The Case for John McCain.

A good friend picked up my last post for his blog, but headlined it in such a way as to suggest that I am still supporting John Edwards.

Sadly, that ship has sailed.

While I hope John Edwards will adopt a second-choice, convention-oriented strategy - that would require him to break with the entire tendency conduct of his campaign so far, i.e., he'd have to do something strategically intelligent.

As a potential president, I really like John Edwards. As a candidate, though, he seems to have caught something chronic from John Kerry.

Actually, the decision I've reached - and it surprised me, too - is that the best thing for the progressive movement is for the Democratic Party to nominate Hillary and go down in flames to John McCain.

I'm not sure the Democratic Party can ever be reformed, but the present Hillary-Obama brawl is basically a war of old-line insiders: the Clinton/DLC machine, minus some of their black supporters vs. the Illinois Democratic machine, plus most of the black Democratic pols. Whoever wins this fight, it isn't going to be the folks who rallied to Howard Dean!

What needs to happen is for the Democratic Party to get so shockingly upset - for President, not Congress - that it either becomes open to reform, or begins to die and make room for a new party (or some entity to replace a party) on the Left.

Which leads me to the conclusion that - assuming Edwards continues to blunder toward extinction - what progressives should do is cross over and support McCain.

At 73 (on January 20, 2009), McCain would almost certainly be a one-term President - and a President eminently qualified to deal with the nastiest parts of the Bush legacy: the mess in Mesopotamia; the flagrant disregard of the Constitution and Geneva in the name of "national security"; and America's failure to take the lead on the environment.

Indeed, as a Republican - assuming the next Senate doesn't have 60 Democrats (exclusive of old Joe) - McCain would probably have more success wrapping these things up than any Democrat.

Besides, between the Bush deficits and the incoming recession, there won't be a lot of money for things like health care in the next four years. It's going to be a "lost" administration in terms of truly progressive legislation.

So I say, let McCain clean up Bush's mess - and elect a staunchly progressive Congress to keep him from doing anything dreadful. It would give McCain the sweetest kind of revenge for 2000 - reversing much of Bush's policy, and moving the GOP toward the center.

And it would give us time to find an outstanding, progressive candidate (Democrat or otherwise) for 2012.

Thinking Long-Term

As the primaries and caucuses continue winnowing the field for 2008, I've reluctantly - but not that reluctantly - reached a conclusion diametrically opposite to that of many eager Democrats.

2008 isn't going to be a Democratic year - and that could be a very good thing.

To begin with, I'm increasingly convinced that - for all the excitement generated by the first credible Black candidate for president, and the first credible female candidate for president - the Democratic field is fatally flawed.

There is, of course, the obvious fact that neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton has a resume which inspires confidence. Neither has any serious administrative or foreign policy experience. Neither has an impressive legislative record - particularly in critical areas such as budget and finance. Thus far, the Democrats seem to be eliminating candidates in reverse order of qualification - a trend which could, if followed to its logical conclusion - result in the nomination of Mike Gravel.

More disturbing, however, is the emerging appearance of troubling character flaws in the two leading Democratic candidates. Since New Hampshire, each has shown an increasing tendency toward petulance - as though each believed himself or herself somehow entitled to the party's nomination. The Clintons - both of them - have stepped up their attacks on Obama. In response, Obama has played the race card.

And away we go!

This should not, of course, be that surprising. The Democratic Party has long been more of a coalition of interest groups than a party devoted to something like principled governance. Given that fact - and the fact that two of the largest Democratic constituencies are African-Americans and Boomer generation feminists - it was almost inevitable that things would get intense between two campaigns with strategies rooted in identity politics.

But with Obama playing the race card against the Clintons - long great favorites with African-American voters - the Democratic nomination fight is teetering on the brink of unprecedented nastiness. Someone will win, of course - but whoever does seems destined to do so at the cost of alienating a large chunk of the Democratic base.

How sad that John Edwards - whose third-place campaign could only benefit from staying "above the battle" - seems determined to get down in the muck with the others.

In addition to the emerging flaws of the two principal contenders, it's beginning to look more and more like the next President will be saddled with three enormous problems: a recession; Iraq; and President Bush's legacy of deficit spending, administrative incompetence, and executive overreach.

However those of us who consider ourselves liberals and/or progressives may want an activist administration to tackle challenges such as health care, global warming and improved education, it seems increasingly clear that the President elected in 2008 will spend most of his or her term cleaning up Mr. Bush's mess.

And on a rather straitened budget.

