These reductionist arguments about population propensities -- irrespective of their validity from an evolutionary perspective -- all ignore one fundamental fact. Population data applies to just that -- populations.

Cross-cultural factors influencing attractiveness and fertility are very well-established biologically. But they are only meaningful in terms of understanding population trends; moreover, their influence in a particular society is determined in large part by cultural constraints.

As a population, men favor fecundity and youth. As individuals, the majority of single older men in the U.S. (>45) find partners within their own age cohort. As a population, women favor men of means. As individuals, women in the U.S. overwhelmingly marry men of similar means and education.

I could go on and on, but a simply analogy makes the point. As a population, smokers have a much greater risk of contracting lung cancer; as individuals, a smoker's (or former smoker's) known risk of contracting lung cancer in the next 10 years varies from 1% to 30%, depending upon a host of variables (age, sex, packs per day, genetic factors, overall health etc...) In purely statistical terms, the probability of an individual smoker contracting cancer in a 10-year period is even more indeterminate -- he or she either will (100%) or they won't (0%)

Am I suggesting that smokers shouldn't be concerned about lung cancer? Absolutely not. What I am suggesting is that even when the variables are well-established, there is enormous variability in applying population statistics to individuals. The cultural variables influencing attractiveness and reproductive success are not only poorly understood, they are in many countries in a period of rapid transformation. When it comes to fertility and attractiveness, it would be the height of absurdity to equate biology with destiny.

One of the things that first attracted me (as a spiritual agnostic) to the Unitarian Church was the following parable:

On the road of life there is a fork. The direction sign to the right reads “To God.” The sign to the left reads “To a Discussion of God.” Unitarians invariably go to the left.

When I joined DU last December I was searching for a similar meeting place of minds, where progressive politics could be debated in the goal of encouraging understanding -- without insisting on doctrinal consensus.

And then the primaries began. And the barricades went up. Debate in GD-P became an electoral weapon and differences of opinion hardened into political labels: “Koolaid drinkers,” “Hillbots,” and “Hopemongers” to name but a few. I spent most of my time on the sidelines. Not because I didn’t have opinions, but because they usually straddled awkwardly the political fences now dividing us.

But eventually, finally, thankfully, the primary season exhausted itself. And now that there was a presumptive democratic nominee, I looked forward to debating progressive issues while working to elect the one candidate still in the race who cares deeply about them (even when he does not embrace them to our satisfaction).

Perhaps I was overly optimistic. Or politically naïve. Or both. In any event, as the 2008 election road meanders inexorably towards November, many DUers seem stuck at a fork.

Some don’t want a candidate, they want a god – an archetype of progressivism who will never deviate from liberal commandments and who will wrathfully insist on enacting justice on all who have desecrated them for the past eight years. For others, Obama has become the only political medium through which progressive issues can be debated. And some want to suspend any debate that runs counter to Obama’s stated positions for fear of damaging his campaign.

Progressive debate in DU is now too often synonymous with debate over Obama -- to the detriment of both.

IMHO, DU at its best is a clearinghouse for diverse opinions on the left. I come here because I want to be challenged; I want to question what I have uncritically accepted. Dampening debate to favor our candidate runs counter to DU’s very raison-d’être. And let’s be real. Even when our debates penetrate above ground and reach the MSM, their impact on the campaign is likely to be minor -- and may even at times help Obama counter the republican meme that he is just another liberal, “card carrying” captive of the left.

But the real danger of conflating Obama with progressivism is that it distracts us from the one genuine fork in the 2008 election road, the one where the direction sign to the right reads “To McCain” and to the left “To Obama.” This election must still be won; we can’t allow early election polls in the doldrums of summer to breed complacency. Despite the widespread clamor for change, there are plenty of voters who will bear to the right come November simply because they seek security in uncertain times or because they have bought into Republican manipulations and “swift-boat” spin that we Democrats failed to counter. When Obama has to hold two press conferences in as many hours just to refute false republican charges that he has changed his policy on Iraq, there is work to be done.

