Great post. Although I'm a little put off by your calling progressives "true believers". Perhaps because I think of the phrase in terms of Eric Hoffer's definition of the term. And progressives include quite a diverse assortment of folks - we're certainly not a monolith - we have many progressive Christians. I'd also point out that we didn't call ourselves progressives until the last few years -the mainstream media seems to have been able to make the word liberal a radioactive term.

I'm a regular church goer simply because I want to go with my wife, but then she's a lot smarter than I am so I try not to make any negative judgments against the practice or the belief system (but don't get me started on the practice of communion). Same with former President Carter. A strong believer, much smarter than I'll ever hope to be, and as far as I can tell, one who who lives by what he believes. I'll admit to a recognition that the simple maxims of the gospels, to borrow a phrase from your favorite writer, do provide a framework of living that seems to work for a lot of folks - others use the belief system as an excuse to practice every manner of evil under the sun but I expect that if those folks didn't have their religion as their excuse, they'd find another one. Personally I can't understand why folks need it, but that doesn't change the fact that they do.

But getting back to your main point, I guess the question one has to ask oneself is whether one should work within the system to change it or try to oppose it and effect change from the outside. Personally I think folks who decide to tackle the problem from either angle have a legitimate approach. As long as they approach the problem in a peaceful manner.

But yes, we will have true believers (by Hoffer's defintion) who are going to be sorely disappointed with what they get. I'm not completely happy with a single one of the candidates. Compromise or surrender is thus my only choice if I'm going to remain a part of the system. But that's been an eternal problem for mankind since the dawn of the ages and I don't think it's ever going to change.

I think progressives deserve the sobriquet of "true believers" if they continue to fall for the Democrats' scam. If they wake up, turn off the TV, and DEMAND IMMEDIATE ACTION, which, like Dorothy, they've always had the power to do, then they're goal-oriented rather than belief-oriented.

I certainly agree that Jimmy Carter is a good person, and that there are many other Christians who are quality people. I see no connection, either statistical or philosophical, between religious feeling and moral action. Many moral people are atheists, many religious folks are worthless scumbags. It doesn't seem that there's any causative effects in either direction, though control groups and accurate calculations are hard to find.

Another thing my favorite writer says:

Benevolence is the foundation of justice, since we are forbid to injure those whom we are bound to assist. A prophet may reveal the secrets of heaven and of futurity; but in his moral precepts he can only repeat the lessons of our own hearts.

And for grins two more, both concerning Zoroastrianism, the ancient religion of Persia:

Every mode of religion, to make a deep and lasting impression on the human mind, must exercise our obedience by enjoining practices of devotion, for which we can assign no reason; and must acquire our esteem, by inculcating moral duties analogous to the dictates of our own hearts.

In other words, we already know what's right, we just need someone to state it.

Then:

But there are some remarkable instances in which Zoroaster lays aside the prophet, assumes the legislator, and discovers a liberal concern for private and public happiness, seldom to be found among the grovelling or visionary schemes of superstition. Fasting and celibacy, the common means of purchasing the divine favor, he condemns with abhorrence, as a criminal rejection of the best gifts of providence. The saint, in the Magian religion, is obliged to beget children, to plant useful trees, to destroy noxious animals, to convey water to the dry lands of Persia, and to work out his salvation by pursuing all the labours of agriculture. We may quote from the Zend Avesta a wise and benevolent maxim, which compensates for many an absurdity. "He who sows the ground with care and diligence acquires a greater stock of religious merit than he could gain by the repetition of ten thousand prayers."

Now you've got me started, and I can't stop quoting.

They [the Romans] knew and valued the advantages of religion, as it is connected with civil government. They encouraged the public festivals which humanize the manners of the people. They managed the arts of divination as a convenient instrument of policy; and they respected, as the firmest bond of society, the useful persuasion that, either in this or in a future life, the crime of perjury is most assuredly punished by the avenging gods. But, whilst they acknowledged the general advantages of religion, they were convinced that the various modes of worship contributed alike to the same salutary purposes; and that, in every country, the form of superstition which had received the sanction of time and experience was the best adapted to the climate and its inhabitants. Avarice and taste very frequently despoiled the vanquished nations of the elegant statues of their gods and the rich ornaments of their temples; but, in the exercise of the religion which they derived from their ancestors, they uniformly experienced the indulgence, and even protection, of the Roman conquerors.

That was an empire.

There won't be a scathing chronicle written of how the Democrats deceived the progressives because the progressives aren't stupid like the true believers. They already know they're being used by the Democrats. They're supporting Democrats right now not because of any illusion about the nature of the Democrats, but because if we're going to have evil and venal people leading our nation, let them at least be *competent* evil and venal people. It's pragmatism, and not a pragmatism that is admirable perhaps, but it is what it is. "Democrats: They're evil but at least they're not stupid like Republicans" might not exactly be the rallying cry of the century, but at this point in time it seems all we have short of a new American revolution sweeping out our current winner-takes-all Supreme Leader system (purposely designed to allow George Washington to be the next best thing to King) and replacing it with a parliamentary system where minority parties can be important parts of governance.

Badtux, I think you have it exactly backwards.

To begin with, it's hard to argue that competent evildoers are preferable to incompetent ones; by definition they'll accomplish more evil in the long term. They will, it's true, be less embarrassing as they do so, but my viewpoint is based on predicted outcomes for the world rather than the passing emotions of Americans. I guess my base level is what's called the Chomskyan calculus: how many people die? Certainly more people will die the longer the American empire persists. Like all empires, it's the problem, not the solution. When it's gone, the world will be better off. The incompetent imperialist will destroy the empire, the competent one will continue it.

And to say that the American system was purposely designed to allow Washington to be the next best thing to a king seems to me to ignore the historical record. For one example, what kind of king doesn't control his own finances? The Democrats in the House could end the war any time they wanted to; the argument that they can't pass anything without support from Republican Senators ignores the Constitutional grant of the power of the purse to the House alone.

However, I do agree that we'd be better off with a system of proportional representation. The problem with that strategy is that we'd have to have a second party, and where would that come from? Democrats?

On the question of competency, Chuck, what I always say is If it ain't worth doing, it ain't worth doing well. Far as I know this is original with me, but that's probably what that roomful of monkeys thought after they typed Hamlet.