Specter's flip-flop simply must be the result of the increasing pressure he is feeling from Sestak. As such, progressive activists should be happy that our strategy of pressuring Democrats through primaries is validated, right? After all, this is a pretty clear example of a success for that strategy.

However, I'm finding myself depressed by this success. I got the "make them do it" blues, and here is why 

1. The concept of making Democrats vote for more progressive legislation through primary challenges is predicted on the notion that we are dealing with people who are fundamentally self-centered, power hungry, and morally flexible. We believe primaries can pressure certain members of Congress into changing their minds on important votes because some members of Congress care more about keeping their job than about the legislation they pass. In other words, we are banking on members of Congress being power-hungry and immoral.

    

2. When we actually succeed in flipping votes on important issues through primary challenges, we should pat ourselves on the back for developing a successful political strategy. However, it is also very depressing because it verifies that the members of Congress who flipped their votes are, as I said above, self-centered, power hungry, and morally flexible. In addition to verifying that we have a successful political strategy, it also verifies that we are dealing with people who care more about acquiring personal power than about the impact their decisions have on real people.

Members of Congress could change their mind based on convincing policy arguments and research analysis. That would be fine with me, too. However, one would think that, after being in Congress for 29 years, a member of Congress already has a pretty strong grasp of the public policy that s/he supports. Rapid flip-flops would be extremely rare, especially on a major issue like health care.

Instead, it seems like members of Congress only change their minds on key legislation when they are pushed to do so by corporate lobbyists (see six Democrats on EFCA), or when they actually face primary challenges (see 2007 Iraq voting). That is reallydepressing. And just because we have figured out a strategy that can flip votes based on this immoral behavior from certain members of Congress doesn't really make me feel any better about the overall political dynamic in America. It just tells a sad tale about who runs the country, and about the prospects for long-term progressive success.

In 19 out of 20 cases, we aren't going to be able to mount a serious primary challenge against wayward Democrats. These campaigns are very hard to come by. Further, in 19 out of 20 cases, wayward Democrats will talk to dozens of corporate lobbyists, be awash in corporate PAC money, but won't listen to us. Far more often than not, we are going to be outgunned by corproate interests. Opportunities like Specter are the exception to the rule. Senators like Mary Landrieu and Blanche Lincoln caving on everything is the rule.

As such, I am finding myself increasingly depressed by the "make them do it" dynamic. These days, I am far more inclined to work to remove from Congress anyone who needs to be made to do the right thing, or to form a Progressive Block that forces the Democratic leadership to the pressuring of the wayward Democrats. I grow weary of making power-hungry, immoral people do the right thing by threatening their jobs.