I would heartily agree. It's a downright travesty that conservatives have been able to maintain a stranglehold on power for the better part of 30 years despite not having contributed much to the idea of governance.

Lower taxes is a platform, figuring out how to provide the services the public has requested using the lower tax base is policy. We progressives, until recently were failing to convey the true choice that the public needs to make in plain terms. And that is, in some cases a collective effort can provide better services/benefits than an individual can obtain on their own.

Site like this, and CAP were just the shot in the arm that progressive politics needed

This analysis makes sense to me, and Obama's early moves reinforce the likelihood that is where he is going. "American's priorities" are more easily swallowed than Democratic priorities (or liberal/progressive ones). This is, of course, not a revolutionary tactic, but maybe this is like a 4-wheel drive versus 2-wheel drive in negotiating a heavy snowfall on the roads: more traction.

What this doesn't provide an answer to is the shape of actual legislation, rules, or policy. Universal health care means lots of different things, and that's where the road gets icy. At some point, the output will fit some model that can be labelled as right-center, center, left-center, etc.

I don't care what the label is, but what the ingredients on the bottle list (particularly the 'active' ingredients, and not so much the the color, texture and odor of the other contents.)

I'm somewhat afraid that we'll get programs that fulfill the general requirement but are so weak or flawed that they set up future rejection as 'failed liberal policies'.

...conservatives have been able to maintain a stranglehold on power for the better part of 30 years despite not having contributed much to the idea of governance.

It's what we *don't* have that makes all of this worthwhile. We don't have more gun control, and as everyone knows, guns can pull their own triggers. We don't have government owned food sources and nationalized petroleum energy. We don't have an inefficient central planning committee, etc.

Republicans have had value.

On another note, I always felt that Obama was telling every group what they needed to hear at the time to win the election. Now comes the "bait 'n switch".

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16292.html
Liberals are growing increasingly nervous – and some just flat-out angry – that President-elect Barack Obama seems to be stiffing them on Cabinet jobs and policy choices.

Obama has reversed pledges to immediately repeal tax cuts for the wealthy and take on Big Oil. He’s hedged his call for a quick drawdown in Iraq. And he’s stocking his White House with anything but stalwarts of the left.

Now some are shedding a reluctance to puncture the liberal euphoria at being rid of President George W. Bush to say, in effect, that the new boss looks like the old boss.

I had been hoping for this tack. Not only is it going to be effective, but it also should highlight the simple truth that these policy priorities already are the center. Remember all those surveys in which (R) voters preferred the (D) policies when described objectively?

That's because (D) policies have been center-right for a couple decades now. Eisenhower wouldn't recognize the GOP these days, but he'd feel right at home with the Democrats.

Oh, and since I like ritual as much as the next guy: shoo, fly. Ineffectual trolling is the worst, since it doesn't even entertain.

Dear wcw,

Thanks for the vote. Now, bend over and don't make a sound.

Check out that framing: Withdrawal from Iraq, health care reform, and climate change are repositioned as mainstream priorities rather than liberal agenda items.

Agreed. I noticed the same thing in his speech accepting the Democratic nomination, I think it was. When he was talking about points of commonality where consensus will be possible he said that whether pro-life or pro-choice we can agree that we should reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, which is fine, and then he said (from memory, not an exact quote) "Whether you're for gay marriage or against it, we can all agree that gay people should be able to visit their loved ones in the hospital." The thing is, that's not true. Gay marriage opponents also generally tend to oppose civil unions, which would allow stuff like visitation rights. And gay marriage supporters wouldn't be fully satisfied with civil unions because they're just separate but equal, but legalizing them would definitely be a lot closer to their goals. But by saying that we can all agree on stuff like hospital visitation, by treating it like a fait accompli, he contributes a lot to making it true.

It's impressive. Once in a while, deep idealism and deep cynicism would lead to the same decision, even though mild, garden-variety pragmatism would lead to a different and less successful decision. For example, an idealist would oppose a gas tax holiday if it's just pointless ineffective pandering, while a cynic would oppose a gas tax holiday if he needs something to distinguish himself from the other candidates. It's amazing how often Obama manages to find these moments.

Also, changing the handle you're posting under yet again, El Viajero? I mean, I assume that's you at 11:27 a.m. Well, we appreciate your concern for our priorities, but don't worry, somehow we'll muddle through.

... And adding to my previous post, yes, I know Obama's stated position is that he's opposed to gay marriage, so ignore that example if you want. I think there are still plenty of others.

