Yes, I'm talking about the Democratic senator from Nebraska who cast the deciding vote to prevent a filibuster of the Senate health insurance reform bill, but only after he helped kill any chance for a public option, tried to insert an anti-abortion amendment into the bill, and finally extracted an economic concession for his state that the GOP is now making political hay over. With so many progressives feeling so unhappy about what they perceive as the disproportionate power the small conservative fringe of the party had in shaping a bill that has fallen far short of their highest hopes, why am I making the man who stood at the fulcrum of that struggle my person of the year?

I won't be arguing that he did, after all, enable passage of a bill that is going to do a great deal of good, and that he incurred significant political risk in doing so. I believe both those things are true, but beside the point, and more in line with the way Republicans tend to think than the way Democrats ought to. Rather than focus narrowly on the feats, personal beliefs or political courage of Ben Nelson, I prefer to think systemically, and to focus therefore on what he represents about the drastic way the political landscape changed in 2009. Ben Nelson's mere existence at the fulcrum of the healthcare debate, apart from what he actually did, demonstrated the two most important aspects of that change:

1. The very fact that there was a fulcrum. Let us not forget - let us never, ever forget! - that for most of George W. Bush's two terms, there was no real balancing point at all. (Or put another way, that point sat permanently outside the conservative majority that followed its orders from on high unfailingly.) Many Democrats have come to envy the efficiency of the Republican machine - why can't we match that party loyalty and message discipline? - but what they might call wimpiness, I call adherence to democratic values. Republicans wield power. Democrats govern. We're back to the messiness that is often democracy in action, and that's a good thing.
2. The fact that the fulcrum now sits (just barely) within the boundaries of the Democratic Party. If 313 more people had voted for Norm Coleman in the 2008 Minnesota Senate race, the balancing point would have shifted from Ben Nelson to Olympia Snowe, a moderate Republican who would have required an even greater weakening of the Senate bill before she would have agreed to oppose a Republican filibuster. If 2954 more people had voted for Ted Stevens in Alaska, the balancing point would have fallen off a cliff.

Therefore, as we look back on 2009, let us honor Ben Nelson, not so much for what he did (which was admirable, in my opinion) but for what he represents: the return of our political system to some semblance of health. As we look ahead to 2010, let us work to tip the balance further. If we can gain one more Senate seat in 2010, Ben Nelson will be freed to better represent his conservative constituency. (Assuming he survives his own reelection race that year.) If we can gain two seats, Joe Lieberman will be freed to lose his next race gracefully and go on to the analyst position waiting for him at Fox News. If we can win three seats - not really possible in 2010, but for the sake of argument - then the results are incalculable.

It is here, in the electoral trenches, that real change has and will come, through the continued hard work of millions of people registering new voters, contributing money to candidates, educating the public, and getting out the vote. It's not as glamorous as the fantasy of a progressive messiah of a president who will effortlessly lead us into paradise, but it's how democracy works, when it's working like it should.