So, I was reading John Perr’s diary entitled “Let's Not Party like it’s 1984,” and it provoked me into writing something—things regarding the behavior of lapsed progressives. I’m sure you’ll be able to name a few others off the top of your head.

In the diary, Perr describes the 1984 Democratic Primary, how he was angry that his preferred candidate (Gary Hart) didn't get the nomination, and his regret for sitting out the election just because his guy didn't win. He has determined to make sure to always support the Democratic nominee.

Sen. Sanders can make his pitch for why he can still win the nomination and, failing to do so, should press the case for his platform and the future of a movement his campaign believes is bigger than him.

Well, of course. Bernie’s movement isn't just going to disappear after this election, regardless of the results. And don’t expect this movement to be used to elect more centrists. God, wouldn't that be a travesty if it was used to help the Third Way.

Whoever becomes the nominee of the Democratic Party (which, if hasn’t been clear by now, I believe will and should be Hillary Clinton), the Democratic Party must articulate a New American Bargain” that offers a positive vision for the future and not just payback for the past and present (Emphasis mine).

Hey, great idea! Although this sounds like something that should be done by people who have vision rather than New Democrats.

The stakes are too great to risk losing what we’ve gained over the past seven-plus years. And no matter what our differences, we have a much better chance together to break the stranglehold of money in politics and public policy.

Only the Hero of Time may wield the Master Sword and defeat the evil Ganondorf… I mean, yes, everything is at stake, unless we ban together and vote for, her Ladyship, die Große Hillary von Clinton des Hauses Mauer Straße!

The venom and the vitriol, the quest for purity, and the misplaced pride has to stop.

No, it does not. Let the show go on! I think the Dems could do with a fine dose of purity. There's no misplaced pride here. I don't feel particularly proud. Do you?

This diary reminds me of this article from by Mike Conrad from Salon.com:

… New Dems they’re trying to tap into longstanding progressive self-doubt, warning Democrats who basically agree with the progressives that acting on their conviction would ultimately do harm to causes they care about.

This, at it’s most basic, is what folks on TOS want liberals to do. They do this by bandying about terms like “pragmatist,” “incrementalism,” and “she can get things done;” to lower the expectations of progressives and get them to carry water for the Third Way.

Whoever accepts the nomination in Philadelphia will have my enthusiastic support.

But only if they have a D before their name, right? You would vote for the most hawkish, authoritarian asshole as long as they were a Democrat, amirite?

I don’t understand the enthusiasm of supporting your least favorite candidate, much less the one you didn't support in the first place? I mean, if Bernie is the nominee, then your support is appreciated, but don't expect me to look upon you without any amount of suspicion from here on out, o fair-weathered friend o’ mine.

I can understand Perr’s position. He feels that this is the best that liberals and progressives can muster. He and his ilk have reached the end of their road. He is free to vote for whomever he wants, even if the only candidates he votes fore are Third Way adherents. That's his prerogative. However, it would be nice if John Perr—and others like him—would stop sending out invitations to his pity party.

The same Salon article states:

[New Democrats are] on a mission to lock Democrats into serving high finance, even at the expense of winning elections. The New Dems are not acting out of concern that progressive populist Democrats will lose. They don’t want liberals to win.

They’ve certainly stretched their insidious plans forward enough to trick liberals into supporting Third Way candidates. And they don't care if they win elections or not. That would mean that, to the elite and professional class, elections don't mean a damn thing to them. It would seem that New Dems would rather have a Republican in the White House than Bernie Sanders.

What would happen if a centrist, Wall Street bootlicker loses the GE? Will the powers that be within the Democratic Party be like, “Hmm, you know what? Maybe we should stop running the usual, pandering, neoliberal candidates, and start running populists who represent real change in and stand for racial and economic justice.” Not on your fucking life! They’ll blame it on Bernie supporters, and by extension, millennials. You can be sure that this group will be the establishment Democratic Party’s new punching bag, much like Nader is.

I get that progressives eventually give up with change; they grow weary. They've reached the end of the road. They have no desire to travel further on the next stretch of rough terrain. They embrace the system as it is, not as they would like it to be. In fairness, if you live in a red state, I can see how you would see the Democratic Party as a man dying of thirst in the desert sees water. I guess it helps to be a blue-state citizen to remain stalwart throughout the fracas that is our political system and not succumb to despair.

Anyways, lapsed progressives shouldn't shouldn't tell actual progressives how incremental change is the only way to get things done. Don’t try to sell out progressive values in order to “get things done” and call it pragmatism. That's not pragmatism; that's pessimism.

And who the hell wants to party like it's 1984? I’d rather party like it’s 1999, biotch!