I think  a lot of people do not understand the Republican Party's near-complete conversion into a very radical party, perhaps not even some of the Republican politicians themselves. In part, this is owing to our brain-dead mainstream media's lazy 'both parties are extreme' formulation. There is absolutely nothing radical about today's Democratic Party. It ends up apologizing and temporizing about even the most modest and necessary reforms.

The Republican Party in its current avatar, on the other hand, has gone well beyond Reagan. It has continued to hew to his free-market ideology even in the face of its visibly catastrophic failure in the Bush Jr. Administration. The facts have not changed their minds one bit. In other words, they have abandoned empiricism for the religion of the unfettered free market. For some, this is an exercise in cynicism: it never mattered how things turn out for the nation, because I got mine. But for those Republican politicians who do genuinely care about the country, it represents either political cowardice or a failure of vision or both.

Karl Rove style politics is all about backing people into corners and restricting their choices. While Democrats have suffered from this, it has been utterly disastrous for the diminishing numbers of rational Republicans. Even if they wished to ignore or repudiate radical right-wing irrationalism, how would they do it? Having ridden the tiger for this long, it is difficult to see how they can safely dismount and still win elections.

To the deep consternation of those of us toward the left, the Democratic Party has come to embrace most of the old Roosevelt Democratic coalition (minus most white Southerners who will always respond better to emotion than to reason) AND much of the Eisenhower Republican coalition. This is not, thus far, an easy mega-coalition to guide, and there is a sense of confusion and disillusion among Democrats. Right now, "the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity." But there is a chance - maybe even a good chance - that if we can be patient and continue to control the middle of the board, that Democrats can not only check Republican excesses even in bad years, but checkmate their extremism and make it stop altogether. I certainly hope so, because failure will mean tyranny.

I wish Plouffe was a central player in the administration at the moment.

You forgot to recommend purchasing the book through Powell's.  :-)

Oh, there you are, Perry. -Phineas -SLB-

if they were trying to "change Washington". If Obama had provided an ounce of leadership he could have led the American people.

"Washington" would have been pulled along with the current.

Its a perfect Christmas gift for number 2 son. If I hurry, I'll be able to sneak a read before wrapping.

"I never trust people who don't laugh." Maya Angelou, March 5, 2009

I'm not sure Booman. He's been President less than a year and he's failed to change Washington? Wow. Maybe I'm not understanding what you mean but the only President to get this far on healthcare reform, a man who's in the process of kicking lobbyists off advisory boards in D.C. isn't what I'd call a failure. Maybe you didn't realize how difficult Washington was to change, especially after the train wreck that was Bush. Hmmm. Maybe you meant bipartisansip is a failure. I still think that remains to be seen. We are only privy to the blustering of some of the Repubs. We don't know what's said behind closed doors. Besides, President Obama isn't being bipartisan for the sake of being bipartisan. He's actually trying to show the Repubs constituents that he's willing to work with their elected reps. I live in Cleveland,Ohio. It's pretty conservative in spite of the fact that we elected Kucinich and Brown as our reps. And dare I say pretty racist. Boehner represents the southern part of Ohio. I've heard from many in his area and in mine that the President is trying to work with the Repubs but the repubs are being ignorant. This from folks who I know personally don't watch much news and use the "N" word fairly regular. My point is bipartisanship is reaching some folks. Maybe not fast enough for you.  I apologize if I don't understand your post but failure is a bit much. I expected you to understand that governing is ugly and messy. I never thought that you believed in unicorns and fairy tales.  

Booman, I felt the same way after reading that fantasic, enlightening book.  Another commenter mentioned getting Plouffe involved in the White House and I think that would be a lovely idea.  Plouffe, I think, is less likely to give a shit what is nice and knows how to come down hard on the media and other gamers in very clear language.  He's Rahm without the too clever political mind games and horse trading.

And to pick up on what commenter "CrapIsKing" wrote above about what the Republican party really is; that it is so radical beyond anything we've ever seen before. In fact, to Obama it's another reincarnation of Reverend Wright; something he thought he could work with but instead, ends up giving people a very distorted view of him, with the outright lies and hateful rhetoric.  How does Obama confront that?  Does he need to give a speech about "an imperfect party system" to enlighten the American people to this reality and also offer some suggestions on how we can go forward?

"But he has not been able to even get started on his pragmatic agenda because he's forced to use exclusively Democrats.  The GOP is determined to force him to appear as a left-wing ideologue.  It's in this sense that his effort has failed.  He needs to focus on passing legislation, and forget about how it is passed."

I think the news media are a large part of the problem, or at least the perceived problem. Democratic politicians to an annoying extent still consider the mainstream media to be the voice of the educated and involved citizenry. In fact, they are mostly lazy fucks who "balance the truth with a lie," to use Edward R. Murrow's phrase. In my opinion, this leaves an opening for Democrats to do whatever they want legislatively, to swing as far left as their coalition permits them to do. The news media are never going to challenge Republican charges of Democratic left-wing extremism, so why not actually BE as extreme as the Republicans, within the bounds of a big tent?

The good and the bad news is that the bulk of the populace no longer takes what the news media say as gospel. We figured out Vietnam. We figured out Iraq. We figured out Bush, all with virtually no help from the news media. So, if we were to swing left with our legislative program, the news media would continue to talk about polarization, but the timid Republican and independent voters who are noticing in increasing numbers that their party has become institutionally insane could be scared off.

"So, I've been restricting my political junkieism to reliving the 2008 campaign through Plouffe."

Can't blame ya.  It's a lot more pleasant than living the post-election reality.

John Mccain Called his wife WHAT??

When the semester is over I will have to read Mr. Plouffe's book. Then maybe I will have a better understanding of what you are writing. This is a topic I'd like to revisit.

looking forward to reading your review of the book.

.
Has hit the immovable structure of daily realism. It's nice to retreat in a year gone by, this will not help Obama pass HCR or turn the world events around. The economy was and is a disaster, jobs won't be available in 2010 and the election will put the Obama administration on the same footing as Clinton in 1994. Time is running out.

"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."