Active passivism

The legend goes that Gandhi when asked about passive non-violence responded that he does not call for "passive" anything, but rather active non-violence. The netroots, perhaps because they are easily embarrassed by such plainly-spoken pap, seem to choose the more sophisticated approach of active passivism (how else can one describe the timid pragmatism of placing all of one's eggs -- i,e., "activism" -- in the Democratic Party?)! So we hear from Chris Bowers (MyDD :: Democrats, Activists and Ending the War):

Direct Activism. There is already a decent amount being done on this front, including mass protests, the "virtual march," and occupying offices. In my opinion, however, virtually all of this will be unsuccessful either in pressuring Democrats to do more or in convincing the progressive base that not enough is being done, unless it is tied to a single legislative plan of attack. What I mean is that this activism needs to be geared toward pressuring reps to pass the Murtha plan, and to rewrite the AUMF. If the direct activism is out of synch with the legislative drift, it is hard to see how the former can impact the latter.



One problem with this is that dramatic activism, such as occupying congressional offices, does not tend to be done on behalf of gradualist policy, such as rewriting the AUMF or the Murtha plan. I actually got into an argument about this with someone as Dailykos yesterday, who was arguing on behalf of occupying congressional offices but simultaneously arguing against the Murtha plan because it didn't go far enough. It strikes me as self-defeating for anti-war activists to engage in activism opposing a plan to end the war. My dream would be direct activism of all sorts targeted against Democratic members of Congress who are not supporting Murtha's plan and / or the rewrite of the AUMF. However, I am not particularly confident that is going to happen.



I also worry that one of the reasons the left does not want to engage in activism on behalf of the gradualist plans to end the war is because, in the event that the plans fail to pass, they don't want to be tarnished with those failures themselves. Better to be tagged with a plan that occupies the moral highground but that never had any chance of passing, than with a compromise plan that had a real chance to pass but did not.

To summarise:

• Impacting "legislative drift" is the primary goal and all activism needs to be tied into "pressuring reps" towards this goal, in particular this goal identified by a single proposal.
• Anything else is "dramatic", not just direct. A "gradualist policy" is the vehicle of choice and a particular plan is the expression of that.
• The impulse to engage in any activism other t han the prescribed one, gradualism, is mere righteousness, as opposed to the allegedly feasible gradualist goals.

There is a way out of this self-inflicted wordsmithing paradox. If your conclusions seem more self-serving than accurate, its possibly that your assumptions are wrong. For example, the goal of direct activism can be anti-war without having to support a particular anti-war plan. It is the assumption of the supremacy of gradualism that creates the perceived conflict between direct activism and opposition to a particular gradualist plan. Similarly, it is not righteousness (the desire to occupy a moral high-ground) that necessarily motivates such activism. Instead, it could be the realisation of the limits, if not futility, of active passivism or gradualism. After all, gradualism has not, by the author's own admission (and search for a suitable tactic in the post under question), met with much success in this matter.



That the vaunted compromises of gradualism are unsatisfactory is reflected in the laments on the lack of attention from the party machine to the base, and the desire to somehow end "the grace period".



Chris Bowers writes (in the same piece):

However, I am not particularly confident that is going to happen.

And that is the crippling limitation of the espoused gradualism. We are advised to finesse our way towards our ultimate goals, but as LeftItch folk wisdom goes, nobody ever finessed their wanking into real sex (though in this case, perhaps the opposite is true, for the Democrats have made a hobby out of fucking the base over). We are leftists! The probability that anything worthwhile that we desire is going to come about, at the time of conception of our goal, is quite slim. What makes it happen is our activism, and what fuels that is the strength we draw from our "moral high ground". What gives us confidence that something might happen is the efforts of those who acted before us when there was not much confidence regarding the same effect. Or as the guy said, black people didn't get the right to vote by voting. Well, I have drifted a bit, I am afraid. So be it.