Coalition Tangle

From Digby over at Hullabaloo:

This is the source of the mistrust that characterizes the relationship between the progressives and the centrists (or neo-liberals in Cruishank's piece ) in the Democratic Party coalition. It's not just that progressive goals are often thwarted --- so are conservatives'. Nobody always gets what they want. It's that progressive values and issues are actively disdained and used as bargaining chips in negotiations. It's one thing to feel that you aren't getting what you want, it's quite another to be constantly worried that you will lose what you already have --- and at the hands of your own coalition allies.

This all worked for the centrists when the Republicans played bipartisan politics. But they don't anymore. They have adopted a hardcore partisan approach that does not allow give and take with the opposition party. The Centrists learned this during the health care battle and their response has been to manipulate and strong arm the progressives in their coalition to get the votes they need. (In the old days, they could just leave them standing on the sidelines and make deals with Republicans.)

And

You simply can't have a working coalition in which a very large faction is constantly used as political cannon fodder. If the anger doesn't kill you the disillusionment will. The old bipartisan way is dead for now and Democrats had better adjust to dealing fairly and equitably within its own coalition or they're going to find that they don't have one.

More here.

Frankly, I'm amazed that the Democrats still manage to count progressives in their coalition.

Back around 2003 I was having one of those friendly arguments, fashionable at the time, about whether to vote Green or Democrat. It ended up being kind of tense, a bit less friendly than how it started, with my buddy trying to pin me into a corner: "Sure, vote Green and satisfy your conscience, but the Greens are in no position to do anything; the Democrats, at least, have some political power, and can get some results." My pleas that the Democrats actually don't get results, or at least the results I want, went unheeded. The conversation ended unsatisfyingly, with with my friend thinking I was an idiot for choosing ideology over pragmatism, and me frustrated that my friend didn't realize that, either way, practicality or idealism, the Democrats were no longer a party that could call itself liberal.

That was nearly a decade ago and things have just gotten worse since then. I've grown much more unflinching in my criticism of the Democrats, and pretty much refuse to vote for them until they get their shit together. I don't know these days if the Greens are the way to go, but I'm all the more certain that the Democrats have moved even further to the right. Meanwhile, the Republicans have become far right extremists. And I don't really talk much anymore with the above mentioned guy who got in my face about voting for Nader.

Digby's right in observing that liberals and progressives can take this bastard-child status only for so long before they bolt the party. I mean, I've been gone for years, myself. Lately, the Democrats have been enjoying some success, but only because the Republicans have gone so far around the bend that they're obviously bat-shit crazy, and most Americans know it. Sooner or later, though, they're going to figure out how to hide their lunatics, going to find a smooth-talking movie star type to be their party's public face, develop some language that sounds less psychotic, and then start winning again. All while the Democrats continue to be in profound disarray.

I really do want this country's traditional liberal party to get its shit together, if only because being a Democrat pisses off Republicans. But I just can't support a party that has nothing to do with my vision for the country. As far as I can tell, the Donkey Party is ultimately doomed.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$