Now that the festivities in Denver have drawn to a close, one thing, at least, is clear to me after having spent four days among progressives from all over the country: They are convinced that this moment is real and that the stakes have never been higher. There is a sense of opportunity and engagement with issues that I haven't seen in progressive circles for some time.

One of the more interesting developments in this campaign year is the extent to which Democrats have sought out the so-called "values" vote --- the mostly evangelical and catholic voters who have tended to vote Republican in the past. With the guidance of a newly formed Democratic religion lobby, the presidential campaigns all formulated a sophisticated outreach effort to appeal to voters who were open to Democrats by broadening the Christian agenda to include other issues, like poverty and the environment.

Paul Krugman points to an article that should send chills down the backs of good progressives everywhere:

I urge everyone to listen to the president's radio address this week-end if you get the chance. (Not that any of you would normally miss it, I'm sure. What could be more riveting?) But it does promise to be a good one this time. He's going to tell us all why he needs to veto the ban on torture.

We are hearing a lot these days about political "transformation" in politics. Aside from a desire for a change in policy, the public also indicates that they desire a change in the way our politics are conducted. But as much as everyone likes the idea of an end to partisan squabbling, it's not entirely clear yet how this transformation will take place, or what the character of the transformation will actually be. So naturally, the political establishment, anxious to have it on terms they can control, will increasingly be taking the lead in defining it for us.

In my previous post, I discussed the fact that a "cold civil war" between two distinct American tribes has been going on since the founding of the Republic. It waxes and wanes and takes on different character, but it is always simmering, beneath the surface.

No matter how much people want to believe that the battles of the 1960s are over—they aren't. In fact, we're fighting a centuries-long civil war over the values that define our nation. Underlying all the "issues" of any given era is the notion of moral righteousness and inferiority, ressentiment, that stemmed from the original sin of slavery and created two American "tribes" which operate reflexively under certain recurring impulses.

Read Part I | Read Part II

One of the more interesting developments in this campaign year is the extent to which Democrats have sought out the so-called "values" vote --- the mostly evangelical and catholic voters who have tended to vote Republican in the past. With the guidance of a newly formed Democratic religion lobby, the presidential campaigns all formulated a sophisticated outreach effort to appeal to voters who were open to Democrats by broadening the Christian agenda to include other issues, like poverty and the environment.

Paul Krugman points to an article that should send chills down the backs of good progressives everywhere:

I urge everyone to listen to the president's radio address this week-end if you get the chance. (Not that any of you would normally miss it, I'm sure. What could be more riveting?) But it does promise to be a good one this time. He's going to tell us all why he needs to veto the ban on torture.

We are hearing a lot these days about political "transformation" in politics. Aside from a desire for a change in policy, the public also indicates that they desire a change in the way our politics are conducted. But as much as everyone likes the idea of an end to partisan squabbling, it's not entirely clear yet how this transformation will take place, or what the character of the transformation will actually be. So naturally, the political establishment, anxious to have it on terms they can control, will increasingly be taking the lead in defining it for us.

In my previous post, I discussed the fact that a "cold civil war" between two distinct American tribes has been going on since the founding of the Republic. It waxes and wanes and takes on different character, but it is always simmering, beneath the surface.

No matter how much people want to believe that the battles of the 1960s are over—they aren't. In fact, we're fighting a centuries-long civil war over the values that define our nation. Underlying all the "issues" of any given era is the notion of moral righteousness and inferiority, ressentiment, that stemmed from the original sin of slavery and created two American "tribes" which operate reflexively under certain recurring impulses.

Read Part I | Read Part II

For seven years, when Democrats were in the minority, there was nary a peep from the "punditocracy" about bipartisanship, despite strict party-line votes specifically designed so that Democrats would not cross over. Yet since the Democrats won the Congress in 2006, there has been a nonstop keening from the political establishment to stop the partisan bickering. This new obsession about bipartisanship, which blames both parties equally for the sins of one, comes at the moment of progressive ascension.

Dave Roberts of Grist takes a look at Newt Gingrich's innovative new environmental proposals which, unsurprisingly, looks like another fantastic opportunity for rich people to bleed the taxpayers: