A recent diarist raised an important issue of strategy concerning Moveon.
see http://www.dailykos.com/...
He felt that Moveon's focus on Iraq might be lacking, to put it mildly, yet found no evidence that Moveon members he encountered had debated, dialogued or even discussed this issue. Apparently they had not, that is to say, decided agonizingly to soft-pedal focus on Iraq (for now) in favor of better strategies for transforming the Democratic Party into a political party committed to furthering a truly progressive agenda.
Is it possible that Moveon organizers may still think they have to play it safe? If so, this is a mistake, I feel. They must neither accept nor reject strategies based upon the DLC's opinions. Most important, I would suggest that Moveon may need to define a strategy for strategizing that maximizes membership input, good thinking and Moveon's independence of the manipulations of Power. Let me suggest the following: No strategy shall be adopted until the underlying rationale for it is exhaustively discussed and debated. Once activated, a strategy's consequences must receive similar scrutiny, resulting in a new round of theorizing and acting. The term for this process is
praxis.
The first to define praxis was Karl Marx, but I prefer Paolo Freiri's definition in Pedagogy of the Oppressed, which conveys all that I understand Marx to have meant, but more eloquently:
"Praxis is a complex activity by which individuals create culture and society, and become critically conscious human beings. Praxis comprises a cycle of action-reflection-action which is central to liberatory education. Characteristics of praxis include self-determination (as opposed to coercion), intentionality (as opposed to reaction), creativity (as opposed to homogeneity), and rationality (as opposed to chance").
Not everyone on the Left agrees that praxis is necessary for effective strategizing (the Right rejects it out of hand). Some anarchists consider it just another form of esoteric intellectualism. On the other hand, praxis feels like precisely what Armstrong and Zuniga recommend in Crashing the Gates when they insist that strategizing to get the right Democrats in office must trump any single interest group's goals. Only one common ideology need be shared by those involved, they indicate: commitment to people rather than to elites.
When I search Kos for diaries concerned with questions of organization and strategy I find many focused on getting particular candidates elected, a few about Democrats' failures at strategizing, a few about how Republicans strategize, but virtually none concerned with how to create a process likely to generate good strategy. This includes the few diaries that use praxis as a keyword. I can't deny that I have refrained from using praxis as a keyword in my own diaries, fearing to appear remote, but I intend to from now on, when appropriate, and hope that others might do the same.