Ezra Klein is driven to fits of self-abuse by an editorial in the LA Times titled "Wake up, Democrats: Ideas and vision do matter", subtitle: "Just waiting for the Republicans to self-destruct is a losing strategy".

Not the best-written or backed-up editorial ever, true, but I second their emotion. This little exchange illustrates the division of the Left in 'merka (and in the blogosphere): liberals vs. progressives.

On the Ezra Klein side, we have people content to say "Vote democratic! We're not corrupt and incompetent like the Rethuglicans!". Don't get me wrong, I would welcome a non-criminally insane administration right now.

But is running on competence and efficiency enough to win elections? The last two elections have proven otherwise. Are you prepared to wait and see how fucked this country has to get before the current Dem strategy will work? If it doesn't this fall, the Beltway consultants will just blame the rabid blogs.

The Republicans have won because Big Ideas trump Reality. Most people don't have the time to follow all the wonky details of policy. An ideology provides a framework of values that voters can agree with and can trust their representatives to act from.

But is ideology a bad thing in general? The current batch of Rethugs have proven that their actions have nothing to do with their stated values.

Maybe the best way to govern is to believe Clintonesquically (OK I've had some vino) in whatever a Summit of Stakeholders comes up with on any given Policy and is determined to be Politically Viable.

What would be wrong with "We believe in Reality. We believe in Science. We believe in transparent government. We believe in non-GMO broccoli." like the Kaiser Permanente ads? Nah, that would probably run the risk of incurring the scorn of Brit Hume's warty butt-face. Another element the LA Times editorial addresses is the Democrats' fear.

The Clinton years brought surpluses, peace and stability but the Clintons ran scared from the Universal Healthcare debate and foisted the HMO nightmare upon us. It was a wonky, reasonable, viable policy that satisfied the (Corporate) stakeholders, but it sucked.

Possibly because there was no ideology behind it. Once it descended, like other debates Democrats lose, into the details of policy, the Rethugs and Corporate Media were able to spin it their way. A simple statement like "we believe it is wrong for an American to not get medical treatment because they're too poor to afford it" might have fared better?

Being an pie-in-the-sky idealist progressive, I don't want an efficienly managed Iraqi occupation, for example, which is what we will probably get if the Dems win this Fall. But the alternative, the Liberals will holler, a continued incompetent occupation of Iraq is far worse.

If the goal is to just win elections and wrest power from the current scumbags in charge, Progressives would argue that a coherent Ideology, and a clearly defined direction are the way to win, not an unrealistic obstacle. What do I know? I don't write for the American Prospect and I've got laundry to do. Reality smells.