New terminally online archetype just dropped: the Peripheral Progressive. You won’t find them door knocking, participating in legitimate political activity or lobbying for concrete policy changes. No, the Peripheral Progressive is a different animal altogether. They thrive by taking the moral high ground rather than achieving practical results.
Whatever it is, they’re against it.
By maintaining a position on the far left of the political spectrum - no matter what that is - Peripheral Progressives can claim a purity of ideology uncompromised by the realities of governance. They can point to anyone who falls short of their ideal and declare them “Simps for the War Machine.” It’s a position allows them to play the perpetual critic, never risking the possibility of being wrong because they never have to prove their ideas right.
They're the political equivalent of that one friend who's always into fringe music and hates any artist who goes viral. They've got all the answers, as long as nobody asks them to actually do anything. Every policy that doesn't match their utopian wet dream gets branded as a "betrayal of true progressive values."
It's a neat trick, really.
By staying so far left they're practically falling off the edge, they've given themselves a golden ticket to Criticize Everything Land. It's a sweet gig if you can get it. Never have to prove you're right, never have to risk being wrong. Just sit back, point fingers, and bask in the glow of your own imagined righteousness.
Not to mention, there's social capital to consider. In certain circles, particularly in academic and artistic communities, there's significant prestige attached to being the most progressive voice in the room. It's a form of competitive virtue signaling, where the prize goes to whoever can articulate the most radical critique of the status quo. This dynamic creates a perverse incentive structure where pragmatism is punished and impractical idealism is rewarded.
The gold medal goes to whoever can come up with the most batshit crazy critique of society. "Oh, you think capitalism is bad? Well, I think the concept of linear time is a tool of the patriarchy!" Congratu-fucking-lations, you've just won tonight's round of "Who's the Most Enlightened Asshole?"
Suddenly, having practical ideas that might actually work is like farting in church. But spout some pie-in-the-sky bullshit that has zero chance of happening in the real world? Break out the champagne, folks! We've got ourselves a true visionary!
But perhaps the most powerful incentive is the avoidance of responsibility. By remaining on the periphery, these progressives never have to grapple with the complex trade-offs and compromises that come with actual governance. They can maintain the comforting illusion that if only their pure vision were implemented, all societal ills would be cured. It's a position that offers all of the moral satisfaction of political engagement with none of the frustration or potential for failure that comes with trying to effect change within the system.
Moral purity itself is not a new phenomenon. Throughout history, there have always been ideological purists who prefer the role of critic to that of architect. What's new is the amplification of these voices through social media and the increasing polarization of our political discourse, which has created fertile ground for this type of peripheral progressivism to flourish.
Consider healthcare reform in the United States. When the Affordable Care Act was passed in 2010, it represented the most significant expansion of healthcare coverage in generations. Yet, a vocal contingent on the left criticized it as a half-measure, arguing that anything short of a single-payer system was a capitulation to corporate interests. While there's certainly room for debate about the merits of different healthcare models, this all-or-nothing approach ignores the very real benefits that millions of Americans gained from the ACA.
This pattern repeats across a range of issues. Climate change legislation is criticized for not going far enough. Economic reforms are dismissed as band-aids on a fundamentally broken system. Any compromise is seen as a betrayal rather than a step in the right direction.
And just when you thought the Peripheral Progressives couldn't get any more insufferable, they've found a new target for their circular firing squad: Kamala Harris.
The first woman, first Black person, and first person of South Asian descent to become Vice President of the United States, now the Democratic Candidate for 2024.
You'd think they'd be throwing a goddamn parade, right?
Wrong.
Instead, they're sharpening their pitchforks and preparing for an all-out assault on her potential 2024 candidacy. Why? Because she's not progressive enough.
The Peripheral Progressives are nitpicking every decision she's ever made, every vote she's ever cast, with the kind of obsessive detail usually reserved for conspiracy theorists and stalkers.
"She was a prosecutor!" they wail, as if working within the system to change it is some kind of cardinal sin.
While they're busy crucifying Harris for not being the second coming of Eugene V. Debs, they're completely ignoring the very real threat of the alternative.
The sad irony is that by attacking Harris, these self-proclaimed progressives are doing the opposition's job for them. They're so busy trying to out-do each other that they're practically gift-wrapping ammunition for the right. It's political cannibalism at its finest, folks.
And let's not even get started on the implicit bias in all of this. The fact that a woman of color is being held to impossibly high standards? Color me fucking shocked. It's almost like there's a pattern here, but pointing that out might disrupt the purity party.
The reality these Peripheral Progressives seem hellbent on ignoring is that politics is messy. It's complicated. It requires compromise and coalition-building. But acknowledging that would mean giving up their comfortable spot on the sidelines where they can lob critiques without ever having to get their hands dirty.
Politics, by its very nature, is the art of the possible. The Peripheral Progressive, ensconced in their ideological purity, fails to recognize that the perfect can be the enemy of the good.
This is not to say that we should abandon ambitious goals or stop pushing for transformative change. Far from it. The progressive movement has been a vital force in politics, driving conversations and shifting the Overton window on crucial issues. But there's a difference between advocating for bold ideas and refusing to engage with the reality of implementation. A reality that can only be met through pragmatism.
"Pragmatic progressivism" gets treated like a dirty concept. It’s an approach that maintains ambitious goals but couples them with a willingness to engage in the incremental work of change. It recognizes that progress comes in fits and starts, that compromise is not capitulation, and that being in the arena is more effective than shouting from the sidelines.
This requires a certain intellectual humility. It means being open to the possibility that one's ideas might be wrong or incomplete. It means being willing to learn from those with different perspectives and experiences. And it means being able to celebrate progress, even when it falls short of the ideal.
The challenge for the progressive movement is to find a way to harness the passion and idealism of its base while also developing the pragmatic skills necessary to effect real change. This isn't about abandoning principles, but about finding effective ways to put those principles into practice.
The true measure of progressivism is not the boldness of its vision, it’s the concrete improvements it brings to people's lives. Healthcare expanded, rights protected, opportunities created. These are the fruits of engagement, of the willingness to step out of the periphery and into the arena of action.
The Peripheral Progressive may enjoy the moral high ground, but it's the pragmatist who has the potential to reshape the landscape. As we face the enormous challenges of our time – from climate change to economic inequality to systemic racism – we need a progressivism that's not content to critique from the sidelines, but one that's ready to roll up its sleeves and get to work.
The choice is clear: we can remain in the comfort of the self-righteous periphery, or we can embrace the messy, frustrating, but ultimately rewarding work of turning progressive ideals into progressive realities. The future of the movement – and indeed, the future of our society – may well depend on which path we choose.
