The Legacy Parties are now fundamentally broken
Over on the sidebar, Lambert links to Bill Moyers with the following quote from Barack Obama:
In 2003, a young Illinois state senator named Barack Obama told an AFL-CIO meeting, "I am a proponent of a single-payer universal healthcare program*."
If you read a little further on, you'll see Obama saying the following
"All of you know we might not get there immediately because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate and we have to take back the House."
There was a time when I believed that. From about 2002 until 2007, I was a Democrat to the core. Rather than birthday gifts, I requested people donate to the DNC, DCCC, or DSCC. When I wasn't in lab (I was a grad student), chances are I was doing something to help the Democrats. I wasn't the only one with such fervor. The online community was full of progressive and liberal activists who believed that once we win Congress things will be OK. When very little changed in 2007, the argument was that we needed the White House. But since Democrats took over Congress and the Executive branch, Democrats have gotten more conservative when they should have gotten more liberal as promised. They didn't. "More and better Democrats" did not work, revealing that they are fundamentally broken. (I don't need to talk about the brokeness of the GOP do I?)
Some might argue otherwise, but as time goes by its becoming more and more obvious that this is the case. Something is rotten at the very core of the Democratic Party and no amount of Democrats will change this. Hell, it might even make things worse. This must be taken into consideration when considering ideas like the Full Court Press. Is spending time and money--more and more precious commodities these day--on the Democratic Party worth it if they are fundamentally broken? Can you trust a political party that not only holds fraudulent elections but institute rules to ensure the election is fraudulent? Can you ever win in a system that rigs elections?
Some people tried to save the Whig Party in the 1850s, but that was a losing endeavor. I'm coming to believe that the same is true of the Democratic Party. (And if you look at the Whig factions back then and compare them to the Dem factions of today, you'll see a much closer resemblance than comparing the Whigs to the modern day GOP.) Liberalism, at its core, is about positive change. Neither the Dems or the GOP are about positive change and our 2010 strategy should consider that. If the Republican Party can replace the Whigs in less than 10 years at a time when communication and access to information was much, much slower, surely we can replace the Democrats in less time. One or two "Justice Party" candidates in 2010 would be a boon to our prospects in 2012, when things will probably be worse than they are now.