It amazes me when I talk to fellow “progressives,” a group of people who generally see themselves as more educated and incisive than those who vote Republican, that they cannot articulate a clear set of policies that they support, only criticisms of the right.

Unless we each know specifically what economic, social and foreign poicy course we want our country to follow, we will remain in the wilderness.

We must each search our heart, not so much our head, to create a bold vision for our country and our role in the world. Forget about what is poitically possible and articulate your deepest hopes for mankind. From this will come the kind of bold agenda that set us on a new course.

Republicans may be arguing among themselves about certain surface things, but they are still much more united than they appear to be on more fundamental ideological issues. They are still united in their contempt for liberals and their determination to eradicate them; they are still united on social issues and the role of fundamentalist religion in our society; and they are still united on the rule of corporations and the obscenely rich.

In one sense, their arguments over Miers are more sound and fury than substance. But to the extent that reflect actual disunity within the party, the disunity is only over their continued support of Bush.

It’s satisfying to see the worst President in US history finally begin to take some flack from his own party, but for Democrats this doesn’t mean much, if anything.

Bush is a lame duck – he’s way down in the polls, and a large margin of voters are coming to recognize he is a moron with no real leadership qualities. These voters have every reason to be dissatified with his performance.

The fact that other Republicans have decided to begin to admit that and to distance themselves from Bush is to be expected. He’s a sinking ship, and all the smart rats are going to abandon him. So what? Gore distanced himself from Clinton. Was he any less liberal?

The fact that other Republicans are separating themselves from this loser doesn’t mean they are any less committed to the Republican ideology and political machine – it just means they don’t want to seen standing near Bush when he’s tarred and feathered.

For example, McCain is publicly diagreeing with Bush on torture and the conduct of the war. Does this mean he’s any less Republican than he was a year ago? All it means is that he is positioning himself to run for President, and has decided that defending Bush and torture wouldn’t help him win votes, while criticizing torture and a President who has grossly mishandled a war will win votes and is hardly inconsistent with anything his party stands for.

Meanwhile, the Democrats are sitting on the sidelines. Kerry is giving optimistic speeches about Iraq, and only a handful of Democrats are criticizing Bush, the war, the response to Katrina, the Miers appointment, or anything else Bush has done.

The voters don’t really know where the Democrats stand on many, many issues. Progressives may disagree with most Republican positions, but at least the voters do know where they stand and what principles they claim to have. All of the Republican opposition to Bush that is cropping up creates an overall impression of a highly principled party criticizing a leader who has betrayed their trust.

If the Democrats continue to remain silent, the party carrying the reform banner in the next election is going to be the Republicans. The Democrats have to realize that you can’t beat something with nothing.

The glue, it seems to me, was the gold they all expected at the end. With Bush no longer able to hold out a promise of “next time” we are getting treated to a real live Treasure of the Sierra Madre as the desperados begin to pick each other off.