In other words, as I have suggested before, progressives might actually be better off voting for a respectable Republican in 2008 - if there is one; and focusing on nominating and electing good candidates for the Senate and House of Representatives this year; and start working on electing a competent, experienced liberal/progressive President in 2012.

At least, that's what I've come to. The next President will have to spend four years cleaning up after Mr. Bush - certainly one of the worse presidents in American history. It's a thankless job, and whoever gets it will have a hard time winning re-election.

So, are progressives better off winning in 2008 - putting an inexperienced, budget-strapped, and damaged Democrat in the White House? Or surrounding a moderate-conservative Republican with strong Democratic congressional majorities - and thinking long-term?

The Real World

In the aftermath of Mrs. Bhutto's assassination, thoughtful Americans have begun to reconsider their presidential options in light of one, overriding truth.

It's a dangerous world.

Without setting aside the very real dangers of global climate change, we must never forget old-fashioned perils such as rogue regimes with nuclear weapons - a genuine possibility in the case of Pakistan.

Our next President must, of course, be capable of addressing such dangers - should they arise - as well as acting with wisdom and foresight to avert them. He or she must also have the greatest possible freedom of action - consistent with our institutions and values - in order to act with speed and precision when the occasion calls for it.

That's why, in my judgment, we need a President who can disengage US forces from Iraq- ending President Bush's apparently open-ended commitment to pacify and unify a country which has been irreparably fragmented.

We can't afford to remain as we are - tied down in an endless conflict which is wearing down both our soldiers and their equipment and costing us the services of our rising class of junior officers. We need to get our troops home to refit, retrain, and rest up for the next crisis.

For there will be new crises. And we can never know when.

Yet, though we must get out of Mesopotamia, we must also leave that region in a sufficiently stable condition to sustain itself with new civil or international conflicts. Withdrawing will do no good if we find ourselves having to go back in a few years hence, to deal with a "Bosnia on steroids".

I set forth these considerations with the greatest reluctance. If I had my druthers, I'd want our next President to devote his or her energies to solving health care, finding the funds to improve K-12 education, and taking a serious swing at global climate change.

But there will be no money, no political capital, and precious little presidential time for such matters if we remain tied down in Iraq. The next president will wake up each morning to a briefing on Baghdad - end each day with another. He or she will spend a considerable portion of each day dealing with a war which should never have been - but which is - and every minute spent on Iraq will be minute not spent on make America a better place in which to live.

Which leads to one inevitable conclusion:

No candidate's domestic agenda makes the slightest difference without a plan for withdrawing from Iraq, while leaving a stable situation behind. There will be no health care reform, no bold environmental policy, no educational progress - no progressive agenda at all - so long as we remain in Iraq.

Which is why I've begun thinking seriously about whether this is the year to elect a Democrat. With the possible exception of Joe Biden, no Democrat has offered anything like a realistic vision for bringing our troops home. In the case of Hillary Clinton, at least, there's no plan for ending that commitment at all.

Which leads to this question:

If no Democrat has a plan for getting us out of Iraq, aren't we better off electing a sane Republican - assuming one is nominated - and letting the GOP tidy up its own mess?

After all, the two major parties have been trading the White House back and forth since 1992. Indeed - counting Bush 41 as a third Reagan term and LBJ and Ford as continuations, respectively, of JFK and Nixon - the pattern goes back to 1952.

If the next President is a Democrat, and he or she wastes his or her term cleaning up the mess in Mesopotamia - there's a good chance the GOP wins the White House in 2012. It could be 2020 before we elect a President with the will and resources to carry out a genuinely progressive agenda.

I realize that, in our modern world, we tend to live in and think for the moment. Electing a Democrat in 2008 would be far more satisfying than electing a Republican.

But until I see a Democrat with a realistic plan for Iraq, I continue to wonder - what's the point?

Narrowing the Field

A version of the following appeared as one of my weekly columns in the (Chester) Village News.

Thus far, I’ve named my dream candidate for president – and my nightmare. Today, I’ll briefly survey the rest of the field.

Logically, I’ll start with the Democrats. As a progressive – or, if you insist, a “liberal” – I tend to agree with Democrats more often on the issues, though not so often that I don’t wish for a third option. Given the Democrats’ reluctance to take bold positions – or nominate bold candidates – I’m increasingly inclined to regard them as bigger obstacle to progressive government than the Republicans.

