Sirota has two good pieces up about the foolishness of clinging to terms like "Democrat" and "Republican" and of worrying about "bipartisanship" and "centrist mandates." They're very good, and I want to be among the first voices joining his, as progressives understand the opportunities and challenges of this incoming Congress and what can be done there.

The short version: not all Republicans are our enemies, nor is every Democrat our friend. It will be up to progressives to reframe the debate, and thus hold the entire 110th responsible to the actual mandate of the voters: real change, and in areas that have actual meaning and impact on a majority of the American population. Sirota makes the old progressive's argument that we don't really have a two party system in this country, so much as we have one group of politicians who are bought and paid for by the moneyed interests, and one (perpetual minority) group who actually believe that those in public service should, well, serve the public. He points out that in the example of drug pricing, Democrats can cave just as quickly as a Republican when it comes to protecting corporate interests at public expense:

So, in other words, there are Democrats and Republicans like Vitter and Emerson willing to stand up for the People Party on this critical issue, but there are people like Democratic Rep. John Dingell who may use a patently fake argument about imported drugs being unsafe in order to defend the Money Party.

There is more about Democratic aides rushing off to join the lobbying money train, as well as the "realignment" of the Big Pharma lobby to make sure the "right" Democrats are given committee chairmanships such that drugs aren't regulated in a way that would benefit you and I. This is "how it works" in Congress, and "it's always been this way, and always will be."'

Unless it's not, I say. There are many ways in which change can be accomplished, and the revolutionary in me says, "it can be the hard way, or the very, very hard way." Let me suss this out a little. Progressives have an opportunity that they haven't had in a long time, and conversely because certain realities are going to make themselves known in the very near future, progressives are going to have even more opportunity the likes of which we've not seen in generations. There is good and bad news in this. The "good news" is what you already know.

As I've posted elsewhere, the leadership of this Congress is likely to be made up of a large number of true progressives, people who want to work for me and you, because progressive Democrats with seniority were a majority of those elected. That victory wasn't really tainted by Pelosi's "loss" to Rahm and Steny, so much as it's very, very difficult for the Beltway bobbleheads to understand. Indeed, watching them contort and ignore reality to "explain what it all means" these last few weeks has been amusing, were it not so pathetic, and unfortunately, important in shaping what most Americans believe about the political landscape.

But the bottom line is that given how little actual political news most Americans receive, Beltway discourse on progressive caucuses in Congress doesn't matter. People like you and I will see through it, and it will not change the actual makeup of the progressive caucus or its agenda. So the opportunity for progressives here is to make our voices heard by the actual members of the Democratic Congress who understand our role in electing the 110th. There are more of them than you think. The "bad news" is that even if we'd just elected 100 Wellstones and 500 Waxmans, we'd still be screwed in terms of the mess that awaits the ruling party. Unfortunate reality will dominate the legislative process of months to come. You know the drill: Iraq is a quagmire of the first order, and there is no winning there. The housing market continues to implode, and there is little reason to believe that trend can be reversed in less than two year's time. We've only begun to feel the effects, and more importantly, pay the bill for Bush's reckless domestic spending policies; the recessions in many states have put a strain on state budgets which will require immediate attention by sensible Federal budget-makers.

Of course, thanks to the war and Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest, there is no money to fix any of this. Sure, we can keep on borrowing, and that will likely go on, but eventually the madness will have to stop. This means Democrats are (again) faced with the ugly choice of raising taxes on those who command much of the lines of political power, or cutting programs that are the bread and butter of the base. The "opportunity" this bad news creates for progressives: if we remind the American people (and Democrats) where the blame lies for this mess, we'll be able to hang on to power for a generation. A tall order, but wholly possible. Getting back to Sirota's point, what's important in all of this is that progressives must understand that not all Democrats are going to act like Democrats should. The siren song of Big Lobbying dollars is very difficult for some to resist, and honestly, I suspect there's a great deal of "it's my turn!" attitude with respect to the troughs and gravy trains the Republicans have enjoyed for decades now.

