Progressive Movement Cutting Through Traditional Media Ice

The most establishment paper in America, the Washington Post, today endorsed progressive Donna Edwards in her primary challenge to incumbent Democrat Albert Wynn in Maryland. It's significant because it signals that establishment editorial boards are finally understanding the nature of the progressive movement and why it's committed to reforming the Democratic Party.

As we've noted in the past, Mr. Wynn has often seemed more involved in playing the role of a kingmaker in Prince George's than in his duties in Congress. On key federal issues, he has cast himself as the most bipartisan member of Maryland's congressional delegation. That's great in theory, but too often his votes have been at odds with good government and the interests of his constituents. He has backed the estate tax repeal, a measure that benefits the richest Americans at the expense of the poor and middle class. He supported the Bush administration's energy bill in 2003, offering subsidies to oil and gas companies even as they were headed toward record profits. He has flip-flopped on fuel efficiency standards and opposed campaign finance reform. And he has tried to clear the way for casino gambling in Prince George's. All in all, it is a lackluster record.

What really struck me in their endorsement was this passage:

On the war in Iraq, Ms. Edwards has scored points by attacking Mr. Wynn as Maryland's Joseph I. Lieberman -- a supporter of the war portrayed as too close to the Bush administration. Mr. Wynn backed the war at the outset, but he has since recanted, saying he was misled by bad intelligence. More to the point of today's debate, both candidates are calling for a U.S. withdrawal, a scenario that we believe would leave chaos in its wake.

Aside from the Post clinging to the "forget the chaos happening now, there'll be real chaos if we LEAVE!" line of reasoning, what's notable is that the WaPo gets that this primary fight is not about the war. It's about a Democrat who has voted against the interests of his constituents, and against the core values of the Democratic Party, and about a woman who's decided to offer a choice through the primary process, which is how things get done in today's politics. Of course this is completely analagous to the Lamont-Lieberman battle, though it was framed as a single-issue inquisition by "angry antiwar liberals" (practically the only time liberals ever get mentioned in the press is when they're characterized as antiwar, which I feel is a deliberate strategy to equate liberalism with weakness. Seriously, do you hear about packs of antipoverty liberals, or anticorruption liberals?). Offering a primary candidate who is a true progressive is a natural response to a Democrat that votes against his party on key issues. This is what the progressive movement will continue to do throughout the country, and win or lose it will put pressure on those who take the name Democrat but not its principles.