With the new Republican House in 2011, we  will see the continuation of a a three decade old political process that  invalidates any progressive political ideas from receiving a public hearing – a corruption of the definition of the U.S. political spectrum.  The successful move by conservatives to redefine what is acceptable political dialog or solutions in the U.S. political system has effectively frozen out progressives.  Without some organized messaging from progressive leaders and the grassroots, progressives will continue to wander in the political wilderness.

Essentially, voters views can be found on a political spectrum that moves from left to right .  At the far left end are leftist political extremists or radicals, and as you move further to the right on the spectrum, voters views become more conservative.  This culminates with reactionaries at the far right end of the spectrum. 

Statisticians will tell you that American voters make up a Gaussian curve along this political spectrum, with the greatest number of voters near the political center.   Thus, U.S. politicians, especially those shooting for national office,  are always chasing after this middle section of the Gaussian curve to maximize their chances of election.  In other words, you have to get the moderate or centrists voters to win.

Conservatives, however, don’t like this arrangement.  This kind of political spectrum gives progressives the chance to win a presidential election or two.  Conservatives really hate the idea that progressives can actually win the presidency, even if it is by dumb luck.  So like the Grinch with Christmas, conservatives tried to figure out a way to prevent dumb luck from even happening. 

Finally, conservatives came up with a truly ingenious plan.  Maybe they could redefine what is acceptable political behavior or ideas and leave the progressives out of the Gaussian curve and political spectrum all together?  In other words, if they could define progressivism or liberalism as outside the bounds of political discussion, progressive ideas would not be discussed!

Hey, it is not such a crazy idea.  Look what happened to communist or socialist candidates in the U.S.  Except for Bernie Sanders, when is the last time you saw a political advertisement for the communist or socialist parties in the U.S.?  They have ads like those in Canada, but not in the U.S.

Seems Americans do the freak if you mention that you are a socialist.  Don’t even think about thinking of becoming a communist.  We only discuss socialism in a pejorative manner.  It has no standing in the U.S. political spectrum.

That happened because conservatives were VERY good at witch hunting during the 1940s and 50s.

Now, there are those conservatives who have tried the same thing with liberals and progressives.  The new buzz word for us is “terrorist sympathizer.”  However, conservatives have a much more effective and subtle way to undermine progressives and their ideas.  Conservatives have pushed right wing extremism with gusto.  Translation:  conservatives have decided to make right wing extremism the new conservatism and shift the entire political spectrum to the right.

For example, direct political attacks on Social Security by Republicans used to fail miserably.  Social Security opponents were considered kooks and extremists.  However, I  noticed that Republican candidates for the House and Senate in this year’s midterms were caught on videotape calling Social Security a Ponzi Scheme.  In the past, that kind of animus toward Social Security would have resulted in a deluge of questions by reporters asking said Ponzi Schemer to explain what they meant.  Usually, it would have led to electoral defeat, but I know of at least one anti-Social Security Republican who defeated a Blue Dog Democrat (Young of Indiana beat Rep. Baron Hill).  Also, if memory serves, didn’t Rubio of Florida also say something in a similar vein about Social Security?  Florida for God’s sake!  Yet, Rubio won.

So I guess it is OK to call Social Security a Ponzi Scheme.  Feel that pull on the right end of the spectrum?

If not, how about that health care debate?  We Democrats could not even bring up the issue of single payer.  Not at all.  We all know how well that final health care bill turned out.

Oh, and let’s not forget about fixing the economy.  We had one timid stimulus bill that was 40% tax cuts.  Since then, we have had no discussion of another jobs bill based on infrastructure development or green jobs.  Nothing at all.  Instead, we are having more useless tax cuts. 

I don’t know about you, but I’m definitely feeling a pull toward the right.

Finally, we have the news media playing its role in corrupting the political spectrum.  The news media declares politicians like Evan Bayh, Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, and Kent Conrad of the Senate as centrists.  Bayh in fact is a shining example of how politically stupid the media is.  After Bush and the Republicans got trounced in 2008, Bayh declares that he is thinking of voting against the stimulus bill because it worsens the deficit.  Bayh wants to focus on deficit reduction during a recession!  This after the voters just rejected conservative economic orthodoxy.  In the House, Blue Dog Shuler of North Carolina is declared a moderate, even though the turd regularly votes against extending unemployment benefits during a severe recession.  

And they are considered centrists?  I suppose by today’s standards they are, but in the past, all of the above would have been declared conservatives.

Howard Dean is considered some radical progressive, but I have read up on some of his positions.  Dean is against gun control, for capital punishment, a fiscal conservative, and for the first Iraq War under Bush I.   Frankly, he is more moderate than progressive.  Hell, I’ve read where progressives in Vermont scratch their heads and go “huh?” when those outside of Vermont declare Dean as some raging progressive.

Don’t get me wrong.  I really like Howard Dean, and I would love it if he did challenge Obama in the primaries.  At least I know where I stand with Dean, and it is Dean’s principles of raging moderation that make him seem like a progressive firebrand nowadays.  But my point is that Dean is now considered some unacceptable lefty for higher office by today’s political spectrum.

What to do?  I’m not entirely sure.  I’m afraid that progressives are going to have to adapt some of the strategies of our conservative enemies.  We are going to have to coordinate messaging or get message discipline like the conservatives.  In other words, progressives have to get on the same page with regards to issues and policies.  When progressives get an opportunity to air our views on TV or radio, the message has to be short, simple, and to the point, unlike this lengthy blog post.

Yeah, I would be terrible delivering any progressive message, but for God’s sake, I know that we have some who can do a credible job on this front.

Another thing I think we must do is start calling Obama out on his bullshit.  Conservatives love to label Obama as a socialist, but we have to set the record straight – Obama is a Reaganomics lover.  Every time Obama embraces another tax cut for the wealthy or adopts budget austerity in a time of recession, we need to say, “Obama is advocating conservative economic policies.”  And when Obama decides to cut Social Security, we need to say, “No real Democrat would propose cutting a social insurance policy during bad economic times.  Only a Republican would go along with that!”

We need to define Obama and place him where you belongs – with his fellow conservative Republicans.  Think of it as trying to protect progressivism from Obama’s political malpractice.  Otherwise, Obama’s policies will continue to be seen as progressive  by the public.  If Obama wants to distance himself from the Democratic base, I say let’s help him!  Let’s start to redefine Obama.

If we don’t change this political dynamic, progressives will continue to be left out in the cold for years to come.