I have been arguing for quite sometime that we are in the midst of a progressive revolution that I think is on par with the rise of Reaganism in the 80s and the subsequent rise of the Ginrich conservatism that took over DC in 1994. While we all think of President Bush- he was only the implementation of long held Republican goals.

Part of change from 1993 to now is that the GOP is following a now discredited movement. The playbook they are using would have worked extremely well in 1993. Indeed, the conservadems played their role then as they are trying to do so now: to stop healthcare reform by any means necessary. Indeed, they still could do so over the recess if steps are not taken to control the narrative by progressives.

But, something funny happened on the way to the forum. The progressive lion has awoken such that the farce that has been the DC political status quo is facing a challenge. With them, they bring a rising courage that I have not seen from the left in a long time. Some of their strength is growing out of the GOP's screwups, but some of it is growing out them begining to tenatively seize the day.

The GOP and conservadems have played the role they always played with healthcare reform- the role of obstructionist.

Indeed, in 1993, Bill Kristol played the role he is playing now. Here is an excerpt describing his role:

"Darkly warned that a Democratic victory would save Clinton's political career, revive the politics of the welfare state, and ensure Democratic majorities far into the future. "Any Republican urge to negotiate a 'least bad' compromise with the Democrats, and thereby gain momentary public credit for helping the president 'do something' about health care, should be resisted," wrote Kristol. Republican pollster Bill McInturff advised Congressional Republicans that success in the 1994 midterm elections required "not having health care pass."

He said, ""To repeat: The president's plan would have a seriously detrimental effect on the quality of medical health care. And the president's plan is unnecessary: There is no health care crisis, and the reforms suggested above show how real problems can be directly addressed."

http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archiv es/001316.htm

I choose this post because it predates the current battle by several months. It illustrates that the conservatives never had any intention of reforming healthcare. Only blocking it. The conservadems played the same role as the lapdogs of the GOP as they are playing now. But, 15 years have passed. What was only a looming crisis in 1993 has become a real one now. No one doubts healthcare is a mess.

Now, no one doubts that our economy is in shambles. The market is not God. They do not question that the reason for why the economy is in shambles is conservative orthodoxy as lead by President Bush, the heir to the GOP orthodoxy. They do not doubt that we can not compete with healthcare rising from 15 percent of GDP now to 20 percent in the near future.

But, still, we have the DC mindset. We have the Baucuses of the world who until last night were still playing by the playbook of the GOP obstructionists.

And, then something funny happened on the way to the forum:

"Two of the three Senate Republicans negotiating a bipartisan deal on health care reform said they consider an agreement out of reach before the Senate goes on its August recess.

That likely dashes the hopes of Democratic leaders and President Barack Obama for a deal among the so-called Gang of Six negotiators that could deliver critical momentum for the stalled health care overhaul.

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, and Sen. Michael Enzi, R-Wyoming, dropped the bombshell news to CNN and two other reporters in Capitol hallways Wednesday night. They have spent weeks behind closed doors, trying to hammer out an agreement with their Democratic counterparts on the Senate Finance Committee but said too many issues remain unresolved, making it virtually impossible for them to sign on to a deal before the break."

http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/2009/07/29/ key-gop-senators-health-care-deal-out-of -reach-until-after-recess/

What happened in the last 15 years that makes 2009 not like 1993 is that the GOP became arrogant. This arrogance that they are the voice of average Americans, and can act with impunity, is fully on display with the Senate Finance Committee. All I can say to the GOP is "Thank you.""Thank you for being so arrogant as to openly say what you said on CNN."

Still, where would the GOP be without it's Democratic enablers? Probably not as arrogant as they are now. But, then, something funny happened on the way to the forum that is a shot across the bow for the enablers:

"In an apparent warning to Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), some liberal Democrats have suggested a secret-ballot vote every two years on whether or not to strip committee chairmen of their gavels.

Baucus, who is more conservative than most of the Democratic Conference, has frustrated many of his liberal colleagues by negotiating for weeks with Republicans over healthcare reform without producing a bill or even much detail about the policies he is considering.

"Every two years the caucus could have a secret ballot on whether a chairman should continue, yes or no," said Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), the chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee. "If the `no's win, [the chairman's] out.

"I've heard it talked about before," he added.

Harkin did not mention Baucus, but his suggestion would likely resonate with the senior Montana Democrat, who has often clashed with his colleagues over important bills."

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/dems -warn-baucus-with-gavel-threat-2009-07-2 9.html

This story beyond its implications for putting conservatives on notice within the party is another sign that the liberal lion is roaring. We have seen others:

"Good News: Senate bill include public option due to progressive block?"

http://www.mydd.com/story/2009/7/7/18563 7/2882#commenttop

I am trying to search my recent memory for a liberal Democratic Senator  threatening a charimanship openly. I can not think of a recent prior instance of this happening. This is how you begin to shape a Democratic governing progressive majority: By telling those who will not push forward in accord with the party on important progressive issues that they face consequences for acting against the party. One would not expect this on every issue (that's the big tent to not to expect it always), but certainly on a cornerstone issue like healthcare- politics as usual should be out of the question.

If this were the only event of the day, I am sure one could argue "well, but that proves nothing bruh," and maybe you would be right. But, then, Chris Bowers posts this:

"Waxman Postpones Health Markup Amid Liberal Backlash
By Steven T. Dennis and Jackie Kucinich
Roll Call Staff
July 29, 2009, 5:16 p.m.

House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) postponed the health bill markup that he planned to hold Wednesday afternoon amid a backlash from liberals to the deal that he cut earlier with four conservative Blue Dog Democrats."

And the liberal lion roared. My concern was, and apparently, so possibly was theirs: the cutting of the subsidies to make healthcare affordable for middle class Americans:

"Waxman will face a difficult task if the committee's liberals vote their objections to the Blue Dog compromises. Because Democrats hold a 13-vote majority over panel Republicans, Waxman can afford to lose six votes on any measure. Eight Democrats on the committee are members of the liberal Progressive Caucus, including the chairman and two of his close allies - Health Subcommittee Chairman Frank Pallone Jr. , D-N.J., and Edward J. Markey , D-Mass., chairman of the Energy and the Environment Subcommittee.

The agreement Waxman reached with the four Blue Dogs would reduce the bill's cost by trimming eligibility for subsidies available to help the uninsured buy coverage; make it easier for private insurers to compete with a new, government-run "public plan"; and exempt more small businesses from requirements that employers cover their workers."

There is a shfit happening here. It is happening in small movements, but it is happening.

So, what do I think all of this means: If the GOP does not pick up any significant number of seats next year, the floodgates will open wide.  The liberal revolution will begin to pick up a lot of steam as the fear of reprisals in the form of Reagan era loses will fall away in favor of realizing we can be liberal again.