The ACLU recently commissioned a poll which shows a huge pendulum shift, maybe even a sea change. Not only do a majority of American voters favor the restoration of our civil liberties, but a majority of Republican voters do too. Certainly, this is not the first time public opinion has changed so dramatically, but it may be the first time that it’s occurred without our political and media elites acknowledging it. As Glenn Greenwald observes (emphasis added):

All of the solemn “debates” and hand-wringing and anti-torture laws that were passed have changed very little, because the administration knows that there is no political will ever to enforce any of that. They know that the political and media institutions intended to impose checks on their behavior will never take any meaningful stand against what they do, no matter how blatantly extreme or illegal.

(…)

Ignorance or incredulity can no longer explain our acquiescence. Accommodating and protecting the lawbreaking of high Bush officials is widely seen by our Beltway elite as a duty of bipartisanship, a hallmark of Seriousness.

(…)

[W]hen it comes to Bush’s extremism and lawbreaking, we’re not imposing consequences slowly. We’re not imposing consequences at all. Quite the contrary, we’re moving in the opposite direction — when we’re not affirmatively endorsing and providing protection for that conduct, we’re choosing not to know about it, or simply allowing it to fester. And the more that happens, the less that behavior becomes the exclusive province of the Bush administration and the more it becomes our country’s defining behavior.

In a comment about defeatism, Glenn reminds us of the good ol’ days when many of us (myself included) believed that the electoral system and media were so corrupted that Democrats would never win an election again. It makes for an interesting comparison: We’ve gone from frustration with the Democrats’ inability to win, to frustration with their unwillingness to oppose. (Not that they were willing to oppose back then, either.)

But as infuriating as it is that Democrats are tough on progressives and soft on Republicans, we’re better off than we were three years ago. The political environment is now so anti-Republican that the old arguments against primarying or withholding support don’t apply.

For one thing, the 2008 electorate will be very receptive to candidates who promise to fight to end the war and restore rule of law, and very hostile to “centrists” who didn’t. This should benefit progressives in both primary and general elections.

For another, the Democrats’ numerical advantages in congressional races (Republican retirements, sizable House majority, 9 fewer Senate seats to defend) mean that we can afford to let some Bush Dogs twist in the wind. As long as Democrats retain control of committees and subpoenas, the Lieberdems don’t buy us much over Republicans, so why waste money and energy we could use to elect progressives?

The biggest snag is that a progressive president looks unlikely right now, but the prospect of President Rudy is so horrific that we’ll have to support the Democratic nominee whoever they are. Better a lame prez than a crazy one.

Related posts:

  1. Red State Targets Vulnerable Democrats in Conservative Districts over IMF
  2. The Anti-Bush, Or Bush Lite?
  3. Preemptive dodging
  4. Republican Gubernatorial Candidate Brags That Bush DOJ Wasn’t Corrupt Enough For Him
  5. NPR and Torture: Time to Revisit Publicly Funded Media