What does it look like?

Earlier this week, I proposed a new "-ism" for the blogo-lexicon, one intended to describe the numerical obsessions and policy aversions held by the neo-progressives. The point was to poke at the new breed of so-called progressives, those who speak on and on about progressive values, progressive Democrats and progressive everything. Confusing instances of electoral success for policy success, these neo-progressives believe that 2006 somehow entitles them to legislative fiat, and party purity. They tolerate dissent, as long as it adds to their numerical majority in Congress. However, once those dissenting voices begin to buck their narrowly defined "progressive" values, it then becomes necessary to profile, protest and ostracize the dissidents. Their opinions become moot, and primary challenges become necessary.

I call this logic Stollerism.

In response to my post, Mike Lux of Open Left makes the following complaint:

But I just have to say this about the Kevin Sullivan post on "Introducing the Stollerism": what a stupid piece of drivel. In it, Kevin Sullivan announces that a Stollerism is to "declare all debate on a subject over" and "purge the Democratic Party of all dissenting voices."

His evidence? He links to the Bush Dog campaign. The Bush Dog campaign has been a campaign to point out that many Democrats support Bush on a range of issues, and encourage activists to challenge them on those votes. In a few specific cases (very few, actually), Matt or Chris or I have suggested that supporting people running in primaries against Bush Dogs would be a good thing to do. Yeah, that's really purging dissent.

Lux goes on to suggest that I get over myself, and for whatever reason accuses me of red-baiting. I find this characterization to be a bit unfair, particularly since Lux disregarded the bulk of my post (which mostly pertained to the neo-progressive folly on Iran), and instead makes it all about the Bush Dog Campaign. While I most certainly have my issues with such a cheap and shortsighted tactic, it in fact represented just one component of Stollerism. The broader point is one about tone, tactics and the value of dissent in a two-party system.

But for Lux, this was instead an opportunity to stick up for his friend Matt Stoller. While I can certainly appreciate the sentiment, I believe he has missed the point. My initial post could've just as easily been titled "The Kosism," or "The Greenwaldism" (please note that I referred to Greenwald in my post).

If Stoller or Lux would like to debate what a "progressive" approach to Iran might look like, I'd be very "open" to it. However, since Lux brings up the Bush Dogs, let's talk about the Bush Dogs.

According to Matt Stoller, the following qualifies one as a "Bush Dog":

Currently, we're using the capitulation vote on Iraq back in May, 2007, and the disgraceful vote to give Bush warrantless wiretapping powers as proxies for Bush Doggedness. We think that if you voted for both of these, you are an enabler of Bush's policies.

We've made an exception for Brian Baird (WA-03), who voted correctly on FISA. Upon getting back from Iraq, Baird, in the face of all the evidence, touted the surge's success and explained that opposition to the continuation of the surge was borne of partisanship and a lack of concern for American moral authority. Using the right-wing media to attack core progressive values is a quick route to becoming a Bush Dog.

1. Who anointed Matt Stoller, or Open Left, or the readers of Open Left as the arbiters of what makes one a good or bad Democrat? From what platform, speech or policy paper are they deriving these "core progressive values"?

2. What was the decision process in making these two votes the criteria for revoking one's progressive pool pass?

Aside from these questions, I have my concerns about the utility in these silly profiles. Take for example, Rep. Heath Schuler of NC-11 and Rep. Nick Lampson of TX-22. Not voting nearly "progressively" enough for the shadowy Politburo at Open Left, they have included them in a working list of Democrats that are enabling President Bush.

Were I a Republican (which I am not), I would welcome such party suicide in 2008. Both of these seats are traditionally competitive, and 2008 will undoubtedly pose a challenge for these two freshmen (in the case of Lampson, it'll be his first re-election bid for the 22nd). NC-11 went back and forth for years between James Clarke and Bill Hendon, before ultimately becoming a comfortable seat for "Chainsaw" Charlie Taylor. It had been Red since 1991. In Lampson's case, he won over Tom DeLay's Sugar Land stronghold, a seat once considered to be safely Red. His district will undoubtedly be in play in 2008.

Schuler and Lampson are just two freshmen facing arguably their toughest race, their first re-election bid. Name ID is still low, and voters are down on Congress. It's elected officials like Schuler and Lampson who enable the likes of Stoller to talk about 2006 mandates, and what voters were "telling us" on election day. Once again--as long as they serve their numerical purposes, we will embrace the notion of an Open Left. However, once they govern according to their principles, they must be targeted, ostracized and demonized. They must be profiled.

Lux maintains that it's Stoller's right to organize against the politicians he disagrees with. I would agree, but let's call this what it really is. Targeting specific districts, because hey, they owe you, doesn't strike me as terribly "open" behavior. Feeling entitled to a particular congressman or congresswoman's legislative agenda because you paid for it, well, doesn't seem very "open" to me.

It instead reminds me a lot of the very narrow and rigid behavior exhibited by groups like SEIU and the NRA. It really resembles the behavior of an interest group, representing a very tiny microcosm of American thought, exerting its authority and power through money and intimidation.

So while Lux chose to defend his friend Matt Stoller, I prefer to defend the democratic choices made by the voters living in NC-11 and TX-22. In fact, I believe if you're going to second-guess their decisions, you are thus deserving of scrutiny and profiling yourselves. An Open Left would honor the values held in these districts, and instead work to build consensus with them, rather than purging them for the sake of strict party discipline.

But people like Matt Stoller are done with consensus building, and they're spent on policy debates and discussions. They want power, and they want to win, dissent be damned.

This, my friends, is Stollerism.

(Cross posted at RCBlogs)