I don’t want to debate Obama; I want to debate progressive values and policies and how best to promote them culturally, socially and politically. I don’t want to debate Obama; I want to do everything in my power to elect him.

The MSM and leftwing blogs (including DU) are obsessing over the question: “Is Obama’s “move to the middle” a winning electoral strategy or is it doomed to repeat the failures of 2000 and 2004?

I think this hullabaloo is a red herring. Here’s why:

* *The one perpetual reality about presidential elections is that the candidate with the majority of the votes wins (really electoral votes but – the stealing of the 2000 election aside -- let's not quibble.) Even with the overwhelming support of African-Americans and an unprecedented turn-out by young voters, the Democratic base won’t be enough. Obama must garner votes from a broad coalition of left-center voters to win in November.

* *The majority of American voters don't identify themselves as left, liberal or progressive – even when they agree with liberal/progressive positions. The besmirchment of the left by the right will take years to rectify. If the political bridges aren’t there, Obama must build them.

* *Kerry, Gore, and Carter didn’t lose elections because they appealed to the middle. They lost because they failed to do so effectively while simultaneously mobilizing their base. The Democratic Party has been the largest political party since 1932 (with Republicans reaching parity only briefly in 1989 and in the months after 9/11), and yet we have only managed to win half of the presidential elections since then. This isn’t rocket science. Obama can’t afford to ignore his base or the swing vote. In fact, with the vestiges of Jim Crow still haunting our political landscape, he will likely achieve victory only if he can simultaneously expand the base and win over swing voters.

* *A presidential election isn’t an Iowan caucus. Even with mega-rallies, the vast majority of voters will never hear Obama in person, will be lucky to catch one of the presidential debates and will never visit his website. The MSM and TV ads will thus largely shape perceptions of him and McCain. Perceptions aren’t reality, but you don’t have to be a bona fide Machiavellian to appreciate that in close presidential elections it is how perceptions are countered, promoted and managed that make the difference.

In the face of these political realities, debates over whether Obama is really a centrist in liberal clothing or whether or not he should “move to the middle” at best miss the point; at worst, they distract us from mobilizing our collective clout to meet these challenges and win this election.

And to those who reject the above on matters of principle, I sympathize but suggest that ignoring these political realities won’t make this election more principled. Principles and presidential politics aren’t antithetical -- but like oil and vinegar they don’t mix well naturally. You’ve got to keep shaking them up. We’ve got a candidate who not only understands this, but encourages us to take an active role in the process. We should never shy away from defending our principles, but we must also be savvy enough to recognize that they need to be promoted and packaged to appeal to the greatest possible number.

NOTE: This is NOT a “concern” post about our presumptive nominee. If you read any of the following as a criticism (constructive or otherwise) of Obama’s policies and/or candidacy, you are missing my point. This is a concern post about US.

Point #1: Obama has clearly decided that he can’t win the general election unless he captures the majority of moderate voters. Recent history suggests he may be right, particularly if you consider that his overwhelming support among African-Americans and young voters is likely to be counter-weighted by the racist vestige of Jim Crow. The moderate swing vote – be they ‘Reagan Democrats,” “suburban soccer Moms,” “socially liberal fiscal conservatives” etc… – has decided all close presidential elections in recent memory. Whether he is acting out of principle or political expediency (or both), Obama is clearly determined to fight and win the battle for the electoral center.

Point #2: As Obama moves to the Center, he inevitably leaves many, if not most, of us behind.

Point #3: Some of us don’t mind. We may be pragmatists or politically center-left or believe that our policy differences with Obama are minor compared with the absolute necessity of defeating McCain. Whatever the rationale and with varying degrees of angst, we are willing to accept Obama’s “big tent” strategy if it ensures a Democratic victory in November.

Point #4: Some of us feel betrayed and disillusioned. Let me be clear. I’m not referring to the disgruntled post-primary democrats whose outrage thinly cloaks their real agenda: the discrediting of a candidate they could never support or trust. I’m speaking of us true believers who took Obama at his word when he promised a new form of politics and who now feel betrayed by what we see as a campaign of politics as usual.

