Progressive in the Sheets, Centrist in the Streets

She says it depends on Mitch McConnell; if so, the idea’s a bust, at least for now.

Much the same could be said about Pete’s plan for the Electoral College, or even the addition of new states. These plans require these elected bodies (or other elected bodies like state legislatures) to vote for their own transformation. Why would Republicans agree to do that, especially in this age of decaying bipartisanship? In the end, these sound like sound strategies; they grip us because they gesture at “big, structural change,” but they’re impossible. They point at the sun and act like it’s closer than the moon.

Senator Sanders’ plan is different; his goal is to build a large political coalition, one made up largely of people currently alienated from the political system. That group would then exert external pressure on elected officials. He would use executive power to transform what he could, and would call out Republicans, rather than trying to court them.

I do not intend this to be an apologia for Bernie. I know many Catholics are not comfortable with voting for him or for any Democrat. My point here is a theoretical one: there is no reason, if you identify as a progressive, to deny the ways in which our political landscape has changed. It’s easy to be talked into being a progressive in the sheets and a centrist in the streets, but that position is incoherent; it demands the impossible in the name of pragmatism. It obfuscates. Mitch McConnell is wily enough to understand this transformation; it’s only right that his opponents do the same.

Our world is a different one now than the one many grew up in. Regardless of whom you vote for, take this much away: the times they are a-changin’. Bipartisanship is gone, blown away by the winds of economic crisis and social upheaval.