Power or principles?

From Glenn Greenwald:

The point here is that -- whether justified or not -- telling politicians that you will do everything possible to work for their re-election no matter how much they scorn you, ignore your political priorities, and trample on your political values is a guaranteed ticket to irrelevance and impotence.  Any self-interested, rational politician -- meaning one motivated by a desire to maintain power rather than by ideology or principle -- will ignore those who behave this way every time and instead care only about those whose support is conditional.  And they're well-advised to do exactly that. 

I think Greenwald has a valid point about the inability of progressives to pressure mainstream Democratic politicians to fight for progressive policies.  The criticism of the Left doesn’t mean much if it’s not accompanied by action, namely, the willingness to demand that either the Democrats in power stand up for liberal policies or get out.  Granted, if the progressives were to collectively disown mainstream Democrats, in all likelihood the Republicans and their more unified base would probably take power.  However, when one sees the effectiveness with which the Republican minority managed to block progressive policies like single-payer health care and the DREAM Act even during a strong Democratic majority, it leads one to wonder how different it would really be if the Right took power. 

However, on a somewhat different note, I have to question the idea that holding power is necessarily separate from standing by principles and one’s ideology.  Gravitating towards the political center is a good way to maintain office, but assuming that many politicians have some form of principles that they would at least like to stand by (and that’s not to say that they all do; many politicians probably care more about staying in office than standing by their ideals), the choice to turn one’s back on one’s ideology is less a way of holding power than a means of giving up. 

The point of holding political power is to be in a position that allows one to influence public policy.  That’s why I was so excited to cast my first-ever ballot – I couldn’t wait to be able to say that my vote was counted and made a difference, even a tiny one, in the political climate of my state.  The aspect that thrilled me was that I was representing my own political voice through my vote.  Had I consulted with my more conservative friends and then agreed to change my vote somewhat because they wanted me to do so, I would be compromising my own political power.

In the same way, when Democratic politicians run for office by trying to mobilize and appeal to their progressive base, but then upon assuming office decide to capitulate to the influence of lobbyists and the demands of the Right, they are essentially compromising their power and betraying their base.  There’s more to power than simply holding office.  One has to do something with that position and stand by one’s principles in order to have real political power.  This has its risks; it’s easier to be attacked by one’s opponents and lose office because of it.  However, it also means making a difference, rather than playing to the middle and the middle alone.  Look at Alan Grayson, for example.  He may have lost, but at least he stood for something.