Anybody remember the 2000 election? Al Gore won the popular vote, but lost the election to George W. Bush after the Supreme Court's decision to stop the recount in Florida with Bush ahead by a mere 537 votes. But what people may not remember (or may want to forget) are the 97,488 votes that went to third-party candidate Ralph Nader in Florida. If less than 1 percent of those votes had gone to Gore, there would have been no need for those Bush countdown clocks, Bill Maher would still be on ABC, and who knows who would be president now—but I bet not Barack Obama. Now, I know there is quite a bit of controversy over whether Nader actually lost the race for Gore (who also lost his home state of Tennessee and tight races in other states), but it's fair to say that Nader was a significant factor in Bush's victory. I remember my liberal friends were planning to vote for Nader with the rejoinder, "There's no real difference betweens Dems and Repubs. They're all part of the same rotten system. I'm going to vote for a real progressive who breaks the hegemony of the two-party system." Back then, liberals at the far end of the political spectrum were feeling stung by Clintonian compromises—"don't ask, don't tell" and welfare reform come to mind—and were disgusted by his personal foibles. Gore, they thought, would just be more of the same and really no better than Bush. A third way, Nader, seemed like the best idea at the time. Of course, it didn't really work out that way. Rather than "teaching our democracy a lesson," the third way contributed to Bush's eight-year sojourn in the White House. And, from the perspective of liberals (and most other people if approval numbers are to be trusted), Bush was one of the worst presidents we've ever had. From logging and drilling in national parks to limiting stem-cell research and botching Katrina, the Bush years were a nightmare for progessives. And that's not even counting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan or Guantánamo or "freedom fries." Meanwhile, Al Gore rebounded with An Inconvenient Truth, and was not only anointed a saint and honored with a Nobel, but even begged by those old Nader voters to lead the Democratic ticket in 2008. How's that for irony?

Sorry to bring all those memories back and rub them in. But, lest you think anybody learned a lesson from the experience, I'm here to tell you: nope. The attacks have already begun against the politician best positioned to be a friend to environmentalists, social activists and gun-control advocates. Proving once and for all that perfect is the enemy of good, progressives all over the blogosphere are currently apopletic at what they call Obama's "betrayal of the very people that elected him." Alison Kilkenny from news Web site True/Slant wrote: "Total withdrawal dates, single-payer healthcare, these things were never seriously part of the agenda. They were nice, empty promises Obama made to get elected. Now that he's President, he has discarded the progressives, who can either go quietly into the night, or organize, fight, and make sure their President knows the empty promises thing won't fly anymore." The Nation, America's most popular progressive magazine agreed with Rep. Raúl Grijalva's (D-Ariz.) statement that "President Obama was elected to bring change and progress. I fear that if my party and the President do not appreciate the mandate the American people have given us, the people will lose confidence in the idea that they can vote for change and get what they voted for."

This is the same old nonsense that doomed the Gore candidacy. And this is why progressives of this stripe irritate me as much as those flag-waving tea-party activists with guns strapped to every available muscle group. Neither of you believe in compromise. It's your way or the highway. "Health care isn't worth doing without a public option." Really? Tell that to the millions trying to get by on whatever free care they can get at the E.R. Obama has a different timetable than you do on the wars, dismantling "don't ask, don't tell," and shutting down Guantánamo. So now he's a jackass? Obama's timetable is shaped, in part, by political will—not just the mandate you seem to think you gave him. And right now, there is not the political will to accomplish your personal wish list. I don't like it either; but then I've always found democracry messy and disappointing. Still, I find it astonishing that nine months after "anybody but McCain" progressives are ready to take their votes and go home. Have you already forgotten how little respect you got even one year ago? Do you realize that all our dreams of a multi-culti utopia were back-burnered when the economy went into the toilet? OK, fine, go. But can I just tell you that the Republican party is rubbing their hands with glee at the thought that your disgust (and subsequent refusal to vote) will win them control of the House or the Senate in 2010.

Oh and let me say just one more thing: Obama ran on the promise of "Yes, We Can," not "Yes, I Can." Which means that change and progress need to come not just from him and his team, but from all of us. Making this country a better place for the disenfranchised takes more than pulling down the lever on Election Day and clicking through a Moveon.org e-mail. You have to participate, not whine. One man cannot change the system no matter how many czars he hires. And Obama forgets about the Republicans in the House and in the Senate at his own peril. If he overreaches as the Republicans did when they thought they had a mandate, all of his proposed policies, from the revamp of "No Child Left Behind" to invigorating America's urban centers, will be at risk. Is that what you want? Because remember, what goes around can come around.

© 2009