Progressives lack progressivism

Harold Meyerson has a great column about how today's progressives, as compared to the New Deal or Great Society eras, largely lack a movement:

If there's a common feature to the political landscapes in which Carter, Clinton and now Obama were compelled to work, it's the absence of a vibrant left movement. ... In America, major liberal reforms require not just liberal governments, but autonomous, vibrant mass movements, usually led by activists who stand at or beyond liberalism's left fringe.

But, Meyerson doesn't just point the finger at progressives. He points at The One, too:

(Obama) has consistently declined to activate his activists to help him win legislative battles by pressuring, for instance, those Democratic members of Congress who have weakened or blocked his major bills. To be sure, loosing the activists would have brought problems of its own: Unlike Roosevelt or Johnson, who benefited from autonomous movements, Obama would be answerable for every loopy tactic his followers employed. But in the absence of both a free-standing movement and a legion of loyalists, Congress isn't feeling much pressure from the left to move Obama's agenda.

I think Meyerson misses a bit of a point, though. FDR halfway co-opted some of the farther left. Call it triangulation, but in another direction from Bill Clinton.

Apparently, Speaker Nancy Pelosi would like to see more from Obama, too.