Howie Klein raises an issue that is crucial for those of us who are trying to turn the Democratic Party into a progressive party - namely, what is a "red district"?

The inevitable argument from Carney apologists is that PA-10 is a hopelessly "red district" and Carney is the best that can be expected.

Steny Hoyer, Rahm Emanuel, and the Blue Dogs all use this argument: the Democratic Party can't be more progressive because in order to win (and keep) a majority of House seats, they have to win "red districts" which are "more conservative."

I'll accept the general description of these districts as "more conservative." But how does "more conservative" translate into actual issues? And how do those issues apply to "red districts"?

I'm not a political demographer, and others like Paul Rosenberg and Chris Bowers could do this much better than I can. But here's a simple typology of conservative issues and how I see them applying to "red districts" in different regions:

For simplicity's sake, the table distinguishes four broad regions: Northeast, South, Farm Belt, and Inter-Mountain West. To be more precise, it should really distinguish suburban, exurban, and rural districts, because class issues (rich suburban, mobile exurban, poor rural) probably trump regional issues.

Guns and Taxes: these are the only conservative issues that clearly help Republicans across the country. But Democrats learned their lesson on taxes after the 1984 campaign, when Walter Mondale promised to raise taxes to cut the deficit. And Democrats learned a similar lesson on guns after the 2000 campaign when West Virginia went for Bush because Al Gore supported gun control. As a result, neither gun control nor tax hikes are core Democratic (or progressive) issues, and Democratic candidates are free to take "conservative" positions without defying the broad progressive agenda.

God, Gays, and Abortion: Looking at these issues nationally, a solid majority of Americans want to keep abortion safe and legal, and a small but growing majority are tolerant of civil unions and even gay marriage. But when you drill down to the "Bible Belt" regions of the South and the Farm Belt, the politics flips and majorities oppose both abortion rights and gay rights. This puts Democratic candidates - and progressive activists - in a dilemma. In general, progressive activists are tolerant of Bible Belt candidates who hedge on abortion rights and gay rights, but we do not (nor should we) tolerate candidates (like Chris Carney) who are actively hostile to those rights.

Immigration: It's hard to say where opposition to (Mexican) immigration is regionally dominant. There are counties in the border states of California and Arizona where anti-immigrant sentiment is strong, but there are other counties in those states where it is weak. Many farm states rely on immigrant farm labor, but the growing immigrant population creates social tensions. Because there is no solid anti-immigration region, there are few Democrats who embrace reactionary positions, and therefore few divisions within the progressive Democratic coalition.

War: Many conservative-leaning Democrats in Congress supported the invasion of Iraq and the threat of war with Iran, but the progressive Democratic base strongly opposes both. From an electoral point of view, there is no region where support for the continued occupation of Iraq or a wider war with Iran is strong, so it makes no electoral sense for any Democratic candidates to campaign on these issues, and there is no reason for progressive activists to tolerate Democratic candidates who do.

Wiretaps: While conservatives fear terrorism and support "homeland security," they also oppose "big government," which is exactly what warrantless wiretapping is. There is no grassroots advocacy group (like the NRA) for warrantless wiretapping, and no region where wiretapping has support. Therefore it makes no sense for any Democratic candidate to support warrantless wiretapping, and no reason why progressive activists should support a candidate who does.

Health Care and Global Warming: These are two issues that are very important to progressive activists. Electorally, there are no regions where conservative opposition is strong, so there is no reason for any Democratic candidates to oppose them, and no reason for progressives to tolerate Democrats who do.

So what is the bottom line? Democratic candidates can win "red districts" in every region by supporting the progressive consensus on war, wiretaps, health care, global warming, and immigration. Guns and taxes are issues progressives won't go to war over. The only divisive issues are abortion rights and gay rights, where progressives will tolerate "Bible Belt" candidates who hedge, but not those who actively oppose us.