For a number of election cycles, we progressives used the phrase "more and better Democrats" to describe our electoral strategy.
Well, we got more. We have a huge majority in the House, a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, and a Democrat in the White House, thanks in large part to this strategy being put into practice from the smallest liberal website up to Rahm Emanuel at the DCCC.
From a progressive perspective, though, something is becoming very clear as we look at the outcome of these efforts. We didn't necessarily elect "more and better Democrats", we simply elected "more Democrats".
I believe it is time for us to diverge from this strategy.
Don't get me wrong, I see the point of "more". I also, especially after seeing the outcome of the Senate work on Health Care Reform, see the need for better. What I am saying is that we can't necessarily concentrate on both.
The role the national party organizations take on is the pusher of "more Democrats". In reality, thats what Rahm Emanuel and Howard Dean brought to the table when they brought into practice the ideas of "expanding the playing field" in Rahm's case and "The 50 State Strategy" in Dean's case. We as base progressives bought into these ideas, helped make them work with our online organizing and no small amount of personal sweat and toil.
These organizations - the DCCC, the DSCC, and the DNC - will continue along these routes. The whole purpose of their existence is to attain and maintain a majority.
But the purpose of the progressive movement isn't necessarily to meet that goal, so I'm going to advocate that we drop "Elect More and Better Democrats", and go simply to "Elect Better Democrats".
I don't mean for this to mean we should necessarily primary Blue Dogs. In fact, I think its something of a waste of our resources and energy to concentrate on them. Instead, I believe that we should have a positive outlook on our targetting.
Instead of working to defeat politicians, I believe we should ignore those that don't agree with us and instead concentrate on protecting progressive Democrats and electing new progressive Democrats. What that will mean is that, yes, we will occasionally work in a primary against a Blue Dog Democrat - but because we support the opponent, not because its so important to defeat the Blue Dog.
What that also means is that we will ignore the Bachmann elections of the cycle - as tempting as it is to try to defeat a wingnut - if there is not a progressive alternative. After all, the national organizations will already be working on those races because their efforts will always be in the "more" arena, and if they see an opportunity to take a seat, they will go for it.
I believe we will have much more of an affect on the process and on the outcomes of elections, not to mention less disappointment, if we narrow our focus and concentrate on being a positive force for our vision.