Of course, this only works if "the left" keeps criticizing the Obama administration for not being extreme enough. We radical lefties need to intensify our calls for the positions we really want" single-payer health care; abandonment of the "war on drugs"; an end to torture, rendition, and illegal wiretapping; gay marriage; etc., in order to keep the Overton window moving our way.

To the extent that Hildebrand's saying "wait and see" I tend to agree - clearly, some of the most passionate lefties oversold themselves on what an Obama Administration could possibly accomplish, and they've needed a reality check for a while. But still - many of his appointments are safe, very establishment ones, the issues he's talking about and his approaches to dealing with them are so far quite cautious, and he's putting off contentious issues (like Don't Ask Don't Tell) that may not be able to wait, or matter, passionately, to some interest groups. Myself, I'm waiting to see what we get at key domestic cabinet roles (Education, Labor and HUD) before making a lot of conclusions, and what he accomplishes in Jan and Feb when the wind is with him. But let's not overdo it - there's a tendency on the left to see our "inner contentiousness" as a flaw when the debates we have among different ideas is the energy that sustains us. We should talk about different ideas for the economy, for education, for healthcare. And we should press for the social changes we find important. Our voices of dissent, even of complaint, are not bad things, and don't need to be silenced. They do, though, need to be placed in context.... and for now, I think Obama is politically savvy enough to find compromises that should keep most lefties quite pleased, even if he can't do all the things some would like in the way they'd like it.

You moderates will only do wimpy stuff like pass the EFCA and repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

Real lefties have bolder aims. We want to restore the Fairness Doctrine. :D

Is it so factually incorrect to draw a distinction between what mainstream progressives are seeking -- fix the economy, stop global warming, fix health care, end the war -- and what you see coming from more consciously liberal folks -- end the global gag rule, fight global poverty, enact single-payer health care, get out of Iraq and avoid another Afghanistan?

Regularly in meetings of the organized left, I'm interested in the extent to which their top priorities are not in-line with the (I think) progressive priorities of the public or of Democratic leadership.

That's not to say that I don't want to end the global gag rule or fight global poverty or whatever, it is just that I think different priorities make sense.

And we should welcome this, a country where the center-left governs by focusing on the economy, a sane foreign policy, and injecting some environmental sustainability into our policies, while throwing the left some bones on things like the gag rule while the right runs around talking about sex education -- that seems like a good country to me.

Ezra, please brotha. Read what this whiny essay is really saying. Sorry, Mr. Hildebrand, this isn't the Daily Kos with your global STFU post -- which is all his screed is. Instead of, "hey please bear with us," it's an attack on actual liberals.
It's pathetic to watch some Democrats and phony progressives (all who use right-wing terms like "radical left") try to halt conversation based on very real evidence of an increasing center right administration.

But it's perfect for the moderate former Repubs in the blogosphere (hi Kos and Arianna!) who are all anxious to ignore the issues still at stake in favor of a "He's The Decider Now" attitude. Downright creepy in fact. But typical of the spinelessness of the Dem corporatists.

a) His appointments are say, but his policies are not. That's the point being made that blogs ignore.

b) This is really about bragging rights. The left wants credit for the policies coming from the left to win the idealogical battle with the right. This is not about whether they agree or disagree with his policy objectives. This is not a substantive fight at all.It's one over form. Whether one can triangulate from the left (as Obama is attempting to do) or should he just call it left (as the left wants him to do).

I am of mixed views. The danger of triangulation is that it does not help when it comes to branding, which is indeed important to controlling the right. The danger with the left's view is that it obscures the point that we are discussing mainstream values (or values) as of real policy outcome rather than theorectial discussions.

"say" in the first sentence should read "safe"

in the last sentence it should read (or ideas) rather than (or values)

Real lefties have bolder aims. We want to restore the Fairness Doctrine.

SHHHHH!

I noticed the same thing in his speech accepting the Democratic nomination, I think it was.

Steve Hildebrand is Obama's Karl Rove. What an incredible sleaze.

"It's an interesting strategy."

No, it's THE necessary strategy. The only problem is, we don't yet KNOW that it is obama's strategy. This is Hildebrand writing on his own, not cleared through the incoming staff, both sides say. We'll see whether they adopt this line, and what the actual policy/legislative machinations are early on that might support the 'redifine the center' thesis.

Also keep in mind: the Republicans as well will have something to say about the location of the center going forward as well. What decides the middle is where the *country* is on issues, not what politicians have to say about the matter.