The circuitous method by which Paul Rosenberg arrives at "a framework of understanding in which those values are naturally connected to one another," which he summarizes near the end of Part II, as the core of his argument, that "An extremely sensible, empirically-grounded way to define progressive politics is [should be carried out by optimizing] in terms of optimizing positive outcomes for humanity as a whole, not for a just a selectively favored few," leaves me exhausted, after nearly three days of examining the abundant references in his article, as well, as references in cited articles to yet further references. Obviously I can't be considered sufficiently rational to comment without have at least some cursory understanding of the background he presents. Whew!
But those who are surprised (shocked!) often seem to fundamentally misunderstand what electoral politics is about. You can only be this upset about someone's actions if you don't understand what it means to elect a democratic president--if your expectations were unreasonably high in the first place. As kanzeon points out above, treating the Obama election like a "movement" is a real mistake.
IMHO, a significant proportion of the lefty blogosphere seems not to understand what electoral politics is and isn't likely to accomplish. This is extremely problematic, threatening hopes for building a strong movement for real social change in this country.
STATE BLOGS
