Digby

There's a lot of discussion about what to do about the auto companies and none of the options are very palatable. In today's New York Times there is an article analyzing the bailout vs bankruptcy talk that's starting to emerge. I don't have an opinion on that except to the extent this is used as an excuse to destroy the unions. And that is certainly the theme that's emerging from the right.

I have been struggling since the election to write the big piece about "what it all means" but others here and elsewhere have said it all so eloquently that I've been stymied. It goes without saying that Barack Obama's win is a great victory for racial progress, and there is no doubt that the country has finally awakened from its post 9-11 trance. But what does it all mean for progressivism? I honestly don't know yet. The contours of this victory are still amorphous to me. I'm watching it unfold with excited interest and hope.

It's much more obvious to me what has changed for the right considering their epic fall from grace--- absolutely nothing. This is because in their minds they didn't actually lose --- liberalism did.

Now that the festivities in Denver have drawn to a close, one thing, at least, is clear to me after having spent four days among progressives from all over the country: They are convinced that this moment is real and that the stakes have never been higher. There is a sense of opportunity and engagement with issues that I haven't seen in progressive circles for some time.

One of the more interesting developments in this campaign year is the extent to which Democrats have sought out the so-called "values" vote --- the mostly evangelical and catholic voters who have tended to vote Republican in the past. With the guidance of a newly formed Democratic religion lobby, the presidential campaigns all formulated a sophisticated outreach effort to appeal to voters who were open to Democrats by broadening the Christian agenda to include other issues, like poverty and the environment.

Paul Krugman points to an article that should send chills down the backs of good progressives everywhere:

I urge everyone to listen to the president's radio address this week-end if you get the chance. (Not that any of you would normally miss it, I'm sure. What could be more riveting?) But it does promise to be a good one this time. He's going to tell us all why he needs to veto the ban on torture.

There's a lot of discussion about what to do about the auto companies and none of the options are very palatable. In today's New York Times there is an article analyzing the bailout vs bankruptcy talk that's starting to emerge. I don't have an opinion on that except to the extent this is used as an excuse to destroy the unions. And that is certainly the theme that's emerging from the right.

I have been struggling since the election to write the big piece about "what it all means" but others here and elsewhere have said it all so eloquently that I've been stymied. It goes without saying that Barack Obama's win is a great victory for racial progress, and there is no doubt that the country has finally awakened from its post 9-11 trance. But what does it all mean for progressivism? I honestly don't know yet. The contours of this victory are still amorphous to me. I'm watching it unfold with excited interest and hope.

It's much more obvious to me what has changed for the right considering their epic fall from grace--- absolutely nothing. This is because in their minds they didn't actually lose --- liberalism did.

Now that the festivities in Denver have drawn to a close, one thing, at least, is clear to me after having spent four days among progressives from all over the country: They are convinced that this moment is real and that the stakes have never been higher. There is a sense of opportunity and engagement with issues that I haven't seen in progressive circles for some time.

One of the more interesting developments in this campaign year is the extent to which Democrats have sought out the so-called "values" vote --- the mostly evangelical and catholic voters who have tended to vote Republican in the past. With the guidance of a newly formed Democratic religion lobby, the presidential campaigns all formulated a sophisticated outreach effort to appeal to voters who were open to Democrats by broadening the Christian agenda to include other issues, like poverty and the environment.

Paul Krugman points to an article that should send chills down the backs of good progressives everywhere:

I urge everyone to listen to the president's radio address this week-end if you get the chance. (Not that any of you would normally miss it, I'm sure. What could be more riveting?) But it does promise to be a good one this time. He's going to tell us all why he needs to veto the ban on torture.

We are hearing a lot these days about political "transformation" in politics. Aside from a desire for a change in policy, the public also indicates that they desire a change in the way our politics are conducted. But as much as everyone likes the idea of an end to partisan squabbling, it's not entirely clear yet how this transformation will take place, or what the character of the transformation will actually be. So naturally, the political establishment, anxious to have it on terms they can control, will increasingly be taking the lead in defining it for us.

In my previous post, I discussed the fact that a "cold civil war" between two distinct American tribes has been going on since the founding of the Republic. It waxes and wanes and takes on different character, but it is always simmering, beneath the surface.