It apparently takes a theory.

One of the things that strikes me as perpetually intriguing about Prawfsblawg is that periodically, one of the posters there will make a point about how conservatives have legal theories, but how judicial liberals really could come up with a coherent legal theory. Thus, most recently Paul Horwitz opined that "[o]f course it is possible to propound a theory that allows a persuasive critique of conservative decisions beyond mere political disagreement about results," a few months before that, Adam Kolber discussed "[t]he maxim [that] 'It takes a theory to beat a theory'," and Ethan Leib has wondered, "[i]f all it takes is a theory, what is so hard about coming up with one?"

This has bemused me every time it's come up, and in response to Paul's most recent post, I wondered aloud if:

this whole business is starting to seem like the quest to write the Great American Novel ... [Liberals] keep saying that it's possible (easy, even... ) [to come up with a judicial theory], but at some point, someone has to stop talking about it and actually sit down and come up with one.

Saying that liberals need a consistent, coherent judicial theory is the legal equivalent of a board of directors making their business plan "find something that makes us money and do more of it." Saying "we need a theory; we could come up with a theory; someone should come up with a theory" is no substitute for actually coming up with a theory.

Substitute "theory" for "ideas", and you have this intriguing report on the Blogometer:

The fact of the matter is that the biggest divide among Democrats today isn't between centrists or liberals, its between Democrats who want to put forward a big agenda to America and those who want to just slide by on the other guys mistakes. ... These Democrats are like the 98-pound weakling who lives in fear of the school bully.

Amusingly, there is scarcely any need for Republicans to start tearing this apart - the left are already on the case. Matt Yglesias is quoted as making more-or-less the same point that I made to Paul - "[w]hen it first started, I thought the meta-debate over the need for big ideas was pretty fun. At this point, though, I'm prepared to surrender to the power of Baer and Cherney if they'll just tell me about an idea rather than an idea about the need for ideas." Precisely. What perspicacity it must take to say that Democrats must have ideas rather than waiting for GOP screw-ups! The erudition! The insight! With people like Baer and Cherny on their side to tell them all about the need for ideas, now all the Dems need are some actual ideas, and they're good to go. "Meta-debate" - I'm still chuckling about that one.