Trying to play these forecasting games doesn’t work well, IMHO, except in actual games, where things are limited and under control. Putting one’s batters in a particular order in baseball, for example, if simply playing the odds, and that’s with only a few people, and simple actions going on.

In the political world, the most important rule is that stuff happens. If you hold the power, you have more decision-making ability than if you don’t.

I don’t want to think where he’ll be in ‘08 – probably supporting the GOP after Lieberman’s third-party bid for the presidency crashes before take-off.

In my opinion, no. John Emerson wrote:

The DLC may still end up controlling the Democratic Party, and …nominating Hillary for President too. None of them have learned anything since 1992, and for them “Nader” “McGovern” and “Dukakis” are crushing one-word refutations of anyone who wanders to the left of Lieberman…They seem supremely confident that, once they’ve whipped and humiliated us on the the Democratic left, we’ll put it all behind us and cheerfully go to work for Hillary. (Lesser evil, you know. And party loyalty). But I just don’t know if I’d be able to. There won’t be another Nader, but a lot of people might just give up.

I’d say he expresses a strong dislike of the DLC’s substantive sectarian political orientation, its polemics in support of the same, and its assumption that its defeated factional foes will enthusiastically support its candidates notwithstanding.

These are issues of intraparty ethics, etiquette and comity which all contending factions should bear in mind. Are John’s criticisms of the DLC well taken? I think he overstates the situation, but 1) my view (and his) on these matters are necessarily subjective judgements, and 2) his take is not obviously unreasonable.

But what Chait says:

But it’s not true if you take account of their political style, which is distinctly New Left. It’s a paranoid, Manichean worldview brimming with humorless rage. The fact that the contemporary blog-based left, unlike the McGovernite New Left, lacks a well-formed radical program is some measure of comfort. However, I think there’s lots of evidence to suggest that this style of thinking is suggestive of a tendency to move in more radical directions over time. That, of course, is exactly what happened to the New Left, many of whose members starting off as relatively sensible liberals, or left-liberals before veering into the abyss.

is simply preposterous. I don’t recognise what he’s talking about, but it isn’t remotely applicable to what John E wrote.

You’d think that being not insane should be a big advantage, but not necessarily. If you strongly feel, for example, that big business is your enemy, you might prefer the BushCo – the worse the better.

It’s not how I feel, but I can see the logic here.

Besides, there’s a whole large group of people to whom the war is a very big deal and not a humorous matter at all.

Other than that, though, on every major policy in contention I can think of the DLC is opposed to BushCo. I won’t make such an absolute statement regarding TNR because a) I don’t read TNR; and b) their contrariness means they’re all over the map.

When the DLC supports things like universal health care, the estate tax, higher CAFE standards, environmental protection…I don’t understand what filter through which you’re viewing them that would lead you to believe they’re ideologically similar to BushCo.

To the degree that the left blogosphere’s accusations against the DLC are specific and thoughtful they usually have merit and are at least partly true. But it’s my impression that this is the exception, not the rule, and that the strawman is more likely.

What I personally find very tiresome and dispiriting are the attacks on the center-left that imply an equivalency to the right. The attacks on Clinton are a good example—though her liberal credentials are certainly tarnished here and there, can anyone really believe that a comparison to BushCo is in any sense accurate or justified? That’s what blows my mind. Maybe she could be fairly compared to a very moderate and centrist Republican. But that certainly doesn’t describe this Presidency or those who have controlled the GOP for some time now.

Is it possible to have “paranoid, Manichean worldview brimming with humorless rage” only “concerning some very specific subjects?” That is to say, if such a “worldview” only concerns “specific subjects” then it would seem to be something other than a “worldview,” IMHO. By definition, that is.

All the best