Thursday, December 27, 2007

Don't Move to the Middle, Progressive Needs to be Partisan

Paul Krugman has an article that shows how the country is becoming more liberal. He cites polls that show Americans agreeing with liberal positions and the elections of progressives in red states in 2006.

Krugman then discusses the need for progressives to take advantage of that shift by pushing ahead on bold ideas.

The question, however, is whether Democrats will take advantage of America’s new liberalism. To do that, they have to be ready to forcefully make the case that progressive goals are right and conservatives are wrong. They also need to be ready to fight some very nasty political battles.

And that’s where the continuing focus of many people on Bush, rather than the movement he represents, has become a problem.

Krugman concludes...

So, here’s my worry: Democrats, with the encouragement of people in the news media who seek bipartisanship for its own sake, may fall into the trap of trying to be anti-Bushes—of trying to transcend partisanship, seeking some middle ground between the parties.

That middle ground doesn’t exist—and if Democrats try to find it, they’ll squander a huge opportunity. Right now, the stars are aligned for a major change in America’s direction. If the Democrats play nice, that opportunity may soon be gone.

As Ned Lamont stated no one is looking for a moderate to run their company, they want someone who stands up for their strong beliefs. The idea of a moderate is a trap because the term moderate is defined in the political dialogue today means “being in the middle of elite opinion in Washington, D.C.”

The dismal approval ratings of the President and of Congress shows that Americans are overwhelmingly disappointed in their government. This is not because of partisan bickering, but because it seems that both parties represent corporate profit instead of the people that elected them.

The 2006 elections showed that candidates that run on a platform of economic populism win regardless of what state they come from. People are looking for candidate that have the courage to push big ideas, not ones that run to the middle.

1 comment:

Ben said...

True compromise is possible, and is in fact the only way legislation will ever be passed. The entire government is designed to -require- compromise. Seeking compromise, however, leaves the concillatory side open to easy attacks by an obstructionist opposition. The Bush adminstration is the perfect example of how the art of obstructionism can drag any dialog into a inescapble quagmire while all the time pointing the finger at Congress.

The problem isn't that seeking compromise is bad, but that there isn't equal commitment from both sides of the issues.