Anatomy of a steaming pile: "action liberals" vs "movement liberals"

[jpgray]

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.html

The 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.

[GeorgeGist]

1. Endevouring after more riches ...

is the Order of Progress? Or an ill-considered social philosophy?

[jpgray]

3. Mill speaks of metaphorical riches

:)

[kenny blankenship]

2. I wouldn't limit its depravity to just one aspect. Don't be stingy.

It had the "full-spectrum" of depravity & divisiveness.

[jpgray]

4. Not so much stinginess as giving the benefit of the doubt

I'm quite sure most people who see the world this way do so genuinely.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HughMoran]

21. .

I unrecced it solely based on this post.

[SidDithers]

23. Me too...nt

Sid

[Greyhound]

6. Just priming the "It's teh libruls fawlt" pump we will be subjected to. n/t

:kick: & (invisible)R

[QC]

15. Don't forget the homos. It's always our fault when things go badly. n/t

[Greyhound]

20. Everybody knows you are all librul, so it goes without saying. n/t

:kick:

[QC]

25. We are a powerless fringe, yet we hold the world in our manicured hands.

It's an amazing paradox, isn't it?

[jonnyblitz]

7. k & r. nt

[bettyellen]

24. *hugs* Jonny, I miss you! (sorry JP, I love + rec'd your OP too)

[jonnyblitz]

28. lol, oh hi!

:hug:

and :kick:

[NYC Liberal]

8. Bullshit:

"The vast majority of "movement liberals" therefore are engaged in practical activity that gets important things done."

Prove it.

"The vast majority of "action liberals," however, are not active in the movement."

Prove it.

"They do not push the debate, they merely react."

Prove it.

"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."

Prove it.

""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."

Prove it.

[jpgray]

16. Sure

1. Marching, canvassing, phone-banking, etc.--in all these activities the majority have been "movement" types, in my experience. The most popular pragmatic choice is to donate money and vote, and not to spend one's own time. Of course, "movement" types that work/volunteer/march donate and vote -in addition- to offering their time. Further, you will rarely see progressive members of Congress drag their feet to defeat pragmatic liberal legislation that is less than perfect--Feingold is one of the few Democrats to have pride in his vote for health care reform, for example, yet he is unquestionably a "movement" liberal. Those running away from Obama's accomplishments are seen as more "pragmatic" than politicians like Feingold or Sanders.

2. Ben Nelson, Joe Liberman, or any of the Blue Dogs, are simply not pushing for progress; not by any measure you care to name. Yet they are largely considered, as moderates, among the most "pragmatic" denizens of Congress. They push the debate not at all, but seek only to inhabit a defensible or lucrative position within it. They are at the mercy of some "movement" types, who actually determine where the debate stands--either from their own party, or the other.

3, 4 and 5. "Action" liberals will decide to abandon liberal principles as the political winds blow. You can see this in the turmoil over allowing the tax cuts to expire, the deficit commission, the deals with revolving-door industry shills like Billy Tauzin, the refusal to support equal rights where unpopular, the list goes on. As an establishment consensus builds and shifts the debate to the right, not only will "action" liberals vote on bills determined by the new reality, which "movement" liberals must do, they will also abandon rhetoric and positions that are at odds with that reality, which "movement" liberals do not do. Again, a "movement" liberal like Feingold will proudly hold up his vote on HCR, while an "action" liberal will flee from it as soon as the polls tell him to do so.

[NYC Liberal]

26. LOL, so basically almost all "movement liberals"

are perfect! They have the best of the "movement liberal" qualities AND the best of the "action liberal" qualities! But (according to your framing) there is NO such thing as an action liberal who also takes part in "movement" activities as well.

Well that's bullshit, utter bullshit. There are many so-called "action" liberals who participate in marches, go canvassing, phone bank, etc. Just look around on this site. Hell, look around anywhere. You're just defining the terms so that the people YOU like look good and the people you don't, don't.

The most popular pragmatic choice is to donate money and vote, and not to spend one's own time

No, the most popular pragmatic choice is to donate money, vote, phone bank, canvass, etc. Not to do all of one or the other.

Ben Nelson, Joe Liberman, or any of the Blue Dogs, are simply not pushing for progress; not by any measure you care to name. Yet they are largely considered, as moderates, among the most "pragmatic" denizens of Congress.

Bullshit they're considered "pragmatic." (Lieberman isn't a Democrat, btw.) Your mistake is interchanging the terms pragmatic and moderate. That is not always the case.

They are at the mercy of some "movement" types, who actually determine where the debate stands

If they're at the mercy of "movement liberals," why are they still voting the same way they always have?

"Action" liberals will decide to abandon liberal principles as the political winds blow.

Nope, this is precisely what "movement" liberals do. At least here on this website. One "wrong" vote and the person is a traitor, corporfascistdlcbluedogian. One wrong remark about one of their sacred cows and they get tossed under the bus by the "movement" types.

You can see this in the turmoil over allowing the tax cuts to expire, the deficit commission, the deals with revolving-door industry shills like Billy Tauzin, the refusal to support equal rights where unpopular, the list goes on.

ALL "action liberals" don't want the tax cuts to expire? ALL "action liberals" don't support equal rights where unpopular? Bullshit again.

As an establishment consensus builds and shifts the debate to the right, not only will "action" liberals vote on bills determined by the new reality, which "movement" liberals must do, they will also abandon rhetoric and positions that are at odds with that reality, which "movement" liberals do not do.

"Movement liberals" abandon principles (according to your framing) all the time. Feingold was only one of 8 Dems who voted FOR John Ashcroft's confirmation and also voted for John Roberts. I suppose there's a reason why you won't consider that "abandoning principles" by Feingold (but why it would be if, say, Obama did it).

[Arkana]

27. And yet if FDR and Johnson had remained "movement liberals",

Social Security and Medicare never would have existed.

It is grossly unfair to equate pragmatism automatically with being unprincipled, and the worst thing about this post is that you know this and are just posting to be snarky.

[charlie]

9. K & R

[Taverner]

10. Divide, and conquer. Divide, and conquer...

and so it goes...

[walldude]

18. Yeah, I wondered about this yesterday

when Skinner posted the same article. I'm starting to feel unwelcome here...

[Taverner]

19. Don't feel unwelcome - feel engaged

:)

[bemildred]

11. Yep, it's tripe. nt

[treestar]

12. I presume you don't consider the President, or the current Democratic nonbluedog Congress members

to be Movement Liberals? Or are you saying they are both?

[Rex]

13. Not so sure about D&C as it was just a bad choice of wording

to use two terms that mean the same thing. His thoughts on liberals OTOH, are silly nonsense. Liberals cannot be defined in two groups, that group is the GOP.

Repukes/GOP/Reagan & TeaBaggers/PNAC/Palin groupings.

[JVS]

14. This steaming heap of shit article sounds like it was plagiarized from another article from...

about a year ago.

[lunatica]

17. Thank you for this

Obviously Progessives are not easy to understand which makes total sense. Our reality is very different because we think of what's best for humanity first. We think of how to make the world a better place for everyone. I imagine it's impossible for self-centered thinkers to even try to understand.

[Catherina]

22. Rec'd. n/t

[TheKentuckian]

29. Too late to rec but the sentiment is there. The frame is bullshit and Alter is an

establishment stooge trying to spiff up his lack of principles and adoration of a broken and corrupt systems.