Revolutions rarely compromise; compromises are made only to further the strategic design. Negotiation, then, is undertaken for the dual purpose of gaining time to buttress a position (military, political, social, economic) and to wear down, frustrate and harrass the opponent. Few, if any essential concessions are to be expected from the revolutionary side, whose aim is only to create conditions that will preserve the unity of the strategic line and guarantee the development of a "victorious situation."

Whose behavior does this describe to perfection? The Republicans when they were in total control of Congress and the White House. No compromises, no negotiations with Democrats (who were locked out of conference committees and denied the right to bring amendments to the floor), and the use of the Right-Wing Noise Machine, including the Media Held Captive, to grind down the opposition. As the latest, and most ideologically-pure incarnation of the Reagan/Gingrich/Cheney Revolution, the Republicans followed this playbook to the letter. They were (and are) running a revolution against Enlightenment values, the post-war liberal state and the international system which supports and protects it. Like good revolutionaries, they knew that when they got ahold of power, they had to use it quickly, decisively, and ruthlessly.

I haven't been reading the blogs much lately (deliberately), but I nonetheless sense that the progressive blogosphere is disappointed with the actions of the Democrats in Congress to this point. This, I think, was inevitable. Having been crushed underfoot by the Bush Administration and a radical anti-liberal Congress, lefty bloggers want their newly elected representative to behave as the Republicans did, not necessarily as payback, but to move the restoration of the liberal state, and all its incumbent rights and privileges, forward in fast gear. That, however, would require that the Democrats behave in a revolutionary manner, as did the Republicans, which is a problem because the restoration of the liberal state doesn't represent a revolutionary move, it's essentially the restoration of the status quo ante, the conditions that prevailed before the Republican war against the liberal state began. Democrats can't behave like revolutionaries because, for better or worse, they are (at least in relation to the ideology of the right-wing) the establishment, and, as good liberals, they believe in compromise, negotiation and bipartisanship. To expect them to behave otherwise is unrealistic -- they are not radicals

But that's OK, I think, because if the progressive blogosphere is disenchanted, it simply means that their expectations were too high. Taking control of Congress is necesssary for undoing the damage of the Bush-Cheney years (and the Reagan and Gingrich years as well, lest we forget), but not sufficient to do so -- we absolutely have to have the White House as well, which we will in January of 2009. At that time, with almost the full power of the Federal government behind us (excepting the Federal court system), we should be able to make some headway. In the meantime, I think that Pelosi and Reid are doing a pretty decent job, and, since we're basically in a holding action for a while, I'm willing to give them some freedom to maneuvre as they see fit. As long as we don't actually lose ground, we're pretty much OK.

And who wrote the passage above, which describes so well the modus operandi of the Radical Right-Wing Republicans? It comes from a work called Yu Chi Chan, which translates as "Guerilla Warfare," written by Mao Zedong.