Point #5: Is Obama’s move to the Center fracturing the Left? If DU is remotely representative, it already has.

The fault lines are becoming increasingly obvious. Whether the subject is Wesley Clark, the FISA bill, or federal support for faith-based organizations, the debate seems driven more and more by our differing views of the campaign than by our particular opinion on the issue at hand. Disgruntled post-primary democrats invariably retort with some version of “I told you so” while the disillusioned declare any deviation from a pure progressive platform to be further evidence that Obama has abandoned principles for raw political expediency. And the pragmatists try to mediate by reminding everyone that this is an election not a movement, that our options are between Obama and McCain, that there is no perfect candidate or campaign, that we can’t lose sight of the real objective – victory in November. Which inevitably launches yet another salvo of plaintive posts on the censorship of dissent, the dangers of blind faith, and the responsibility to speak the truth irrespective of the political consequences.

Point #6: The real question is: Is this our fate from now until November? Or ….

...Or Un-Democratic.

Until today, I’ve watched from the sidelines the post-primary debate in DU over what constitutes “constructive dissent from” versus “disloyal attacks on” our presumptive nominee.

Part of my reluctance to engage is a vestige of my own divided loyalties. I worked hard to elect Bill Clinton in the 1990s and admired HRC’s accomplishments as First Lady and later as a U.S. Senator. I decided months before the first primaries to work for John Edwards and only voted for Obama after Edwards withdrew. My initial cautious support for Obama’s candidacy has since grown into an abiding commitment to elect him President, but that commitment never tempted me to participate in the fratricidal melees that often dominated GD-Primaries.

My reluctance to weigh in post-primary stems from an even deeper ambivalence. As a lifelong Democrat, I know too well that Party disunity has too often presaged defeat. And, to be blunt, defeat in this election is not an option. And yet -- and yet -- I hope I speak for many here in stating that I am a Democrat because I believe democracy works best in a public sphere where no policy position is uncritically accepted, where a disconnect between policy and principles is never condoned for political expediency, and where no politician – however preternatural his or her potential – engenders loyalty that blinds us to their personal failings, political missteps and policy obfuscations.

And so it was only after hearing today Obama’s speech on patriotism that I feel compelled to take a page from his playbook and suggest that dissent and Democratic solidarity – like patriotism -- are not mutually exclusive. Obama lauded Mark Twain’s definition of patriotism: “Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.” Can we not take this to heart by recognizing that Democratic solidarity is supporting our candidate all the time and his policy positions when they deserve it? (And further acknowledge that DU exists for the very purpose of debating which positions deserve our support.)

My point is that dissent is not the issue; what matters is the intent of that dissent. We are all familiar with destructive dissent. Whether expressed as righteous outrage or disingenuous concern, its intent is to question Obama’s electability and/or credibility, either by conflating complicated issues into false dichotomies or by inflating gaffes and missteps into fatal character flaws. And while I personally would oppose censoring even this form of dissent in DU, I would hope that most of us could agree that it is best left to those opposed to a Democratic victory in November.

But the dissent I have seen more often here stems not from antipathy but from a sense of almost unprecedented expectation. It is because Obama has galvanized the progressive left, because he has promised a new form of politics that we now measure his actions against our principles and cry foul when we fear the twain may not meet. And we not only have the right as loyal Democrats but the responsibility to do so -- if only to provide a progressive counter to overly pragmatic voices who prod Obama to adopt expedient positions that appear electorally “safe,” but which may in fact undermine the platform of genuine change the vast majority of Americans are clamoring for. And I would further argue that constructive Democratic dissent – like patriotic dissent – in no way calls into question or diminishes our support for Obama. It instead exhorts him to perfect and realize his potential as the future POTUS.

On February 19th I voted. I voted for a candidate, not a cause. I voted with hope, but not for history. As an historian, I know that history is usually written by the victors and we’re still in the playoffs. I confess I did not vote my conscience. Had I done so, I would have voted for a candidate no longer in the race. But I did vote with my head and heart for what I believe matters most.

