74% of young caucus goers self-identified as Democrats, and 73% self-identified is liberals. Yeah, that’s some post-partisan and post-ideological generation coming through the ranks.
This is actually one of my great frustrations with the Obama campaign and Obama supporters. Even when Obama wins a victory on the back of the liberal, creative class vote, both his campaign and his supporters–most of whom are liberals–repeat the mantra that the victory was some sort of post-partisan and post-ideological wave. Obama’s self-identified liberal supporters aren’t even willing to claim what exit polls clearly show to be the case: Obama won because of liberals. Among moderates and conservatives in Iowa, Obama led Clinton by only a 31%-30% margin, while among liberals, Obama led 38%-25%. Without liberals, this Obama surge wouldn’t be happening.
This brings me to one of my major problem with Obama: if his campaign and his supporters can’t even credit liberals and progressives for a victory they quite obviously delivered to him, then what possible credit or influence will liberals and progressives ever receive in an Obama White House? Iowa progressives and liberals just handed the nomination the Barack Obama, and his campaign won’t even give them credit. In fact, Obama’s progressive supporters seem to, in large measure, have been convinced to not give themselves credit, either. If the campaign won’t promote progressivism now, and if it has the ability to convince progressives to shift credit for their victory to a false post-partisan and post-ideological narrative, how can we ever think that Barack Obama will promote progressivism? If you are interested in having an ideological progressive movement, that is a question that should worry you.
Mind you, I’m not entirely sure what “progressivism” is, although I know what liberalism is. But Stoller’s right: if the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party keeps repeating Broder-esque centrist dogma, we end up marginalizing ourselves.