I'm also concerned that electing a Democrat in 2008 would be a wasted opportunity. If the mess in Mesopotamia dominates the attention of our next Commander in Chief – and a combination of war and economic slowdown limit the funds and political capital available to make real progress on such issues as health care and the environment – we might as well elect a decent Republican, if there is one, and leave it to the GOP to clean up their war.

We can always elect a Democrat – or someone even greener and/or more progressive – in 2012.

That said, several Democrats strike me as credible candidates. Senator Joe Biden is an experienced, intelligent statesman with solid foreign policy and national security credentials. He’s also unusually insightful; Biden was years ahead of the curve in detecting Iraq’s tendency to fragment into three essentially separate states. I just wish he had the gumption to proceed to the logical conclusion – endorsing outright partition as America’s way out.

Bill Richardson – the only Hispanic candidate in the race – has a most impressive resume. A former Congressman, Cabinet member, and Ambassador to the United Nations – Richardson is now Governor of New Mexico. His diplomatic credentials – especially in negotiating with people who don’t like us – are remarkable. Richardson isn’t exactly charismatic, but if we need a President to undo the damage Mr. Bush has done to our foreign relations, he seems a solid choice.

Barack Obama strikes me as a man who will be President. But not, I hope, yet. He’s obviously highly intelligent and articulate – and his approach to international affairs reminds me of the confident pragmatism of JFK. Also – considering the two presidents to emerge from the “me generation” – his not being a Boomer is a real plus. That said, three years in the U.S. Senate isn’t much experience. Obama in 2012, maybe. Obama in 2016, sure. But in 2008?

In terms of policy positions, intellectual brilliance and overall talent, John Edwards is clearly the class of the Democratic field. He’s a marvelous communicator, and his roots go deep into the half of America too long neglected by both parties.With a friendly Congress – and quiet on the international front – John Edwards might prove another FDR. But without a workable exit strategy from Iraq – and Edwards doesn’t have one – how much could he really achieve?

On the Republican side, I confess, I’m more entertained than impressed. Ron Paul, a genuine libertarian, is a voice Americans need to hear – but not from the Oval Office. Texas oughta send him to the Senate.

Mike Huckabee has charm, and he’s obviously no dummy. But in the 21st century, can we afford to elect a President so indifferent to science that he can’t accept the overwhelming evidence for evolution?

Rudy Giuliani is an American original - a character out of some 1930's tough-guy flick. I agree with him on many domestic issues, but I’m wary of his Napoleonic ego.

Mitt Romney is intelligent, accomplished, articulate. He even looks presidential. But from his record, I can’t tell if he’s conservative, liberal – or a political android, his opinions stored on an infinitely rewritable memory chip. My gut tells me Romney is all about Romney.

He reminds me of Mark Warner.

Which brings us to John McCain, a man I’ve long admired. McCain isn’t perfect. Occasionally – as with his embrace of Jerry Falwell – his ambition leads him to do things that occasion a real frisson.

But, as David Brooks – The New York Times’ brilliant conservative columnist – recently noted, McCain is the only genuinely great figure in the race. McCain has character. He’s always thought for himself. He’s proved willing to tackle thorny issues, such as campaign finance reform. Having been tortured, he rejects the use of torture. He’s good on the environment. He also seems capable of unlimited growth.

In that sense, he reminds me of Senator John Warner, one of America's national treasures.

McCain also strikes me as the candidate best qualified to clean up the mess in Mesopotamia. An Annapolis man, McCain was an early critic of Mr. Bush’s misconduct of the war. He called for a “surge” – and took the resulting heat – long before the President.I’ve never agreed with McCain on Iraq, but I trust him. He’d use his best judgment and keep an open mind toward the war’s shifting fortunes – never clinging to a policy out of sheer stubbornness.

Yes, he’s a Republican – but if Mesopotamia remains the dominant issue confronting America through the next four years, we might just need a man of John McCain’s character, background and abilities.

Now, to be clear, I’m still hoping some Democratic candidate will enunciate a viable endgame for Mesopotamia. I don't see anything working, short of a three-way partition, withdrawing our long-term troops into an independent Kurdistan, and dealing with the consequent unpleasantness with Turkey - but maybe someone will come up with something.

However, until I see that plan, I’m leaning toward the honorable Senator from Arizona for 2008 - and working toward a genuine, progressive/green insurgency in 2012.

Not With a Gun to My Head

The following is part two of a three-parter on the choice confronting liberal and progressive citizens in 2008. The original, slightly modified, version appears in my regular column in this week's Chester Village News.