To my head…

What Mattered Most: Who can win against the republicans?

This comes down to two questions:

1. Who will match-up best against McCain? Questions about who’s ready on “Day One” are moot if you can’t win on November 4. I looked at exit polls, support from the democratic base, grassroots and inside-the-Beltway appeal, potential cross-over support from independents, and each candidate’s vulnerabilities and strengths vis-à-vis McCain’s record, platform and character.

2. What issues do the majority of the American people care about most? Which are in fact negotiable and which represent fundamental expectations that must be met by any democrat seeking to build a winning coalition in November? Which candidate can best mobilize this majority? Voting is an individual choice in a collective process and the majority wins. (Paperless voting machines and electoral college hijackings notwithstanding). Protest votes don’t interest me; opting out isn’t an option. I want to win; ergo, I want to be in that majority.

What Mattered – NOT:

1. I did not pour over policy differences, because they are modest at best, and neither candidate’s agenda will protect them from being branded a spendthrift, tax-loving, anti-free trade, quasi-patriotic, dovish liberal by republicans.

2. I did not put great weight on “experience,” because frankly neither candidate will find that a compelling argument against McCain.

3. I did not spend much time pondering “electability” either. In the midst of an overheated, year-long primary season, “electability” long ago became an emergent, subjective trait impervious to reasoned argument.

4. I did not put much store by momentum or money. As of today, both candidates remain one major victory or one major gaffe away from claiming or losing the Big Mo’ and seeing their money pot fill up or drain out accordingly.

To my heart…

What Mattered Most: Which democratic candidate could I trust to be President?

Which candidate could I trust to exercise power judiciously, to pursue a progressive platform tenaciously, to engage ordinary Americans in political decision-making, to embrace transparency and accountability, to lead by example, to govern inclusively but give no ground when it comes to fundamental principles, to stand up for human rights while respecting global cultural diversity, to restore our standing in the international community while ensuring that America’s interests and security remain primary?

Answer: Neither One. After seven years of a failed presidency, my heart’s expectations (and I suspect that of the majority of Americans) far exceeds the ability of any candidate to fulfill them. Neither candidate is “a J.F.K”; then again, neither was Jack Kennedy. It is only in historical hindsight that we make heroes of our presidents. Mantles of inevitability and cults of personality rarely last beyond the first 100 days. Our presidents don’t have prime ministers to get down in the trenches while they pontificate at 35,000 ft. Democratic politics is by nature confrontational and compromising; our best candidate is not the one who can soar above the melee, but who can exploit it to the people’s advantage. Our best candidate will not transcend politics, but will make it serve the interests of the many even as it inevitably enhances the political power of the few (a.k.a “our representatives”) Our best candidate will use words and deeds to convince ordinary Americans to believe again that politics and the people’s welfare are not mutually exclusive. Our best candidate is, quite simply, our best politician in the best sense of the word. And that candidate must still earn my trust, but my heart was willing to take the leap of faith.

What Mattered – NOT

1. Smears, “gotcha” moments, debate score cards, charges of plagiarism, accusations of flip-flopping, sexist/racist innuendos, and other primary shenanigans. Frankly, they besmirch both candidates and the hands of neither campaign are clean. The media (and much of GD-P sadly) are being played but I don’t have to be. And I have to trust that the public ultimately won’t be either.

If you’ve read this far, thank you, but you must be wondering whom I voted for. I'm not trying to be coy, but that doesn’t matter. If you are still undecided, I hope my journey to my vote can help you decide what matters most to you. If you’re reading this post as a supporter of a particular candidate, then I wager you’ve found here ample validation of your choice. Either way, sharing my vote will only add a partisan tinge that – in this political hothouse – would render this post mere pablum for the converted. But consider this: if two thoughtful democrats can each read this and come to reasoned, heartfelt but opposite conclusions as to which candidate should be our nominee, what does this suggest about our choices and chances in November? Pretty damn good.