Reply #16: Sure

[jpgray]

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.