Sirota's examples are only a few of dozens happening right now, while most Americans are napping off too much food and paying no attention to politics. This is where you come in, fellow progressive. Not to beat this happy horse again, but things really are different with respect to how The Game is played. The election proved that, never forget. They may still kill us off by shutting down the free internet, but for now, there can be no doubt that it was a core of progressives, employing new technologies and open source methods, who brought about Democratic victory.

In a similar way, the proper herding, branding, monitoring, cajoling and scrutinizing of "our" new Democrats must continue. Don't put down that computer, phone, and walking stick just yet, fellow progressive. Your job is just starting. I have (for a dour, pessimistic radical) not a small amount of hope that we've been "emboldened" by our victory enough to have also learned a lesson about our true power. Sirota isn't exactly an "outsider," but I love the fact that he shares his insider perspective, experiences, and wisdom with Little People like you and me, and for free at that.

If you followed the Lamont campaign, you got to see the inside workings of it in a way that few could've accessed even five years ago; just as anyone with a computer could. Similarly, the progressive blogosphere has become, in the fashion of "it never goes away on the Intertubes," a virtual library, catalogue, video repository, reference, and recording device for all things political past and present. Progressives need to continue to use this.

Short version: the progressive Internet communities must work with traditional progressive communities to hold Democratic feet to the fire, and that has never been easier. They can have as many backdoor, invite only, sell out to the highest bidder sessions as they want. This time, some people are going to notice, and make a stink about that. This is, to my mind, the main difference between progressive action of ages past and today. There may not be that much difference between a pamphlet and a blog post; then again…there may be. It's certainly a hell of a lot easier to get more people than my immediate neighbors and families to read my work today than it would've been in 1859.

I've been in The District for a whole month now, and already I think I get the basics well enough to know "what the problem is" with respect to the continual dominance of the Money Party over the People Party. Too few people here have ever worked for a living, worried about their child's health care, stressed about getting a job, gone hungry, had difficulty with the English language, been discriminated against due to race, gender or orientation…in other words, lived in the world that 95% of Americans do. David's "People Party" is made up of true mavericks, fluke victors, people from very safe (read: minority) seats, and those who are actually noble in their political aims (and as widespread as the Dodo today).

But for once in my lifetime, perhaps since the founding of the country, that small minority isn't alone. They've got a growing population of millions who have tasted power for the first time, and who aren't going to be satisfied with 'business as usual.' More importantly, that group (you and me) are going to be watching, writing, sharing our views with uninformed, making phone calls and sending emails…participating in the political process. To my mind, something like this hasn't happened, at least on the left, since the end of the Flower Power generation, when that group put down the banner and picked up the corporate paycheck for the first time. The Right has been doing it since the 80s, but they've also imploded, under the burden of hypocrisy and corruption that demagoguery and single-minded ideology inevitably brings.

Now's your chance, kids. Don't let it pass you by. You won't get the perfect storm of man-boy-meth love again. It's going to be an uphill battle, and we'll lose many skirmishes. There is so much to do, so much to monitor, so much to change. But I really do think that in a meaningful way, we've got the Money Party wing of the Democratic party on the run, or at least running scared. Considering how it took a relatively minor effort (we didn't have to shoot, burn or occupy anything), I think we can do a lot more.

Bold, direct, simple, writing like Sirota's is a great example with which to start. Democrats are on notice: your party affiliation won't protect you. We've given you an inch, and we're going to expect you to take us a mile. How do I know this is the right approach? Because it worked for the other side for the last 25 years. Only the bobbleheads, with their mindless chanting of the "centrist bipartisanship" mantra don't understand that. I, and millions like me, are not part of that class. …oddly enough, Sirota's WFC corporate blog is no longer active. I hope his plain speaking didn't get him fired, even as I wouldn't be surprised.