- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
In 1968, the progressives sat at home because Humphrey wasn't "pure" enough for them--no difference between him and Nixon, they said. Nixon got elected. In 2000, they voted for Nader--no difference between Bush and Gore--and Bush got elected.
The problem is that they're just too "pure" for the Democratic Party, so much more knowledgeable and devoted to "the people" than us party regulars, who, though we were progressives before most of them were born, are tainted with something or other.
So they come in in election years, proclaim their guy the "hope of all humanity," and then slink off when their guy loses, cursing under their breath, then either not-voting or voting for Nader, and we don't see them again until the next cycle when they do it all over again.
To paraphrase Barry Goldwater, "Grow up, progressives!"
