Reply #65: I agree. He essentially calls "movement liberals" impotent

[Go2Peace]

So called "movement liberals" are not dreamers to the point of ineffectiveness, as this author essentially portays them.

I would catagorize it more like this:

"Systematic Liberals" - Believe in holding on and taking what gains they can, hoping to eventually find a way or build incrementally to get to truly liberal policies.

"movement liberals" - Believe that essentially the only effective way to make transformative and lasting change is to hold to strong principles and build the case.

While doing the "pragmatic" thing, we are actually losing, because our leadership looks weak and by compromising on most every point they lend some amount of credence to the opposition.

I don't understand why we still have not learned this. The evidence is right in front of us. The Republicans did not move "pragmatically". They stood hard and fast and claimed their ideology would work. Of course it doesn't. But by not capturing and leading when the opportunity came we are back to losing ground.

Because we have not built the case for progressive values, much of that "pragmatic change" can get wiped out in a single Republican administration.

Tell me, exactly how is the "pragmatic" compromise working out? Will it take another 30 years of this approach before we admit that it didn't work?