Dems Need to Keep Some Perspective

Greenwald today:

If those who spent the last eight years vigorously opposing the radicalism, militarism, and anti-constitutional abuses of the Bush administration fail to oppose the Democratic leadership with equal fervor when they violate the same principles -- as they inevitably will -- then the humiliation of the Right and its removal from power will be emotionally satisfying, perfectly just, and a very mild improvement, but will ensure the continuation rather than the termination of most of the worst abuses of this government.

It's certainly true that there are more good national Democratic office-holders than Republicans -- it's not even close (anyone doubting that should just review the vote totals on the key votes during the Bush era).  But within the Democratic Party, the good members are vastly outnumbered by the bad.  The (understandable) euphoria over the anticipated obliteration of the extremist right-wing movement that has dominated our politics for years (which I share) shouldn't obscure the fact that the alternative -- the national Democratic Party -- shares many of the same sicknesses and is burdened by whole new ones as well, and itself will need far more opposing and changing than supporting and affirming.

While principled conservatives would probably endorse the first paragraph, they might have trouble with parts of the second.  But I think Greenwald has it right. The Republicans as a group are bloody awful, but the Dems are only slightly better. Pelosi and Reid are loathsome. The Blue Dogs, DLC, and New Democrats are deeply implicated in the worst parts of a corrupt corporate-lobbyist system that plays way too strong a role in shaping the legislative agenda. The Progressive Caucuses are a mixed bag. I'd like to see what I've been describing here as a Whig coalition of principled conservatives and "good" Democrats to be formed that would push for changing the rules of the game.

Most Republicans and Democrats are unprincipled game players who do what they have to do to advance their careers. They are passive followers who accept that the rules as they are currently configured are reality.  That was my problem with Bill and Hillary. They were both too comfortable with the current rules. But we have an historic opportunity to change them, and if they get changed these passive pols will fall into line. They are like Pavlov's dogs; they just need to be retrained to new behaviors when they hear the bell.  But someone has to do the hard work required to change the conditioning routines. That's where leadership comes in.  Will Obama bring it?  I think he understands the problem, and a part of him wants to change the game, but it's unclear whether he has the capability and courage to do it.  It's up to the Whigs among us to push him where I believe he wants to go.