You gotta love it. It's too rich and amusing not to love.
For years, progressive writers have begged and badgered progressive politicians to get as down and dirty as the other guys, to really mix it up on the opposition's terms -- in short, to bobby-dazzle the masses with populist, bumper-sticker simplicity and wave the flag with equal fervor and sing saccharine paeans to Mom.
Then, once in office, they can think and act like progressives again. But first, they must win the bloody thing.
You know what I mean. You read it, and likely on at least a dozen progressive Web sites by scores of leading progressive writers. And you noticed its even greater intensity in the run-up to this presidential election, time and time again: We've got to get tough -- which is mostly to say, talk tough -- especially on national security issues, so as to flummox the Lee Atwaters and Karl Roves and Charlie Blacks for a change.
Fast forward to the present: These progressive writers finally have their wish -- a progressive pol who's no fool and possesses the grit and self-confidence to stare down the fearmongers by refusing to play the "weakness" card, especially right out of the gate, when he's still undefined in the easily spookable mind of the average American voter.
So what do these leading progressives then do? How is it they react? Why, of course, with an explosion of self-righteous indignation and reams of labored hand-wringing. Oh, dear, oh, dear, dear us, our guy is sounding just like one of their guys. Oh my. We best warn our readers.
And that's the rich, genuinely amusing part. I love it, not only for the comical irony of it all, but also because vast swaths of the progressive base probably know better.
This is the sort of naked, imitative pandering the base has wanted to see in one of its own for years -- the sort demanded of Al Gore and urged on John Kerry, but largely rebuffed by both.
Yet the base's "strategic" writers are now suddenly singing another tune, wreaking disharmony and discord across this baffled Republic.
It's gotten so bad -- the self-righteous disharmony, that is -- that last night a rather nervous Keith Olbermann invited Newsweek's Jonathan Alter on his program to proffer a kind of Progressive Politics 101. One could detect in Mr. Olbermann's delicate questioning a certain frustration: You explain it, Jon, so I don't have to slam the progressive-camp leadership with a venomous "Special Comment."
And Mr. Alter did, like he was teaching the alphabet to the prepubescently fussy.
OK, class, American voters don't like "weakness" in their leaders, you see. Especially low-information voters, said Alter; you know, the ones who will be pouring out to vote in November and haven't yet sized up the strengths or perceived weaknesses of Barack Obama.
So, see -- stay with me now, class, Alter continued -- the right will use legislation like the current FISA bill to portray the Democratic candidate as weak on terrorism, should he vote against it or support a filibuster of it.
Forget the friggin' telecom immunity provision -- which low-information voters could barely spell, let alone define as an issue -- for a moment and concentrate. For God's sake, concentrate, Alter was saying.
This is bigger, much bigger, than telecom immunity. This is about the next eight years and the singular alternative of George Bush squared, otherwise known as John S. McCain.
This is, to put it in its simplest form, nose-holding but necessary politics. Obama can clean up the welter of Constitutional apostasies bequeathed us by George Bush only if he first acquires office. That is the time for progressives to hold Obama's feet to the fire.
Is that cynical of me to say, a bit underhanded? You bet your progressive butt it is. It also wins elections.
Again, I sense that most progressives understand and appreciate this. But a lot of leading progressive writers sure in hell don't, however amusing their well-intended but rather befuddling self-righteousness might be.
buzzflash
delicious
digg
yahoo
technorati
Technorati Tags: 
