The newly formed “Progressive Democrats of Montana” continue a long-standing tradition in the Democratic Party — the circular firing squad. How ironic that, only four months after Democrats united to win a stunning series of victories across the country in the 2006 elections, this group seeks to find new ways to divide the party.

From its sanctimonious perch, PDM has set out to define “good” and “bad” Democrats. Good Democrats are “progressive” — a hijacked catchphrase for those too timid to call themselves “liberals.” Bad Democrats are “moderate” — used derisively to mean “Republican-Lite.”

The vast majority of Montanans — Republican and Democrat — describe themselves as moderate, yet PDM dismisses the notion that anyone might subscribe to moderation out of principle.

Were these guys watching what happened last November? Their strategy defies both logic and experience. Rep. Rahm Emmanuel, the field commander behind the successful Democratic takeover of the House of Representatives, achieved this success by recruiting self-avowed moderates who won victories in places where Democrats had long been losing elections — including the West, the Midwest , and the South. It was moderate Democrats (joined by moderate Republicans, dismayed by the neocon nightmare of the Bush Administration) who tipped the national balance in favor of the Democratic party.

So too in Montana and the victory of Jon Tester — a victory from which PDM seems to be drawing the exact wrong lessons. The bad news for Democrats is that the race between Jon Tester and Conrad Burns was so close — in an environment that could hardly have been more favorable.

If you invented a Democrat to succeed in the West, you would probably come up with Tester: centrist, farmer, pro-gun, strong campaigner. Hell, not only does Tester sport a flat-top haircut, he’s missing three fingers from a boyhood accident butchering meat.

Likewise, if Democrats invented their dream opponent, they probably would come up with Burns: top recipient of Jack Abramoff money, staunch advocate of Bush’s “secret” plan to win the war, and prone to gaffs including racial slurs and profane attacks on firefighters.

And yet, at the end of the day, Tester prevailed by less than one percent of the vote. Tester’s narrow victory came about because he brought Democrats together and even drew votes from Republicans.

In the critical, closing days of the 2006 campaign — Tester toured the state arm-in-arm with moderate Democratic Sen. Max Baucus and Gov. Brian Schweitzer, who urged Democrats (and Republicans) to unite behind Tester.

Indeed, the success of Schweitzer (and his Republican lieutenant governor) rests on a centrist foundation — and is now held up as a national example for how Democrats can win in so-called “red” states.

The world view of the Progressive Democrats of Montana has a recent historical antecedent — the pro-Ralph Nader faction in the 2000 presidential election between Al Gore and George Bush.

In that election, the Naderites made exactly the same argument as the Progressive Democrats of Montana — that there was no real difference between moderate Democrats and Republicans, a “lack of choice in the political arena.”

Enough people bought this line to deliver Florida — and the presidency — to the Republicans. Today, can anyone seriously believe that the 2000 election of George Bush didn’t matter? PDM should ask Gore, the current darling of the left, what he thinks.

There is far too much at stake in modern American politics for Democrats to waste time — and votes — in a fight with each other. We face a war in Iraq , a war on terror, 47 million Americans without healthcare, and environmental challenges that will shape our children’s world.

Formation of a new political group whose mission is to define good and bad Democrats is the political equivalent of self-immolation.

Its practitioners will get a flash of warmth, a fleeting moment of public attention, and perhaps the self-righteous satisfaction of the piously pure.

But they won’t be doing much for the health of our country or our state — unless their goal is to elect Republicans — at whom they can then cast aspersions from the peanut gallery during another long journey through the wasteland of political irrelevance.

Michael Punke teaches American Foreign Policy at the University of Montana and is the author of Fire and Brimstone: the North Butte Mining Disaster of 1917.