This diary is in response to a number of diaries and comments speculating about why Democrats "always lose," are "spineless," don't "run to their base," and the like.
I don't consider these people purity trolls.
They have a legitimate complaint, albeit one grounded in too small an historical sample. I'm old enough to remember when GOP voters made these same complaints, back when Democrats had legislative majorities and a progressive Supreme Court, and racked up a stunning series of policy victories: the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, Court decisions like Miranda, Gideon v. Wainwright and the Pentagon Papers case, Watergate, the War Powers Act, and Carter-era Congressional hearings, legislation, and executive orders that reined in the FBI and CIA.
But I suspect most Kossaks aren't old enough to remember those times, and in the nearly 40 years since, progressives have indeed been on the losing side of almost every major political fight. If that's all you've known, all you've seen in your adult lifetime, it's easy to get cynical.
Still, come with me over the fold, please, for why I think we should not make the 2008 elections into a progressive referendum.
First, let me explain what I mean by "a progressive referendum."
By that I mean arguments that Senator Obama and other Democratic candidates should advocate only progressive ideas, focus on energizing progressive voters to the exclusion of reaching out to independents and disaffected Republicans, and "take a progressive stand" on every issue.
It's a gutsy, all-or-nothing strategy that says, in effect, "If you want pure progressive ideology, vote Democrat; if not, vote Republican." I think many progressives would prefer to win on these terms, to "prove" that progressivism has replaced conservatism and deliver a "mandate" for full-speed-ahead progressive reforms.
And it's the strategy that Republicans have won with since the early-90s, because the "Reagan Revolution" was grounded in a patiently constructed, grassroots movement combining Wall Street money, evangelical fervor, and neoconservative nationalism. That coalition began building in the mid-70s, swelled through the "Contract for America," and yielded enough raw power that conservatives no longer needed to compromise. They had the votes in Congress, the political and corporate infrastructure, and the monopoly on media framing to enact and implement anything they wanted.
And they did. Tragically, stupidly, deceitfully, and disastrously.
Yes, without a doubt, conservatism is a damaged political brand in 2008. Its failures are many and manifest, from New Orleans to Baghdad, and Wall Street to Main Street. Any candidate running on laissez faire corporatism and privatized, for-profit government is running on a rubble-strewn road to political ruin.
So it might seem that, with conservatism in such disrepute, we ought to make 2008 a progressive referendum. Plus, honestly, after the past three decades, it's tempting and normal to want some payback: to not need to compromise, to demand true progressive reforms at every level, and thus to "give the voters a clear choice" between progressive and conservative ideology.
Stand up for your beliefs, and let the chips fall where they may. At least if we win, we've "really won," because we've put the progressive agenda out there for the voters to choose ... right?
As I said, it's a gutsy, all-or-nothing strategy. I also think it's a foolhardy strategy, with far more risks than many progressive realize.
Registered Democrats comprise about 40% of the electorate nationwide, with registered Republicans at just under 30%, and the remaining 30% independents. That may seem like progressives hold the whip hand. But not all Democrats are progressives, and progressive ideologues are fewer still. The "base" that so many here think Obama should placate is still a small minority. You don't win change-over elections by campaigning to the minority and expecting everyone else to come along. You win change-over elections by campaigning to as many people as you can reach.
And while campaigning to the independents - as Senator Obama and other Democratic candidates are doing - may seem to yield an impure victory, with no real progressive "mandate," I simply don't think we've yet proven our case to enough voters to gamble on that "mandate." How could we? We haven't yet had a chance to demonstrate that progressive solutions work for Americans. We progressives may believe in the theory, but we haven't yet had the chance to test it to reality, and prove it to the voters.
I believe voters have rejected conservatism, but that's not the same as embracing progressivism. I don't believe they've done that yet. And they won't, unless and until we prove we can win elections, and then enact policies that make real improvements in their daily lives. If we do that, we may be able to lay the groundwork for a larger progressive referendum, and a progressive "mandate," in 2012.
Conservatives have proved their ideas don't work.
But we progressives haven't proved anything yet.
Let's win the White House and a filibuster-proof Senate majority in 2008, and then do the hard work of proving that our ideas work, refining those that don't, proving we know how to govern and not simply how to dissent.