There is one basic premise to my post today, and i’ll admit that it’s difficult to argue to a degree: Representation by Democrats or Republicans is essentially homogonized. Let me rip a page from our President’s book and start by saying that they tend to agree on 95% of things ( the vast majority of Democrats voting with Bush during his tenure is a real world example of what i’m talking about ). The 5% variance is mere food coloring in the grand scheme of things. Now the hard parts…

The parties have chosen ( wisely ) some very important things to vary on in order to illicit the most visceral response from the population in order to divide it between the two camps. Nearly equally, as it happens. Like a wedge ( yes, i am aware i’m not breaking new ground here ) it allows both camps to mostly tailor to corporations rather than the electorate because they’re so fixated on the wedge, they miss the fact that every other concern they have is being used as a urinal target in the Senate bathroom.

So while it’s true, the similarities are astounding, the differences are so deeply held beliefs they eclipse all else. Therein lies the difficulty in arguing the "essentially the same" position. Even taking the proverbial 10000 foot view, most people are so overwhelmed by the wedge issues, they hone in on it with laser like focus.

Right, so despite the wedges, I DO see the parties as twins with slightly different tattoo’s on their @sses.

What does this have to do with progressives losing? Quite a bit actually, i’m coming to that. We’re held captive by a Democratic party that hasn’t represented more than a handful of our ideals for a very long time. Why? Is it because we’re petrified of how much worse things will be with the ‘other’ party in power? Well…8 years tells us it CAN get pretty bad but to be honest, this slippery slope started before Clinton and was not at all arrested by his being in office. Glass-Steagal was repealed on his watch. The .com bubble inflated and popped on his watch. DOMA/DODT came about during his reign. NAFTA happened. Offshoring (the ultimate union buster) became all the rage. When I really think about it, there wasn’t much different but the curtains between him and Bush outside the realm of civil liberties.

Am I really arguing that Bush Senior was a lot like Clinton was a lot like Bush Junior was a lot like Obama? Yes. Yes I am. With the exception of the wedges.

It reminds me of a friend of mine who was trapped in a terrible relationship with a woman. She was cruel as can be to him and everyone wondered how he could stand to be with her. I had the unfortunate chance to have him tell me one day and it came down to two very important things to him: His children ( not the girlfriends offspring ) had grown attached and he was afraid of hurting them and he was so utterly demoralized he didn’t think he’d ever find happiness ever again ( these were her wedges ). When he finally DID let things end, there was no promise of happiness and roses. Only the removal of the source of his pain and the chance to find happiness.

We ( progressives ) will never be taken seriously politically as long as we continue to be held hostage by our ‘fear of losing’. We will continue to be the target of ruthless triangulation by the Democrats as long as we’re willing to let them. Basically, if we are ‘in the bag’ we will continue to have a party that doesn’t actually represent us what so ever. If we want our "Progressive Omlette" we’re going to have to break some eggs.

There are two ways we can go about this. First, we can attempt to wrest control of one of the major parties to be a vehicle for our platform. OR we can form our own in order to influence one of the major parties in a slightly different way. The devil is in the details, however.

In the first, we can primary ALL Democratic candidates. We very well may not be successful in getting our candidate on the ballot, and we also may impact the general election by forcing the Dems to spend on the primaries instead of the actual campaign, however there’s also the chance that the dem can still pull off an election victory in order to protect the wedge issues. The more devastating, though probably more effective is that in the mid-terms we vote green party where-ever available, or spoil ballots ( but still vote…staying home doesn’t send the same message ). This would be the nuclear option IF we are trying to reassert ourselves with the Democratic party.

In the second, we play the game with a long-term view. We field candidates who hue to our own views. We fund these candidates. We vote for these candidates. We lose most of the time, but in some cases we start to win. We essentially create the Progressive Party and stand by it, no matter what. Starting at the municipal level and working our way up to the state level then the national level would be appropriate, and we can use methods outlined in the first to influence at whatever level we’re not yet competing in so that we’re still being represented to a marginal degree.

So to be fair, we’re starting to see similar sentiment on the right ( though for entirely different reasons ). This is actually a good thing, perhaps we’re going to finally grow out of our fisher price democracy and have truly representative governments like so many other countries have ( ever see ballots in Canada? they’ve got nearly as many parties as we’ve got brands of designer jeans ).

In closing, I would like to point out that my friend’s cruel significant other is much much kinder in her newest relationship and my friend himself is quite content and his children are doing wonderfully.

Anyway, let the flames begin :) It’s almost christmas and it’s cold, so I could probably use a good roasting.