Thoughts on power and pragmatism

This diary is partially in response to a discussion/debate brewing on another thread and partially a reflection of a conversation I had with my older son the other day (he actually does exist, and is not some imaginary companion or rhetorical vehicle I've invented to facilitate my ramblings ;)).

For the purposes of this discussion, we'll look at power. Power to make your voice heard, power to change the way people think about issues, power to exert influence over those who craft public policy, etc. Does squeezing into the big tent of the Democratic Party give you more power than standing outside? (I was going to add "in the rain", but that might be deemed prejudicial). Does compromise really achieve anything, or does it merely serve to erode whatever power you (could have) had?

Taking a macro view of the party and the President's efforts over the last few years, we can see stark evidence that compromise produces what many on the left consider tepid or ineffectual results, if not downright regressive. And whatever victory might be claimed from said compromises has the appearance and aroma of the Pyrrhic about it. While the nuts and bolts of health care reform contain many needed and progressive aspects, they can be wiped away in future legislation, leaving a mess of corporate nonsense.

Politically speaking, these compromises have not induced a single conservative to meet the administration in the middle. Instead of portraying the President and Congressional leaders as the centrists that they are, the do-nothing obstructionists are marching all over the country and pontificating in the media about how perilously close to Socialism we're moving. Trying to engage that crowd in an honest exchange of views or expecting them to acknowledge your true intent makes pissing in the wind seem like wise and effective behavior in comparison.

Within the Democratic Party itself, we've also seen the failure of compromise. Instead of paying attention to our intellectual base, who explored and understood the successful potential of the public option, our party leaders instead chose to sniff the butts of people like Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu. And that brought about a nasty and embarassing tumble from the moral high ground, didn't it?

So, compromise is, at best, an uncertain method for achieving your goals. But is intransigence, or a complete unwillingness to compromise on your goals, any more likely to yield success? On the plus side, the majority knows exactly what it needs to do to secure your support. If it needs you, that is. The minus side is, what if they never get to the point they need you? If an activist falls in the woods, yada yada.

I think what it boils down to is this: The only power Progressives can count on is the power of their ideas. Traditional political power, that of leverage and coersion, is simply too fleeting. That power can be taken away, leaving nothing but an empty void in its place. But ideas have a way of taking root, even if they don't flower right away. And the most fertile ground for those ideas is among those with similar ideological leanings, however imperfect they are.