In his provocative piece on Barack Obama's theory of political change, Mark Schmitt writes, "This is not a primary about ideological differences, or electability, but rather one about a difference in candidates' implicit assumptions about the current circumstance and how the levers of power can be used to get the country back on track. It's the first 'theory of change' primary I can think of." It's worth asking why the Democratic primary ended up in this odd spot, where even the candidates are talking about their tactical superiority to one another. My hunch is that this is less a "theory of change" election than a "progressive convergence" election What we've seen from the top three Democrats is an absolutely extraordinary level of agreement around progressive principles, or at least in the presentation of progressive principles. There is not one of them who hasn't professed a deep desire to end the war in Iraq, a total dedication to achieving universal health care, and an utter commitment to averting climatological catastrophe. Compare this to 2004, when Iraq split the field and universal health care plans were virtually unknown. The reason progressives have been able to ask about theories of change -- which is to say, ask who will prove most effective at the construction of a progressive America -- is because they've not had to fight to simply see their ideology represented and defended. With liberal beliefs broadly accepted by the contenders, the set of questions has become much more technical and, on some level, much more relevant to actually choosing a nominee. It's a heartening development, and even as people get pissed off by various candidates and feel their loyalties cementing, it's worth being aware of how much more progressive a field Democrats have furnished in 2008 than in 2004.
