The election results are in and I, like every other progressive in the nation, am ecstatic with the results. No longer will the Republicans be able to push through unaffordable tax cuts for the rich while underfunding educational programs. No longer will Bush be able to slam through conservative judges without a real fight. Perhaps most importantly, no longer will Bush be able to safely bask in the knowledge that Congress will never send him a popular and progressive laws that doesn't fit in with his conservative agenda.
This is a victory we all should savor. The Democrats have spent a long time out of power in Congress, and we have earned a chance to savor this victory before getting to the important (and hard) work of getting America back on track.
So why oh why are there rumblings of an interparty struggle between progressives and moderates in the party over who is "responsible" for yesterday's gains?
A brief look at the front page of
Firedoglake reveals the beginnings of this struggle. Some pundits have credited yesterday's gains to Democratic moderates and centrists running in key races. This is obviously an oversimplification, and should be recognized as such. But it's also an oversimplification to say that progressives are the sole reason that Democrats swept the nation yesterday.
What I don't get is why this is set up as a choice. The real answer seems obvious to me - Democrats won yesterday because of the combined efforts of BOTH progressive AND moderate Democrats.
In races where the electorate leans to the left, as in MA and the Philadelphia suburbs, the Democrats pulled off victories by running progressive candidates who brought out the Democrats' liberal base, while also attracting the support of moderates who are fed up with the GOP's incompetence. And in races like VA-Sen and GA-08, where attracting moderate and independent voters is the key, the Democrats running moderate candidates like Jim Webb and Jim Marshall.
Our success was due to the fact that we ran true progressives where true progressives could win, and moderates in races where the electorate is (for now) too conservative for a true progressive to win. We can all rejoice in the triumph of Chris Murphy in CT-05, but I think everyone here would agree that we probably would not have won with Chris Murphy as our candidate in GA-08, GA-12, NC-11, TX-22, IN-08, IN-09, or KS-02.
Similarly, there's no way we could have won by running Heath Shuler or Baron Hill in the Philly suburbs or the CT House races.
From a purely practical/electoral standpoint, we need both progressives and moderates in the party in order to maintain a working majority in Congress. Presidential elections are a different ballgame, but this national is simply too diverse for an ideological party to gain a working majority in Congress.
We should strive to run the most progressive candidate with a chance of winning in every district, but also ensure that our party's tent is big enough for both the Chris Murphys and the Jim Marshalls to fit inside.
I think most people here understand that. After all, we never would have supported Jim Webb like we did if we were uncompromising ideologues. So let's not waste our time arguing over who should get credit for yesterday's historic victories. Instead, let's be glad that our party is big enough for everyone who wants to move this country forward, and then get to work on doing just that.
Let's get to work.