The link is to David Brook’s op-ed in the New York Times where he pulls no punches in calling out Conservative stupidity as he sees it. As a liberal, it is nice to see him take whacks at Grover Norquist, Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh- among others, but it strikes me that this same quote could apply to some progressives too if a few words were changed:
All of these groups share the same mentality. They do not see politics as the art of the possible. They do not believe in seizing opportunities to make steady, messy progress toward conservative goals. They believe that politics is a cataclysmic struggle. They believe that if they can remain pure in their faith then someday their party will win a total and permanent victory over its foes. They believe they are Gods of the New Dawn.
Tell me if this isn’t equally true: (emphasis mine)
They do not see politics as the art of the possible. They do not believe in seizing opportunities to make steady, messy progress toward progressive goals. They believe that politics is a cataclysmic struggle. They believe that if they can remain pure in their faith then someday their party will win a total and permanent victory over its foes. They believe they are Gods of the New Dawn.
Brooks is writing about the debt ceiling battle, but from the other side of the coin, I think it applies to most everything that is in question. For example, John Morgan at the Pennsylvania Progressive wrote this about the way the Obama Administration backed off pushing for Elizabeth Warren: (emphasis mine)
A local Party leader tried explaining this away to me yesterday claiming that Warren couldn’t have been approved by the Senate so Cordray was a good choice. Since when do we surrender without even putting up a fight? Since when do we completely abandon our principles and our commitments to working Americans because it might be tough? Since when do Democratic Party leaders go around defending the indefensible and expect me to buy their load of crap?
There was no way in hell that Warren would be confirmed, and losing that battle would be good for the GOP and bad for Obama. Surrender, or smartly don’t walk into a guaranteed loss?
Here in Pennsylvania, I believe we partly owe this type of thinking for getting Tom Corbbett elected. For many progressives, Dan Onorato wasn’t liberal enough. Blogs like Morgan’s never ever said anything positive about Onorato, and Morgan wasn’t alone. And what do we have as our reward for staying true to ultra progressive ideals? A conservative governor far worse than anything Onorato could be accused of.
I really don’t mean to trash John’s blog. He is a good guy and does a tremendous service with his work, even if we don’t always agree. A large number of other progressive and LGBT bloggers and writers were the same way.
We see this same mentality often in the LGBT community in terms of President Obama. I had a dialogue on Facebook a few weeks ago with a lesbian who said she would vote for Mitt Romney before Obama if Obama didn’t come out and say he was for gay marriage. Talk about being “pure in their faith”! Like Romney is going to come out and say he is pro-marriage equality? Yea… right.
As much as Brooks attempts to convince those on his side, we, on our side need to also remember to let go of the fantasy of one ultimate battle that will allow good to prevail over all else. Democracy is messy business partly so that the rights of even the minority are trampled as little as possible , and all side have some way to make some progress. I am not suggesting we have to ever settle for less, but I am suggesting, as Brooks does, that progress comes through small numerous steps rather than one cataclysmic win.