How many of the "pragmatic" improvements from the last two years, do you expect will survive the coming onslaught of insanity?
Don't get me wrong, I think pragmatism has its place. But when the vast majority of the political process is literally insane, then eking out policy improvements on the margins is really a false pragmatism.
(Before the pedants get their knickers in a twist, I am aware of how I've used the word: "literally".)
Firstly, consider how political discourse in the US has become estranged from reality:
*Death Panels
*Birthers
*Obama's Secret Muslim Conspiracy
*Obama's Secret Socialist Conspiracy
*Creationism
Those are just the fantasies which have no basis in reality. Then there are the areas where disinformation is driving the debate: Environmental Policy, Tax Policy, Economic Policy, Defense Policy...etc.
When policy debate is estranged from reality, the ensuing political process is literally insane. That's why the electoral backlash against the economic policies which favored Wall Street, delivered another electoral victory to Wall Street.
Which evokes this definition of insanity:
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, then expecting different results.
The US political process keeps choosing policies which lead to economic disaster, but expects different results.
The evidence is clear: the US political process is literally insane, with the lunatics setting a dangerously sociopathic agenda. They don't believe in a Communal Ship of State; instead they believe that every man, woman and child should be swimming for themselves. In their bizzaro world, only the wealthy are entitled to boats (which are manned by "lucky ducky" galley slaves). So for the past 30 years, they've been "drilling holes in the bottom of the hull".
In a very superficial sense, "manning the pumps" and "handing out life-jackets" appears to be a pragmatic response to such insanity. But the rising water is only a symptom; the real problem is the political process drilling those damn holes.
When he became President, Barack Obama had a window of opportunity to ChangeTM the political process itself. The American people were sick and tired of the political insanity; they gave Obama a mandate to directly challenge its foundations. In a generational tragedy, Obama squandered an opportunity for fundamental change.
Instead of fundamentally reforming the process, Obama gave us "pragmatic" policy improvements that focused on better "life-jackets" and increased "pump efficiency". While he was doing this, the already insane political process was becoming even more deranged. To appease the lunatics, the "pragmatists" even started to embrace the insane program of "drill baby, drill!".
Many of us recognized the folly of this false pragmatism. But instead of listening to us, the "pragmatists" kept telling us to STFU. The pragmatists castigated us as a bunch of whiners who expected too much; the "pragmatists" dismissed us as the professional left. But while the "Pragmatists" were beating up on the left*, the lunatics were tightening their grip on the political process.
*(Before the Overton Window was shoved far right, what is now the left was really the center.)
Now that the deranged political process has again put the US Government's finances in the hands of the lunatics, the "pragmatists" are blaming the "ideologically rigid left".
Will the "Pragmatists" continue to believe that more and better life-jackets are the best way to counteract holes drilled into the hull? Will they continue to pursue the same strategy, but expect a different outcome in 2012?
Are the "Pragmatists" just another self-deluded group, that is estranged from reality?
--------------------------------------
Let's put it into another metaphor:
The US political process is a corrupt game that is rigged against the left.
The "Pragmatists" think that a long term strategy, of "smart betting" on the best odds, will lead to victory. But in a rigged game, no matter what your strategy is, the big money always wins in the end.
We don't need better game strategies, we need a whole new game.
Obama literally started out as a game changer. The OFA model had ripped through the political process and crushed the conventional campaigns of Clinton and McCain. But after winning the election, Obama abandoned his game changing tactics. Instead, Obama chose to "get things done" through politics as usual. His acceptance of the political status-quo was exemplified by his backroom deal with Big PhRMA.
Two years later, we find that the same old processes lead to the same old outcomes. Of course, it's all the fault of the DFHs.