With Iowa and New Hampshire less than a month away, I still find myself scratching my head over the presidential field. So far, my main achievement has been to identify one candidate for whom I could not – under any foreseeable circumstances – cast my ballot.

Senator Hillary Clinton.

I write this at the risk of offending. The valid aspirations of generations of American women have – for many – become wrapped up in Senator Clinton’s candidacy. Woe betide the man who speaks ill of her.

But I’ll take that risk, because it’s not Senator Clinton’s gender that bothers me.

It’s her character – and her last name.

The Clintons – Bill and Hillary – seem to me to embody everything that has gone wrong with American liberalism. Simply stated, whatever principles they started with have become entirely subordinated to their unquenchable ambition. They will do whatever it takes to win high office – and having won, to hang on.

As a result, they – and their allies – have nearly completed the decades-long process of neutering the Democratic Party as an instrument of progressive government.

At least since the rise of Ronald Reagan, Democrats have been playing the political equivalent of a “prevent defense” – which, as every football fan knows, too often prevents winning.

Witness Mr. Clinton’s two terms. True, he balanced the Federal budget – an admirable achievement. But he fumbled health care reform in his first year – and never tried again. He did nothing serious about Social Security, immigration, or the environment.

Indeed, despite remarkable skills as a communicator, he never – after his first year – mounted a serious effort to rally public opinion on behalf of any major, progressive policy initiative.

As I see it, Mr. Clinton enjoyed being President more than exercising the powers of the presidency. To understand how little he used these powers, one need simply compare Mr. Clinton’s presidency with that of his successor – a man with a fraction of his intellectual and rhetorical gifts, but possessing an unshakeable will.

From my perspective, Mr. Clinton’s presidency was a holding action – a waste of eight years. And his most unforgivable failure – one in which his First Lady was fully complicit – was his refusal to resign after the Lewinsky scandal.

Had Mr. Clinton resigned, Al Gore would have become president – with two years to establish himself, shake off the taint of a scandal in which he played no part, and set a new course.

Given the closeness of the 2000 election, it’s inconceivable that a President Gore would not have defeated Governor Bush – in which case, much that has gone so badly wrong over the past seven years might have been avoided.

Yet, even after it became clear that the scandal would, at best, reduce Mr. Clinton to the lamest of ducks, the Clintons clung to office. In so doing, they failed their party – and their country.

In my view, this failure is sufficient justification for rejecting Senator Clinton’s candidacy. Still, in fairness, I’ve watched for signs that a second President Clinton might be better than the first.

I’ve seen none.

Senator Clinton supported the resolution authorizing President Bush’s invasion of Iraq – and waited until public opinion turned against the war before cautiously speaking against it. Even today, she has made clear that she expects to keep American troops in Iraq at least through her first term as President – which essentially means she would have neither the money nor the political capital to advance her domestic agenda.

Senator Clinton has supported President Bush’s escalation of tensions with Iran – an unnecessary confrontation which will likely result in serious, unnecessary blowback.

She has offered only the feeblest criticisms of the President’s violations of the Geneva Conventions, the Bill of Rights, and the constitutional separation of powers.

In short, she has sedulously avoided any expression which would limit the powers of the office she hopes to win – a disturbing portent. From her behavior, Senator Clinton strikes me as the most cold-bloodedly ambitious person to seek the Oval Office since Richard Nixon.

That said, good friends have asked the obvious question: If 2008 came down to a choice between Senator Clinton and some arch-conservative Republican, wouldn’t you have to vote for her?

Nope.

As a student of History, I like to think long-term.

True, electing Senator Clinton would deprive the GOP of the White House.

But it would also commit the US to at least another four years in Iraq. That, in turn, would mean additional hundreds of billions – funds better devoted to health care, education, alternative energy and a decaying infrastructure – being poured down a rat hole.

Electing Senator Clinton would also assure her campaign for re-election in 2012 – virtually guaranteeing that no truly progressive candidate would appear on the ballot before 2016. And, given the balance between the two parties – and the consequent trend of alternating decades in power – a Clinton victory might well mean waiting until 2020 or 2024 for another shot at a genuinely progressive presidency.

Life’s too short – and the crucial issues are too pressing.

Thus mindful, I can justify electing a Republican to deal with the mess his party made in Mesopotamia – and devoting my efforts to electing a true progressive in 2012.

And if Senator Clinton is the nominee, that choice will become far easier.

Already?

We should be thinking of Christmas.

Not entirely, of course. There are storm windows to put up, gutters to clean, fallen leaves to compost, outdoor plants to mulch. But with December ‘round the corner, we Virginians shouldn’t be worrying about next year’s election.

