blatham wrote: Do you recall an earlier conversation regarding the functional necessity (for lack of better wording) of some radicalism in new movements? I'd guess it is really just bell curve stuff actually. But as with the feminist movement or the civil rights movement or the environmental movement, the more radical folks seem to serve as something like the sharp end of a spear.
Two objections: (1) the current wave of Democrats aren't a new movement. It's run of the mill trade union talking points, environmentalist talking points, affirmative action talking point. Whether those talking points are good and bad, none of them strikes me as new. Even the rebranding effort for those old talking points, which I notice on Air America and in some blogs, consists of abandoning the term "liberal" for "progressive". A new movement where even the re-branding is early 20th century? Please.
(2) Generally, when I look at various movements, I don't see the radicals being ahead of the curve. Mary Wollestonecraft is much more reasonable than Betty Friednan, William Godwin much more reasonable than Peter Kropotkin, Martin Luther King much more reasonable than Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Louis Farrakhan.