comment: >
  
  
  Embracing any kind of significant progressive or radical elements from the Left means ultimately endangering the croney capitalist power structures that the Democratic Party relies on. No party will field candidates or advance legislation that destroys itself.
  
  I agree, to an extent...
  However, to my original point...
  A minority of Republicans brought the "establishment" to it's knees.  Even with the majority of "news" working against them...
  There has never been an equivalent display from Democrats
  ETA:
  It's really interesting that every reply has insisted on existential destruction as the result...
context: The Democratic Party of the early 2000s:
  -Opposed Gay marriage
  -Opposed legal weed
  -Had a decently sized Pro-Life faction
  -Was proudly tough on illegal immigration
  -Would not have tolerated socialists
  -Would not have tolerated advocates of 
  abolishing private health insurance
  -Would not have tolerated advocates of decriminalizing border security
  -Would not have tolerated advocates of defunding the police
  …..I could go on. The Democratic Party has changed a lot over the past 20 yrs. As has the Republican Party. >
  
  The Democratic party of the 2020's:
  
  
  Supports gay marriage with zero consideration for things like common-law marriages or civil unions.
  
  
  Doesn't oppose legal weed but has made very few concrete steps towards any sort of decriminalization and in fact has signaled pretty strongly that they won't.
  
  
  Still has a decent sized pro-life faction and has been very hesitant to make concrete moves towards protecting access to abortion.
  
  
  Is still quietly very tough on undocumented immigration but makes a ton of noise about being in favor of legal immigration.
  
  
  Still doesn't tolerate socialists.
  
  
  Will tolerate advocates of abolishing private health insurance but refuses to allow any of their ideas to be put into practice.
  
  
  Will tolerate advocates of decriminalizing border security but will generally make as little movement on the border issue as possible.
  
  
  Still won't tolerate advocates of defunding the police and where the public outcry for it is too loud, will allow it but then immediately restore it once the issue passes from close public scrutiny.
  
  
  The Democratic party has not radically changed a lot over the last 20 years. They've learned to be more low-key in an effort to stymie accusations by the Republicans, for all that that matters considering Republicans will make accusations that are entirely baseless with no hesitation. >
  
  The Democratic Party has allowed for GOP tax policy to stand. That is very right wing. >
  
  I don't know if I'd go so far as to say that's right wing but I would point out the thing that the people downvoting me are probably thinking - there's a difference between acting within what's possible versus trying to do everything. That's a valid point but it's worth remembering that many of the high power Democrats benefit from the GOP's tax policy as do many of the Democratic high roller donors so there's going to be less of an incentive to roll it back. 
  Especially considering tax policy is kind of a black box for most voters. >
  
  Taxing the rich is very popular and not a black box. 
  The democrats are corrupt. >
  
  What we saw last week was Republicans destroying this congress. No Democrat wants that and therefore they wouldn't pull this kind of stunt. >
  
  
  What we saw last week was Republicans destroying this congress.
  
  Could you please explain your rationale for this claim? >
  
  Kevin had to make so many concessions to the nutty ones that he will have almost no power to run the body. He gave them the ability to call a no-confidence vote on him at any time–even by just one member. They have him by the balls. He is reportedly giving them three seats on the House Rules Committee so they can basically veto anything they don't like from ever coming to the floor. Remembering who these people are, I'm betting on an extended government shutdown and some real ugliness on the debt ceiling. I wouldn't be shocked if they just plunged us into default and tank the global economy.
  Lauren Boebert, Matt Gates, and the rest of them aren't interested in governing. They want to tear the whole thing down. And Kevin has given them outsized power in the House with which to do it. >
  
  Would you be as offended if Progressives actually stood up for something? >
  
  Progressives want to pass laws and make changes to better society. Being obstructionist doesn't help with that and may actively hurt. The far right is perfectly happy being obstructionist. >
  
  
  Progressives want to pass laws and make changes to better society.
  
  Can you point to a single instance where they actually held the line for anything? >
  
  Held the line? Holding the line doesn't create change. Don't let perfect be the enemy of better. >
  
  Because they care more about a functioning country than dangerous political stunts. >
  
  Please, explain how the past week threatened a "functioning country"...
  Or how what occurred is "dangerous political stunts"... >
  
  The House was inoperable for multiple days. If there had been a terrorist event or war we’d have no legislative appropriations body. The GOP knew about this problem for months and decided to play chicken with a functioning government. >
  
  
  The House was inoperable for multiple days. If there had been a terrorist event or war we’d have no legislative appropriations body.
  
  Based on this, I have to assume that you have 0 understanding of how the US government works...
  The "concerns" you claim to have are entirely under the Executive branch...
  
  The GOP knew about this problem for months and decided to play chicken with a functioning government.
  
