A Point That Bears Repeating

The groups which Obama cares about pleasing -- Wall Street, corporate interests, conservative Democrats, the establishment media, independent voters -- all have one thing in common: they will support only those politicians who advance their agenda, but will vigorously oppose those who do not. Similarly, the GOP began caring about the Tea Party only once that movement proved it will bring down GOP incumbents even if it means losing a few elections to Democrats.

That is exactly what progressives will never do. They do the opposite; they proudly announce: we'll probably be angry a lot, and we'll be over here doing a lot complaining, but don't worry: no matter what, when you need us to stay in power (or to acquire it), we're going to be there to give you our full and cheering support. That is the message conveyed over and over again by progressives, no more so than when much of the House Progressive Caucus vowed that they would never, ever support a health care bill that had no robust public option, only to turn around at the end and abandon that vow by dutifully voting for Obama's public-option-free health care bill. That's just a microcosm of what happens in the more general sense: progressives constantly object when their values and priorities are trampled upon, only to make clear that they will not only vote for, but work hard on behalf of and give their money to, the Democratic Party when election time comes around.

I'm not arguing here with that decision. Progressives who do this will tell you that this unconditional Party support is necessary and justifiable because no matter how bad Democrats are, the GOP is worse. That's a different debate. The point here is that -- whether justified or not -- telling politicians that you will do everything possible to work for their re-election no matter how much they scorn you, ignore your political priorities, and trample on your political values is a guaranteed ticket to irrelevance and impotence. Any self-interested, rational politician -- meaning one motivated by a desire to maintain power rather than by ideology or principle -- will ignore those who behave this way every time and instead care only about those whose support is conditional. And they're well-advised to do exactly that.
~ Glenn Greenwald, "Daley is a reflection, not a cause" ~

Look at this point in another way. Let's say you are a new parent. You set down some basic rules or expectations you want your child to follow. You explain to your child -- an exceptionally smart lad or lass -- the logic and rationale behind these rules.

On the first day after your conversation, your child breaks one of the rules. You give the child a stern talking to and you tell him/her that you are confident such rule-breaking won't happen again. The very next day your child again breaks this same rule. You sit him/her down and re-explain the basis for the rule and why it is so very important that it be followed.

For the next two weeks, the child breaks the same rule each day AND, each day, you tell your child how disappointed you are. Exasperated, you seek advice from a friend, neighbor, colleague or family member, someone who is an experienced parent.

"What are the consequences of breaking this rule," this person asks you. "Consequences? What do you mean?" you reply. "Your child won't take the rule seriously if there is no consequence for breaking it."

"Well, this MY child!" you shriek. "I can't impose consequences on my child!" "Then don't be surprised if your child continues not to follow the rule," the other person remarks while walking away shaking their head.