backwards

Patrick Ruffini asks an important question. Are progressives out of ideas?

Now before I get to the meat of his post, let me say that the idea that Liberal Democrats are in any way 'progressive' is a notion I reject out of hand altogether. The Democrats are the party of 'No' on down the line, on issue after issue.

No drilling, no utilization of our own natural resources, no Social Security reform, no aggressive national defense, no missiles in Europe, no missile defense shield, no pre-emptive action, no on immigration reform, no on tax cuts, no on trade, no, no, no, no, no.

How can 'progressives' be progressive at all when they oppose any and all policies that would benefit society on a grand scale? They aren't progressive, they are regressive.

Ruffini writes:

"No one is pointing out that having a debate over the New Deal in 2008, much less recreating it, is patently absurd. The New Deal began 76 years ago. The New Deal is about as relevant today as the economic policies of John Quincy Adams were at the turn of the 20th century or Reconstruction was in the post-World War II period.

Republicans should be mocking the fact that "change" apparently means 76-year-old economic dogma that first burst onto the scene a few years after the Talkies became all the rage. The age of liberalism's ideas should be at issue here.

"The agenda of the incoming Obama administration is looking remarkably similar to an unfinished to-do list from the time Democrats last had complete control of the government 16 years ago."

'Change' as imagined and framed by the incoming Obama Administration looks an awfully lot like the same old, same old tired and failed Democratic policies of the past: economic stimulus, national health care and gays in the military. This is the 'change' that we need?

Now, I'm saying no. And yes. Progressives are out of ideas. They've been out of ideas for a long time and the first thing they should do is to stop calling themselves 'progressive.' They are anything but.