Liberalism Is Only As Dead As Liberals Allow It To Be

Somewhere, buried deep inside of almost every liberal, there must be a not-so-deeply buried streak of masochism--or, at least, pessimism.  How else to explain the seeming popularity, or at least inevitability, of articles like this one?

For my part, I think that the pessimism, and perhaps even the masochism, stem from the fact that liberalism is a perpetual uphill battle in a society that perpetually clings to the familiar, no matter how repugnant the familiar is.  But liberals believe that, no matter how repugnant the present, pain and doubt are a price worth paying to ensure a better future for Americans.  Unfortunately, the pain and the doubt sometimes reach the point that leads some liberals to write articles like Adolph Reed, Jr.'s cover story in Harper's.

As for the article itself, its contents fall into an all-too-familiar category--the liberals-compromise-their-principles-too-much-by-focusing-on-elections-category.  It's a standard diatribe of those on the hard left, as it is to those on the hard right--the mistaken belief of zealots that American voters are especially impressed by purity.  Unfortunately, what voters are most impressed by are results--and you don't get results without winning elections and working with people who don't agree with everything you believe in.  And too, our system of government divides power in such a way so as to thwart unilateral change on a broad scale, and to promote consensus-building.  That ensures that change happens slowly--but, as this article points out, that doesn't mean that it can't or doesn't happen.

Unfortunately, while the Framers may have built us a "better mousetrap" for governing, we live in an age in which the other side of the political divide isn't interested in catching mice--or governing, for that matter.  They're mostly willing to allow themselves to be manipulated into doing nothing, the better to allow our corporate masters to treat all of us like mice.

So what are progressives to do?  Be purer, or be patient?  Like most either-or choices, it's a false one.

We mix purity with patience and pragmatism.  We focus on core principles, and take the time to relate them to the current needs and concerns of voters.  We listen, and respond to what we hear.  And then we organize, fundraise, and turn out voters without pause.

In short, we should take the advice of this article.  Because it's right:  everything's at stake.  And if we don't take its advice seriously, all of us will be trapped like mice.