From Jonathan Alter:
Think of it as a distinction between "action liberals" and "movement liberals." Action liberals are policy-oriented pragmatists who use their heads to get something important done, even if their arid deal-making and Big Money connections often turn off the base. Movement liberals can sometimes specialize in logical arguments (e.g., Garry Wills), but they are more often dreamy idealists whose hearts and moral imagination can power the deepest social change (notably the women's movement and the civil rights movement).
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/books/review/Alter-t.htmlThe depravity of this analysis is not necessarily in its caricature of division, but in its attribution of exclusivity--that you are either one or the other. Fortunately, this is not the case. No amount of radical activism and impractical striving precludes one from pragmatic action. This is clear in elections, or at least all "action liberals" better hope it is clear--a sizable majority of "movement liberals" voted and will vote for Democratic candidates, even those of the most venal establishment variety. For either party, absent "movement" votes, "action" politicians will never get in the door. This reveals the exclusive attributions as a lie on one side--the "movement" people frequently make a pragmatic, "action" choice where necessary, while still retaining their idealism.
The vast majority of "movement liberals" therefore are engaged in practical activity that gets important things done. The vast majority of "action liberals," however, are not active in the movement. They do not push the debate, they merely react. Their rhetoric and stances are determined solely by the state of the political debate in Washington--they look around to their neighbors in the establishment to determine how far to go in espousing liberal positions. "Action liberals" thus have the peculiar necessity of moving as far to the right as the center of debate moves, and will sacrifice any and all principles necessary to maintain the attribution of "seriousness" from the establishment.
Pragmatic action is a natural feature of "movement" liberalism; it is easily supported and best practiced by "movement" liberals. As John Stuart Mill put it, in his analysis of Order vs Progress:
If we are endeavouring after more riches, our very first rule should be, not to squander uselessly our existing means. Order, thus considered, is not an additional end to be reconciled with Progress, but a part and means of Progress itself.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore