If what you're suggesting is that Democrats benefit by exacerbating the ideological divide in media, academia, government, etc. and by rejecting the notion of bipartisanship and American commonalities, count me right out. It wasn't just a slogan Bill Clinton formulated when he said Republicans need to divide the country; we don't.

Now certainly building up alternative institutions is vital in the short term because the Democratic establishment has sat on their hands for so long that what started out as "alternative" right-wing institutions have become or fatally infected the mainstream. But a long term solution is to reject totally the school of thought that seeks to divide us along particular fault lines as completely un-American. The Liberal project--extending progress to more and more people and at greater and greater levels of attainment--fails otherwise. Meanwhile, the right-wing project--keeping attainment in the hands of an elect few--thrives. Those on the receiving ends of its benefits might call themselves liberals or progressives, but they'll be anything but.

It's put them in the driver's seat by default, as the Dems have been left to play catch-up and try to work within the fantasy world the Reeps have invented and communicate with the reality-based community at the same time.

Of course, I still think the answer is to give the Reep fantasy the big finger and call bull$#!+, bull$#!+.

Leadership means providing an avenue for common sense.  A leader should strive to explain policy options in simple, mundane terms.  The idea is to empower people to choose their lives by making options clear.  This is a large task in our highly bureaucratic and interdependent world.  Technocratic liberalism, I think you would call it.

Identity politics.  Most politics is not driven by common sense, or serious policy discussion.  Instead, in a confusing and humiliating world, most people seek a sense of belonging and vindication.  This is the appeal of nationalism, communism, religious movements, etc.  Us v. Them.  Movement politics, I think you would call it.

Most people habitually see the world through identity politics.  But many people can also be appealed to on the basis of common sense.

As I understand your post, you sense that common sense is never an adequate response to identity politics.  In some sense, that is correct.  However, I suggest that the answer is not to develop an opposing identity politics.  Or, at least, that should not be the principal focus of a progressive agenda.

In my view, no lasting improvement can come from an improved progressive forum.  True reform is only possible with the creation of a common forum - where opposing views are respectfully aired.  Only in that circumstance will identity politics be set aside and common sense be given a chance.  This is a huge challenge.

Probably, the initial site should have two elements: Federal budget, and "Top Ten Lists" of most important party issues.  The general positions should be simply stated, and easy to find.  Links could provide access to details, and opportunities for debate.

Over time, this would create a record of party positions.  Valuable documents.  In addition, hopefully, a certain trust could be built that the site fairly reflects both parties views.  And, maybe, a cultural tradition could be built to look first to the common sense aspects of the problems before us.

Tha alternative is the Right talks and listens only to the Right, and the Left talks and listens only to the Left.  Polarization ultimately gives power to liars who tell people what they want to hear.

Take Iraq for example. Many prominent Democrats voted for this war and still refuse to admit they made a mistake and offer an alternative to Bush's stay the course approach. We have fallen into the minority because far too often we don't present actual alternatives to real problems of the day.

In that regard, you hit the nail on the head. Republican politicians need only look to the various conservative think-tanks to find new ideas. They need only turn to FOX News to get those ideas to the public. They need only call upon the evangelical and fundamentalist churches to GOTV. And they need only call on corporate America to get the financing for all of this.

The DLC has been saying that Democrats must move to the center, because our base is smaller than the GOPs. Polling results seem to prove that point.

But the question Democrats shouldn't be asking is "what does the center want?", but rather "why is our base smaller than theirs?"

And the answer to that lies in our lack of a liberal infrastructure. Remedy that, and everything else will take care of itself.

This is not something new in the politics of democracies - think about the Radicals and SFIO in pre-war France and the SPD in Weimar Germany.  These parties were technocratic liberals - supporting very gradual social reform, government by expert and bureaucracy, non-partisan institutions, moderate policies, consensus building and so on.

In general, technocratically liberal governments are pretty much the best governments one can have.  But they become very bad once the political environment moves from one of liberal (liberal here meaning democratic) consensus to "movement" politics.  This can occur either when the ruling party is center-left and the "movement politics" comes from the right (Weimar Germany, 1930s France, Taisho democracy Japan) or center-right and the "movement politics" comes from the left (immediate beginning of Weimar Republic).

Essentially, this is the central problem of the modern democracy - what to do with extreme political ideologies once they begin to cross the bounds of democratic norms.

Say 'progressive mainstream media'.

I give my libertarian friends exactly the same advice, with a one-word difference that should be apparent to inspection.

George

But you can outsmart yourself in politics, as in any other aspect of life.

First, who are you?  Who do you aspire to be?  If you answer that question first, the tactics become easier.

I do not hate conservatives.  Many are good people.  My great grandmother, the sweetest person I have ever known, was vehemently against teaching evolution in school.  Was she the enemy?

I want to work toward a civil society, based upon mutual concern, and common sense.  Tactics based upon anger and blame do not get there.

In the long run, the big strategy, we need a common forum.

In the short term, I am passionately against the war, and passionately against the economic policies of this administration.  I propose tough truth-telling.  And I propose to blame the Republicans for these policies because they are Republican policies (not because Republicans everywhere are evil).

At the level most people pay attention to politics, tone of voice is important -- and Democrats have struck the wrong tone for many years.  Especially progressives (even, maybe especially, when they have been most right about the most important issues).

The tone we need is to sound adult.  Not petty, not personal, not hot-headed.

One problem generally with our politics is that each side spends most of its time talking only to its own side.  The tone becomes intemperate.

Why have Republicans done better?  Because they have been selling a free lunch.  They have been most irresponsible in telling people what they want to hear.  Free money.  Lower taxes, same benefits.  Drop bombs, rid the world of terrorists.  If any of it were true, I would vote for it.

In time, foolishness can be exposed.  But it is not always exposed.  Indeed, sometimes the wise are blamed for past mistakes.

One key to exposing foolishness is to be a credible messenger.  Kerry was not.  Gore was not.  They got a lot of votes anyway based upon policy choices, but the public was not comfortable with them.

Tell the truth plainly, energetically and with humility for what you do not know.  That is adult.  If we do it, and other things, we will win elections.  Because we are right on many issues, and if we communicate the choices, the public will choose its true self-interest:  common fellowship.

A little of the real thing would at least give us something to counterpose to the phony cowboy. For goodness sake, Cindy Sheehan knew that.

I can only think that our "leaders" really are in some sense limited in their capacity to take leadership by their funding sources. The big corporate donors aren't going to pay them to rock the boat.

Feingold will be interesting to watch in this respect.