he fills in the blanks on a lot of things for me.
things a close friend asked me about yesterday.
i didn't know what to say.
then i tried, but i didn't know how to say it.
Pach makes his (our) point exquisitely:
As political reformers, we've been doing a kind of therapy for a Democratic Party that had become weak, dependent and sort of masochistic in its subserviance to authoritarian right wing power. We've been performing an intervention, and we're making progress, but the party can never sustain itself as strong without outside accountability to a movement willing to challenge it. This requires members of the progressive movement to stick together, build together, work together and never forget their role in politics. Candidate partisans have their place, but to build sustainable change, we need to keep our heads about us, especially during the silly season.Mr. Matt Stoller posts at myDD and has also elucidated many important progressive distinctions for Democrats.
Can Someone Start an Enemies List Already?
On Cutting Slack
During Which Post the Matts Argue Iraq
My Various Secret Agendas
and Matt has been targeted for some pushback/blowback for his efforts.
nothing really surprising there.
and Matt takes it well.
i thank him.
and then Pach comments at myDD:
beautiful, clear analysis.
Richardson has articulated a position consistent with that, so he gets props. Obama, Clinton and Edwards have not, though on a scale of 1-10, with 10 as high (anti-imperialist), Edwards is not perfect (7?) but edges out Obama (5?), whose stock is falling a little, and Clinton is near the bottom (1?).
The purpose of writing about this stuff is to make a public argument about the role of the US in foriegn policy, a discussion that is not really happening today. I happen to agree with Matt on all these fronts. This is what a progressive movement does: put pressure on the party and its high profile candidates to transform the conversation from one dominated by the Georgetown foreign policy elites.