Who created this myth? dKos is specifically about getting the democrats into power and staying there at all costs. That places the framework for debate into the zero-sum, "we have to win today or the world ends tomorrow" devolved political culture of America. To meet your "opponents" on fair, neutral territory is to have them eviscerate you through unfair means. That mentality doesn't end when engaging with people who are more like you politically than not. Progressive politics are a distant second at best.
you are the media you consume.
Of course, not every poster has that attitude, but kos' comment that he's not "really that interested in blogging about policy" is quite explicit and the subseqeuent statements show how much he sees policy as subordinate to "winning." And since he's in charge (as much as anyone is), the site's attitude does lean that way.
Its goals and kos' somewhat authoritarian nature skew the nature of the site. It is not representative of progressive America.
I think it's probably very representative of progressive America, authoritarianism and all.
I've already suggested that the underlying US myth is domination at almost any price.
It's most obvious and naked on the Right. But the Left is hardly immune. A site devoted entirely to getting into power, and worrying about policy later, fits into the pattern very neatly.
It's been interesting watching Sirota getting torn apart for suggesting that Obama isn't the last best hope. That argument seems to have been based on electability vs policy - the latter not being an Obama strong point.
However - I don't think Kos is entirely policy averse, no matter what he says. He'd be unlikely to support Lieberman for 2008, nor any of the other more business-friendly and centre-leaning Dems.
The problem is that there's a distinction between progressive and populist policies in the US. It's an area that hasn't been picked over properly yet, possibly because the Dems have spent the last five years almost completely on the defensive.
Or perhaps they've been on the defensive because they haven't evolved a strong pro-labour narrative and have been too busy watching the hand with the 'War on Trrra' glove waving in their faces.
If Dem freshmen gave Rubin a good kicking, that's a good sign. But they need someone or something to tie them together into a movement. Otherwise it's just random ideological mortar fire, rather than a concentrated campaign.
That has been obvious since Obama's keynote address at the Democratic Nomination Convention in 2004.
That argument seems to have been based on electability vs policy
Which was all that the 2004 Democratic primary was about. "You can't elect the unelectable", "unelectability" being awarded by the press ahead of the election, prejudging the outcome, and everyone swallowing it. Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
At the federal level, absolutely. Among citizens, no. The gulf between the public and the government is very large. The situation in the UK isn't particularly different.
