"Liberals" vs. "Movement Progressives"

Kos has been advocating that Michigan Democrats cross party lines in the state's upcoming primary and vote for Mitt Romney. The condensed version of the strategy is that Romney staying in the race is good for Dems. As part of his thought process on this, he offers a good contextual clarification between two groups that often oppose Republicans:

There are some concerned that this is "dirty tricks" and that we shouldn't "stoop to their level". This is perhaps the key difference between traditional liberals and movement progressives. The former believe that politics is a high-minded debate about ideas, the latter have seen movement conservatives use every tool at their disposal to steal power and cling to it. The problem is, politics matter, and so does the winner of elections. You can't bring a spork to a gun fight, because like Florida 2000, we lose every time. And while some may feel proud their personal ethics weren't compromised and that we "took the high road" through the recount battle, how many thousands of soldiers and Iraqis wish that Democrats had fought a little harder for Gore's victory?

There is one major difference between movement progressives and conservatives -- we won't cross the line into illegal behavior. But as long as we operate within legal boundaries, all's fair in politics. The stakes matter too much to unilaterally disarm.

On LiveJournal, there's a community, ljdemocrats, that is filled with "traditional liberals." The wailing and gnashing of teeth in there is an awful sound. But suggest going after the scum, and suddenly you're the bigger enemy. No, thanks, the last seven years have been enough.