Progress without progressives

Both parties began purging moderates in the mid-seventies.

Richard Nixon was a moderate, but also a war hawk, much like John McCain is today. Ronald Reagan led the charge to change that reality in the Republican party, and he succeeded, but if the Democratic party had not followed suit, purging their moderate candidates, we would not be where we are today.

A do-nothing Congress is the direct result of this shift to voting in a party block. The DNC, in a successful effort to gain a majority, began running purple candidates in purple States only as recently as 2006. Most of these wins were due to moderate views on progressive agenda issues.

This enlarged middle belongs to the growing number of purple Democrats, but it also belongs to John McCain, who is there by virtue of being re-elected so many times. The Republican party has not started building back their middle in Congress, and purple Democrats are now gaining seats in every election.

You may remember an adjustment period at the beginning of 07'. Pelosi and Reid discovered what electing purple candidates would mean to their agenda. While old guard liberals were to be in charge of committees, progressive legislation had to be stripped from the legislative agenda.

So, this newly elected group is getting legislation targeted exactly for them, the moderate Democrats. Progressive groups are not so generous in their praise, and give a radically lower rating to Congress in general. They feel left out, and they should, because they are.

Personally, I think that the Republican party running a centrist for President, while backing the farther right for Congress, is just as dysfunctional as the Democrats, who run a far left candidate for President, and moderates for Congress. But then again, we did it when we elected Jimmy Carter, and look how well that turned out.

I'm sure Barak Obama will have way more respect after four years than Jimmy Carter did, or maybe not.

So, who are you voting for this year, Nixon or Carter?