1. There are two distinct claims that 'progressives' make about traditional Democratic power brokers that should be separated. The first is purely about the merits of specific legislative ideas, aka Medicare for All. The second is whether to wield power.
2. These are related thought distinct claims. Feinstein opposes the substantive underlying policy goals of progressives, which she and they argue is revolutionary/radical. She *also* opposes wielding power through public institutions, which is just unpopular and anti-democratic.
3. Progressives tend not to argue for basic functioning of our democratic institutions, but orient themselves around the politics of romanticism and grassroots uprising towards radical objections. The path of romanticism however has failed to deliver.
4. Sometimes progressives argue for 'Sewer Socialism,' referencing socialists in the 20th century who won by filling the potholes. But that leaves aside a tradition of hyper-competent New Dealers who governed effectively and powerfully (and their 19th century forebears).
5. By embracing romanticism instead of basic democratic competence, progressives allow Feinstein to portray herself as a moderate in the face of their ideological extremism. A different and more powerful approach is to use Thomas Paine's frame of Common Sense.
6. Ultimately Feinstein represents a large chunk of the Democratic Party, people deeply uncomfortable with wielding power. But these people never have to address the stakes of supporting, say, surprise billing because progressives don't force the issues.
7. It's not moderate to do what Feinstein is doing. And not because she doesn't support the Green New Deal, which again is the path of romanticism and gives her an easy way to confuse the stakes. It's because she doesn't support the basic functioning of government.
8. Pretty much.
Share this Scrolly Tale with your friends.
A Scrolly Tale is a new way to read Twitter threads with a more visually immersive experience.
Discover more beautiful Scrolly Tales like this.