Folks in New Hampshire and Iowa should, of course. They’re accustomed to it.

If the two major parties hadn’t mismanaged things so badly – if self-important states hadn’t begun leapfrogging each other in search of more clout – we wouldn’t have to think seriously about our presidential options until early March, when there’s not much else to think about.

But here we are. Thanks to a truncated nomination process, there’s an excellent chance the presidential field will have been narrowed two finalists before the first robin of spring – and a fair chance neither will be someone most of us would trust anywhere near the Oval Office.

If it turns out that way, we’ll have an eight or nine month “fall campaign” to look forward to. Great fun, no doubt, for hardcore loyalists – who’d vote for a trained chimp if it got their party’s nomination – but rather an ordeal for the rest of us.

Meanwhile, at this joyous season, those of us who want any say whatsoever in choosing our next president must turn our minds from higher things. It’s time to make that contribution. To write letters or make calls to voters in Iowa or New Hampshire. Or, if you’re really dedicated, to go there in person and hit the streets.

But first, you have to pick your candidate.

I’ve been following the campaign for nearly a year, now, and I still haven’t managed that trick. I’ve narrowed my list to a handful of individuals I can actually imagine voting for, but my true first choice isn’t in the field.

If Al Gore decided to run – as a Democrat, a Green, a Whig, or as the nominee of the Prohibition Party – I’d be there.

Please understand, this has little to do with the mess in 2000. I believe the wrong man won – or rather, was declared the winner – that year, but I wasn’t that emotionally invested. In 2000, after eight years as vice president, Mr. Gore had apparently lost touch with himself – so much so that he needed consultants to tell him how to talk, how to dress, etc. As a result, he presented himself as a man so wooden, so without personality, that he actually managed to lose to George W. Bush.

I am – by contemporary standards – fairly liberal, but I also value authenticity in public men and women. In 2000, I voted in the Republican primary – for John McCain – who appeared to have plenty of that.

Today, however, Al Gore is no longer the uncertain heir apparent of 2000. Since his defeat, he has, simultaneously, gotten back in touch with himself and grown in stature. He stands much taller now. He speaks with deep conviction. His passionate advocacy of environmental responsibility – which won him both an Oscar and a Nobel Prize – reflect lifelong, deeply held beliefs.

Al Gore has matured into a great man, yet you can see in him the youthful Senator from Tennessee. He’s regained his integrity.

And that’s important.

Any student of history knows that great presidents are neither born nor made. Of our 43 presidents, only George Washington entered office prepared for the role – which is logical, considering that the Framers shaped Article II precisely to fit him. Every other president grown into the job – or failed to. Indeed, the main quality shared by our greatest presidents has been a capacity for growth.

There are other essential qualities: intellectual curiosity; energy; an understanding of history and of human nature; and the personal experience of loss or defeat. It’s hard to name a great president – or a great ruler from any era – who did not enjoy these qualities.

But a capacity for growth tops the list. And Mr. Gore – in the past seven years – has clearly demonstrated that quality.

There are other things. Mr. Gore understands our planet’s environmental challenges – and how these relate to such issues as social and economic justice and global cooperation. He also understands that these interconnected issues will have far more impact on America’s future than the plotting of Islamic fanatics living in caves.

Of course, Mr. Gore says he’s not running – and I suspect he’s wise. His stature – nationally and globally – is now higher than that of any living president, including the incumbent. He enjoys a level of credibility which would inevitably be tarnished if he became a candidate.

Still, if he changes his mind, his candidacy would become – for many Americans – the crusade of a lifetime. Previous insurgencies – Bobby Kennedy in ‘68, Gary Hart in ‘84, Howard Dean in ‘04 – would seem like rehearsals. I just don’t see it happening.

Which leaves me with a harder choice. In coming weeks, I’ll take a stab at winnowing the field – looking for a president.

The Vampire Party

For a year now, I’ve tried writing a piece about why I’ve given up on the Democratic Party.

I attempted a restrained approach, and it came out like a compressed history lecture. Give me 50 minutes and 25 bright students, I could make it scintillating. Packing it into 1000 words or less, it became simultaneously, a brain-buster and a complete yawn.

So I tried letting myself go, resulting in blood-curdling screeds which – while emotionally satisfying – lacked the credibility essential to persuasive writing.

Finally, it came to me. October. Halloween. Vampires.

A theme...

If I could offer one piece of advice to young progressives, it would be this:
The Democratic Party is Count Dracula.

