Enough has been made about the main philosophical divide here that we all think we're pretty sick of hearing about it. The framework for the debate has been laid and reinforced by salvo after salvo of tone deaf hyperbole. Several people have written excellent diaries attempting de-escalation of the invective and encouraging cross chasm communication and understanding. This diary is my perhaps useless attempt to further that goal. I love this community, and being the reconciliatory type I don't like so much bickering. In another diary where I saw elements of this debate surfacing, I thought up a new (to me at least) angle on the issue.
Whatever you want to call the sides (purists, completionists, cheerleaders, apologists, incrementalists) we need both of them. This argument has been made before, but I would clarify that we need both sides not to "balance each other out," but to do very different jobs for the progressive movement. Follow me over the fold for insight that's worth what you paid for it.
I see the sides take shape in every major issue that is discussed here. One side wants to talk about how many good things are being done, the other wants to discuss the shortcomings of those things and the good things that aren't being accomplished. Here's the thing, if the progressive agenda is to be advanced in this country the critics need to direct their message at the administration, and the celebrators need to direct theirs at the electorate. Every effort should be made to focus these messages on their respective target audiences.
I want President Obama, his staff, his cabinet, and every member of congress to fight off a deluge of criticism about why their policies and legislation is not progressive enough or flawed in particular ways. To that end I cheer every administration critic on this site to pressure the politicians until they're blue in the face. While you're doing that I'm going to the people in charge of electing "more and better Democrats" and I'm going to show them every reason why they should do just that.
Republicans are still politically relevant not because they have good ideas, but because they have mastered this formula. They don't have to concern themselves so much with internal criticism because the vast majority of the moderates in the GOP have been purged. They are free to spin, misinform, and flood the airwaves with propaganda to get more Republicans elected.
For better or worse, we Democrats have more integrity than that. To paraphrase Mark Twain: a lie can make it halfway around the world before the truth can get its pants on. Our job is to facilitate that wardrobe installation and show people that even if all the things we have accomplished and will accomplish won't be perfect, they remain the best ideas for the health of our Nation and need to be implemented.
The critics need to concentrate on the politicians so they know what we want from them, and voters are not turned off to voting for good progressives. If the people hear Republican criticism on one side and Democratic criticism on the other it's not hard to imagine them getting fed up, disillusioned, and depressed. Does that further the progressive cause? Of course not.
The fans need to concentrate on the public so they keep checking the 'D' at the ballot box. If the politicians keep hearing how great they are then they will never accomplish anything good. Does that further the progressive cause? Certainly not.
Both sides make mistaken assumptions in our little tiffs. The "apologists" assume the "purists" are naive or selfish cynics that aren't helping us get anything done. That's not true at all. They just want promises kept and the best possible outcomes for everyone.
"Purists" assume that "apologists" don't care if things suck and are so blinded by their schoolgirl crush on dreamy Obama that they are willing to ignore or are oblivious to the sub par decisions he or his administration makes. That is equally untrue. We are focused on keeping us from backsliding into the minority where any criticism of decisions or legislation would fall on deaf ears regardless of validity.
If we're building a progressive house, "purists" are our architects and engineers, designing the best structure possible, and keeping an eye on the quality of its construction. "Apologists" are the lumberjacks and laborers, providing the materials to help make the vision a reality. "Purists" want the best possible material but they mostly keep their eyes on their work, designing the best house with a bit of an assumption that they will have the material when it's time to build. The "apologists" just want to keep their head down and cut as much lumber as they can, confident that the more they can produce the easier it will be for people down the line to make something useful out of it.
Bottom line: Two separate tasks that are mutually dependent and vitally important to the progressive cause are performed by distinct groups of people. When we come back to the clubhouse our conversation should go something like this:
"I got the (insert progressive candidate name here) poll numbers up in Xzy County. There's a good chance we'll get rid of that Republican/blue dog in November"
"Excellent work my friend! I pressured (Politician name here) to add (progressive policy language) to S. 1234 in committee."
"Well done Amigo! Keep up the good work."
HIGH FIVE
"Let's go get a (beverage of your choosing) and discuss our next move."
*end scene*
Now I'm off to the Meta bar for some Meta beer. Who's with me?