are you progressive enough?

Check out the required character traits, look inward, cleanse yourself of impurities, and sign on … if you dare:

Brought to you by the Center for American Progress.

Did you know that there is a special kind of “progressive” “thinking”?

Matthew Yglesias, CAP’s highly touted new hire, still writing from his old perch at the Atlantic, may just give a hint of it. Last time I read his blog, he was proposing that public intellectuals simplify their commentary to a level that even a Manhattan-bred and Cambridge (Mass.)-educated ignoramus like him can understand without, you know, actually having to read or study the wisdom of the ages.

This is perhaps a good time to note that I’m not really a fan of historical analogies as a mode of argument. The reason is that accuracy in historical characterization is rarely particularly relevant to the point the analogy-maker was trying to make. But under the circumstances, there’s actually not much need to make the analogy. At the end of the day, I think I understand what Brooks is saying here perfectly well and I don’t know anything about Disraeli. To me, the interesting thing about the use of the analogy is simply that for whatever reason modern-day conservative reformers don’t like to site Eisenhower and Nixon as predecessors even though they would make more familiar references.

No more references to Disraeli! We don’t know anything about him! We’re only Harvard graduates!