Which is not to recommend the obvious alternative. I have contemporaries who became Republicans decades ago and feel compelled to “stay the course” – out of team spirit, stubborn pride or the hope of getting it right in their next incarnation.

But it’s difficult to imagine significant numbers of intelligent young Americans voluntarily joining the party of George W. Bush.

That said, it doesn’t follow that anyone should – out of loathing for the President – become a Democrat.

Campaign for individual Democrats, sure. If Edwards or Obama – or (it’s apparently possible) Hillary – turns you on, hie thee off to New Hampshire over Christmas break and knock on doors.

I did it in for Dean in ‘04 and – even at my advanced age – it was a blast.

Just don’t drink the Kool-Aid.

Because I’m serious, the Democratic Party is Dracula. It should be long dead, but it lives on – and on – by drinking the lifeblood of generation after generation of young Americans.

It lures them with the vague promise that this generation can seize control of the party, reform it, and turn it – once again – into the great liberal/progressive party of FDR, Harry Truman, and the Kennedys.

Ain’t gonna happen.

The reasons for this are too abstruse and technical for brief treatment, but if you’re up for some homework, I can point you in the right direction.

And it’s important. After all, this isn’t like choosing a college or a first spouse. People transfer and divorce, but most Americans change religions more often than they change parties.

You really should bone up before selling your political soul.

Here’s my basic argument: The Democratic Party can’t be changed because – as one of two major parties – it has a powerful institutional bias toward winning the next election.

Makes sense, right? You can’t govern if you don’t win.

But you also can’t govern – as progressives – if you take money from every special interest on K Street, run to the center, and then, once elected, whip out some liberal agenda you forgot to mention during the campaign.

Voters don’t like it. It’s a question of legitimacy – one of the rare concepts from Political Science that actually makes sense. In a democracy, citizens tend to hold you to what you said during the campaign.

To get away with a radical, hidden agenda, you need something special – say, the Great Depression or 9-11. And you can’t count on that.

Nonetheless, the people who run the Democratic Party – a diverse, but powerful group of insiders – insist, above all, upon winning the next election.

After all, they want to get back into those impressive majority suites on Capitol Hill – or even better, those cramped little offices in the West Wing.

But of course, if your agenda is winning the next election, you don’t want to risk scaring people. Or making them think.

Which is why the Party insisted that Al Gore tone down the environmentalism in 2000. And why they dumped Howard Dean for the “electable” John Kerry in 2004.

I didn’t say Democrats were smart.

Now, you might ask, if winning the next election isn’t the goal, what is it?

Winning the debate.

To transform America, a party must first stake out a bold vision of a better society – then spend the decade or two it takes for the voters to come around.

When I was a kid, in 1964, Barry Goldwater did just that. His minions captured the Republican Party – and Goldwater took one of the worst electoral poundings in American history.

But sixteen years later, Ronald Reagan rode Goldwater’s conservative vision to victory – and the Republicans have been in power ever since.

You might ask, couldn’t today’s young progressives stage the same sort of coup within the Democratic Party?

Unlikely. Coups only succeed except against centralized power structures. Unlike the corporate-style Republicans, the Democrats are essentially a vast coalition – with maybe ten distinct power centers – virtually impregnable to a hostile takeover.

Besides, it’s been tried. Generation after generation – including mine – has joined the Democratic Party, determined to reform it, inject new life into it, and turn it into a progressive counterpart of the GOP.

What actually happens is that Dracula thing. Young progressives, drained of their idealism, slowly morph into middle-aged pragmatists capable of nominating Walter Mondale over Gary Hart, John Kerry over Howard Dean – or Hillary Clinton over someone with a pulse.

Meanwhile, with no party advocating a viable, progressive alternative, the Republicans continue defining the terms of the national political debate – which recedes forever farther rightward.

There’s only one way to change this – and it starts with a stake to the heart.

Still dubious?

Here’s your homework.

Study the decline and fall of the 19th century Whigs – the only major American party to give way to a more viable alternative. You might start with David Potter’s 1976 classic, The Impending Crisis.

Do some reading, then ask yourself: If the principled opponents of slavery had stuck with the Whigs – instead of forming smaller, more radical parties which moved the debate to the left – would we ever have had a President Lincoln? Or an Emancipation Proclamation?

Today’s situation seems analogous.

It’s your call, but to me, joining the Democratic Party is about as wise as allowing that charming Count with the intriguing accent to lure you onto a dark, deserted balcony.

Happy Halloween!