up against a column of tanks was a hero, but he did not win. In real life, heroic acts are usually acts of desperation and few of them ultimately lead to good outcomes. Let's not self-destruct by demanding all of our representatives to be such heroes.
In a large nation as ours, there are many diverse views on every issue. Mainstream opinions change slowly. It is not always in the best interest of the progressive movement to pull our politicians as far left as possible. How much we should pull is difficult to gauge. This gets worse if the entire left has a single voice - that would be a recipe for disaster. So we need the "moderates," people who vote with us only 80% of the time, or even 60% of the time. But forging alliances with the moderates, we can be more effective in influencing the entire nation, not just ourselves. Therefore, calling for heads to roll every time we lose a battle is exactly the wrong thing to do. This is what lost the 2000 election for us. We're going to lose more elections if we continue such behavior.
A disciplined progressive movement, means that we have to understand that the path to our success cannot be a straight line. We should not throw a temper tantrum every time we have to take a detour. A disciplined progressive movement means that as long as we're inching towards our goal, we take these detours in stride. It also means that we do not self-destruct simply to spite those who disagree with us on an important issue, but otherwise can be greatly helpful to us. The right has gained an upper hand by dismantling many of the checks and balances. We are disadvantaged. Without a well disciplined movement we can never win back this nation.
The eulogy of the Nation, while eyecatching, is very much misguided. I'm surprised that people who are supposedly committed to democratic values have so little confidence in democracy and are so easy to give up. Let's not give up. Let's work hard towards winning back the congress and winning back this nation.