A few years ago when I was just starting to learn about the netroots in the United States and their various successes, I overheard someone explain the methodology that eventually will lead to the shift towards what the progressives in this country desire. It was this simple idea,
"Vote the one you want in the primary, vote for the Democrat in the election"
Now, in other countries like Canada, this isn't that easy. Mostly because there are multiple viable progressive parties and voting for a single one would actually decrease the efficacy of the progressive movement (Even though some Liberals in Canada would argue otherwise.) This is why Canadians have strategic voting and entire websites dedicated to which party to vote for where based on the probability of that parties candidate of beating the more Conservative candidates.
While the two-party system in the states is an irritant, it does allow for a very simple and easy way to slowly pull a system in a direction if a large enough group of people decided to do it. By having that group vote en masse for a specific party, and then forcing said candidates of that party to be more attuned to their belief system, naturally the politics will shift in the direction they want. It won't be as rapid as a revolution, but there will be a mathematical critical point where everything changes. (And it seems that this year is that critical point.)
By repeating the mantra, "Vote for the candidate I want in the primary, vote for the Democrat in the election." Progressives can fight over their own issues and still slowly move in the direction that all progressives want to eventually move.
I worry, however, about the schisms I've been seeing for the last little while in the netroots community in general in the states. Much of which has been exacerbated by McCain/Republican operatives who would just love to split the party down the middle so they can win at very least the presidency this year.
Again, referring to Canada, this is commonly done by Conservative operatives to divide the vote in competitive ridings between the NDP, Liberals and Greens. That way, with less than 30-40% of the vote, the Conservative can win the seat and gain more influence in government. In the states, a similar thing would be to divide the vote between people who support the Democratic nominee and those who absolutely refuse to support the Democratic nominee and thus will either vote for McCain or vote a protest vote for another third-party candidate.
The only way this happens though is if all of the progressives forget their mantra. "Vote for the one you want in the primary, vote for the Democrat in the election." If the Democrat loses to the Republican, regardless of who the Democrat is, the progressive community as a whole loses. In general, the Republican is always to the right of the Democrat. So any win by them is an instant loss for however many years it takes to win back that seat.
What is especially frustrating with the rhetoric I'm hearing though is the fact that the progressives, are finally winning. The election in the states is theirs to lose. They are winning because they stuck to our guns and they kept on building up movement and momentum. Yes, there have been losses over time, Kerry lost in 2004, Lamont in 2006, but they still held together and got amazing gains in 2006, and will likely get even more amazing gains in 2008.
The only way the progressives will lose the 2008 election is if we end up dividing ourselves. The only way we lose is if we forget the mantra that has made us so successful so far:
"Vote for the one you want in the primary, vote for the Democrat in the election."
-- Crossposted at my blog 1337hax0r.com