  The GOP decided to ignore the Freedom Caucus because they believed that they would win 2022 enough to render them powerless in the House.
  That didn't happen, so the Freedom Caucus ended up with more power than they expected. >
  
  Don’t condescend to people that know more than you. The House literally could not fulfill any of its legislative functions while Republicans fought Republicans. Fight the Freedom Caucus in primaries, not while the House is not and cannot go into session until a Speaker is elected. Go talk down to someone who isn’t more knowledgeable than you, thanks. >
  
  
  Don’t condescend to people that know more than you.
  
  I didn't...
  
  The House literally could not fulfill any of its legislative functions while Republicans fought Republicans
  
  What critical issue wasn't addressed...?
  
  Fight the Freedom Caucus in primaries, not while the House is not and cannot go into session until a Speaker is elected
  
  That's what the Progressives did in 2020, and they achieved nothing...
  
  Go talk down to someone who isn’t more knowledgeable than you, thanks.
  
  I haven't "talked down" to anyone, nor have you shown yourself to be "more knowledgeable" than me... >
  
  If the far-right does absolutely nothing, that is called "sticking it to the Dems."
  If the Democrats do nothing, they get held accountable and lose their next primary. >
  
  Can you provide an example for your claim...? >
  
  Look into the approval ratings for Congress over the past 20 years...
  ETA:  who won the most recent election for her seat...? >
  
  That is a 2 year time span. >
  
  For starters, I would argue that your cited groups haven't resulted in as tectonic a shift within the Republican party as you might think.
  There have been some people whose careers got made, true, but consider that the Tea Party is basically dead at the moment and their mascot candidate, Ron Paul, retired in 2013.
  America First has attracted such political luminaries as Nick Fuentes, Marjorie Taylor-Greene, and Paul Gossar - basically a nightmare blunt rotation of people that are too toxic to deal with on the mainstream conservative circuit.
  The Freedom Caucus has a membership list that could best be summarized as "Hey it's that one guy arrested for having sex with a minor and a bunch of other people I don't recognize from states that don't matter politically." 
  As to the actual question, the progressive wing of the Democratic party stands for things that are inimical to the values and goals that the power brokers in the rest of the party have. Progressive goals are to shift the status quo at a fundamental level and the people that hold power in the Democratic party are people who benefit (personally and ideologically) from that status quo. 
  Progressive policies also risk alienating the mega donors and systems of political connection and power that help support the party. They want to bite the hand that feeds them and the rest of the party doesn't want to see that happen for obvious reasons.
  Yielding to progressives also opens up avenues for the Republicans to attack the Democrats, painting them as "communists" and generally stirring up popular fears about progressives wanting to put taxes on hamburgers, ban all cars, and mandate forcefeming of all white men in schools or whatever the latest moral panic is. 
  Aside from that, it's a fairly simplistic political calculation. The Democrats want to remain appealing to potential swing voters and voters who may lean Democrat but aren't as liberal. Progressives are probably going to vote and if they do they're probably going to vote for a Democrat even if they're upset with the party. There's little risk of them defecting to the Republicans.
  With that in mind, it's smarter from a purely strategic move to appeal to the center and the undecided rather than listen to people who are probably going to vote for you anyways.
  It's part of why the "you need to vote" is so strong from the Democratic camp. They want people to feel like they should go out and vote (because they know those people are probably going to vote Democrat) even if they're not happy with the options on the table. >
  
  The money is to the right in both parties. If you're a red meat republican looking to primary a RINO there's a pile of libertarian billionaire money out there waiting to back you. If you're a progressive democrat looking to primary a DINO the DCCC would blacklist anyone who worked with you up until recently.  
  Makes it extremely easy to do this kind of shit from the right and nearly impossible to do from the left. >
  
  
  The money is to the right in both parties. If you're a red meat republican looking to primary a RINO there's a pile of libertarian billionaire money out there waiting to back you. If you're a progressive democrat looking to primary a DINO the DCCC would blacklist anyone who worked with you up until recently.
  
  Have you not paid attention to the past week...?
  Republicans have called the dissenting representatives terrorists on national television, and had their rhetoric repeated by the Washington Post (and many other outlets).
  
  Makes it extremely easy to do this kind of shit from the right and nearly impossible to do from the left.
  
  How can you claim this when the left has never even tried to put up a fight?
  Why is it "nearly impossible"...? >
  
  
  Republicans have called the dissenting representatives terrorists on national television
  
  That's not very meaningful in a political party that calls terrorism "legitimate political discourse" and has explicitly said, "We are all domestic terrorists now."
  They might as well as saying, "Damn, you're being so Republican!" >
  
  Embracing any kind of significant progressive or radical elements from the Left means ultimately endangering the croney capitalist power structures that the Democratic Party relies on.  No party will field candidates or advance legislation that destroys itself.