In light of the different posts on good and bad Democrats I thought I'd post on the principle of party invariance and why I think it should be considered for PB2.0.

I'll state up front that that all but a handful of my books are stored up in boxes so I won't be able to give an exhaustive history of the conservative movement, which I believe is important. Instead, I'll point you to a couple books worth reading: The Emerging Republican Majority, The Right Nation, and The Republican Noise Machine. Don't forget to check out Off Center. These books are important in that they give some background on how the GOP came to power on the heels of the broader conservative movement.

While many in PB2.0 may decry the conservative movement, one thing is undeniable: they changed the landscape of contemporary US politics. It is my view that the most successful and potent times in the conservative movement happened between the late 1950s and the 1980s. I think this is the more important time for proponents of PB2.0 to take a look at. Sure, the actual electoral gains happened after this time, but I am of the view that the policies that were enacted were in large part due to the diligent work by the conservative infrastructure leading up to the Reagan and Gingrich Revolutions. I am also of the view that the reason the conservative movement was on the ropes this year (until Obama and FKD started singing "bipartisanship") was because they abandoned their early "party invariant" strategy and become completely entangled with the Republican Party. Hence, GOP failures in governance over the last years also tarnished conservativism. Obama's ignorant use of "blame everyone" and "Dem cynics" gave the conservative movement much needed cover and new life. But I digress.

The reason I think the 1950s-1980s are important is because, during that time, conservatives set up their network of think tanks and began systematically challenging liberalism. The veracity of their claims is beside the point. What they did that was of utmost importance is to create a way in which to propagate their ideas. Sure, they started out small and had targeted audiences, but they eventually got to the point where there talking points were seen by both Democrats and Republicans. (Keep in mind, many of the Democrats of 1960-1980 ended up becoming today's die-hard Republicans.) Places like The Heritage Foundation handed out their information to any and all willing to look at it, Republicans and Democrats.

By the time Reagan came to the White House, Congress was ready for the trickle down economic policies. Congress and the US populace was ready to hear about "Welfare Queens" driving limos. Etc. Bill Clinton was a liberal who had to work in a political environment that was shaped by decades of conservative organization that targeted both political parties. Today we still see the effects of the decades of work from conservative organizations: an increasingly right-wing Republican Party and an increasing number of Blue Dog Democrats. It is my view that the reason this is happening is because for most of conservative movements ascendancy they practiced a Party Invariant strategy.

By Party Invariance, I refer to the fact that they shifted the entire political landscape to a direction they favored. They didn't go solely after a more pure Republican Party. Eventually they did, and we saw how quickly that put a halt to conservative momentum. By changing the landscape, many conservative principles have become common place within both Parties and even though Dems could have fought in the Senate while in the minority, enough Dems held conservative views to prevent filibusters. In other words, the GOP did not even need a filibuster proof Senate majority to do what they wanted. Compare that to the situation we see today, where so-called progressive bloggers are stuck in a purely partisan world where the only way to get things done is with a Senate with enough Democrats to prevent a filibuster. (Note how absurd that idea is when a large number of Democrats are already conservative and probably wouldn't go along with some of the cloture votes.)

The obsessive focus of PB1.0 on electoral politics was a very short sighted approach. We are still left with supporting Blue Dog Dems who do not necessarily share our political philosophy. Despite electoral gains, we are not guaranteed anything. What kind of strategy is that? It's not a philosophical strategy, it's a strategy for power for its own sake. Incidentally, seeking power for its own sake allowed PB1.0 to consistently compromise their supposed ideals, as the Dem primary has demonstrated.

Now we can argue whether or not PB1.0 ever had principles, etc. but what is clear is that, as a movement to get things done they have failed and failed miserably. Their capitulation in Obama's shift to the right, and increasing willingness to generally support increasingly conservative Dems (and not encouraging liberal Republicans) only further emphasizes the complete failure of PB1.0. Winning partisan elections is not the same as increasing the number of votes for issue X. The fundamental principle of Party Invariance is that increasing the number of votes for issue X has primacy over winning partisan elections. Increasing the number of votes for issue X may not always mean supporting the Democrat over the Republican.

Of course it gets a little tricky when it comes to committee chairmanships and makeup, but I think we need to move beyond being tying the progressive movement solely to the Democrats. That lets a Political Party use a political movement as a tool instead of the other way around.

To be frank, I don't know how best to implement a Party invariant strategy. What I do know is that the internet has provided tools to allow for more rapid organizing and faster propagation of information. Questions I have are: Is PB2.0 a tool for a broader strategy/coalition? Does it focus more on organizing people or propagating information? Since partisanship helps increase traffic to sites, how does PB2.0 maintain focus on the issues? Etc.