I would see myself as a Rational Progressive, although a pessimistic, cynical, and action-oriented one.

The identification of Rational Progressives as "outcome-oriented", while Radical Progressives are "process-oriented" also seems wrong.

Pragmatistic rationalists ("It doesn't matter whether the cat is black or white, so long as it catches mice") also like "Crossing the river by feeling for stones". This captures the need for:
defining outcomes -- get to the other side of the river,
setting forth plans -- step from one stone to the other, and
competent execution -- feel for the stone, whether is slippery, will tend to roll, etc, and adjust accordingly.

Hopefully, the Obama administration is taking that approach.

Note that the characteristics of Radical Progressivism would also apply to Radical Conservativism, and pretty well fit the Bush adminstration and the current Congressional GOP.

This might lead one to believe that there are two political wings, Radical Progressives and Radical Conservatives, with a unified political middle, consisting of the Rational Progressives and Conservatives.

This would be wrong, since the Progressive and Conservative divide is based on other principles, such as "believes in equality of opportunity for all" versus "believes in absolute right to inheirit, acquire and dispose of property".

a suggestion - post it on TPMDC as well as Café.

Personally I am a combination of both but predominantly 'Radical'. I would probably be a 'Rational' if the ideology of the other end of the political spectrum was that also. But since it isn't it has to be confrontational struggle.

To the question that finished the post I see Nate trying to synthesize something complex in nature down into something simpler. Until the 'liberals' can get people to the far left like me under control and the 'conservatives' can get their far right under control I think our governing dynamics will remain status quo...confrontational. A point that can be made is that the 'conservatives' have purged many moderates from the Republican Party and now the party's 'mainstream' has been reduced to their far extreme right wing. While I might be open to some sort of compromise with rational conservatives there don't seem to be many remaining so I don't see no choice for me but to continue to be a progressive 'radical'. When the other side only respects and responds to application of power in terms of resolution then there is no choice but to respond in kind.

Silver's analysis is typical middle class, liberal intellectual stuff. Not much orginal and only partly accurate.

Take just one wholly subjective distinction the author makes about rational and radical progressives and you can see why this analysis does little to shed light. To say that "rational" progressives (read people who agree with the author's point of view) are outcome oriented and "radical" progressives are Process oriented is a matter of opinion pure and simple. This sort of categorizing and labeling is a waste of time at best and counterproductive at times. The "rational" progressives are really only progressive as long as it doesn't cost the rational progressive anything or doesn't really challenge the status quo in a substantive way.

You have two kinds of progressives: the kind who think we need to tweak our system around the edges so it works better and the kind who think we need a far more comprehensive approach up to and including significantly restructuring the power and income distribution in society (some might say the two are synonymous). Without such a comprehensive restructuring, let's call it something like "A New Deal" all the tweaking in the world doesn't do much other than perpetute the inequalities and problems we are experiencing in the present.

In America, being passionate about a political objective or outcome is viewed by most in the intellectual classes as being bad form and so they typically prefer the ideas of the radicals but the methods of the "rationals". This passion is labeled as a tendency toward demagoguery by the author. Again, nothing but a personal preference masquerading as an objective identification of behavior. The radicals are actually willing to "do" something about the fundamental problems we face in our country as opposed to just trying to make them more bearable for the miserable millions unlucky enough not to be born into an affluent family.

This could explain why the "rational" intellectuals are usually quite ineffective on the political left and their supposed orientation toward outcomes is rarely noticed. There are, on the other hand, the "radicals" like Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Barry Commoner, Seymour Melman and that sort who do more than write papers with varying policy models. These radicals actually advocate that normal people actually do something to change the system and to take the power they have in our system and use it to force change. After all, it is the common people who are always the ones who bear the brunt of the inequities and injustices of our system. These radicals actually join the great unwashed in these actions and that makes our friends the "rational" (I like to think of them as "tame") progressives very uncomfortable indeed.

In contrast, the "rationals" typically sit in their offices and write a piece now and then for the consumption of government officials who they like to get to know or appear on a talk show to provide their august analysisof this or that situation, but they mostly have vigorous debates within their departments or think tanks that mean nothing, risk nothing personal for the debaters, provide no role for the people outside of the usual policy process which is clearly rigged against the common people and these vigorous debates also serve to puff up the egos of those participating.

The most important difference between the radicals and the "rationals" is that the radicals are not only advocating a position, they are for taking action up to and including mass actions on the part of the population. They actually believe that when you look at the past you can clearly see that it is only when the people themselves rise up to act does any system begin to take actions that even resemble change. Frederick Douglass didn't say the following just because he thought it was pithy and interesting: "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never has and it never will."

Most "rational" progressive intelletuals in America view this negatively because it means you actually have to "do" something about your beliefs. They criticize the people who stick their necks out and they complain but take no action themselves often making the excuse that their roles as acadmics/writers/thinkers precludes them from doing such things because then they will lose their objectivity or something lame along those lines.

Some people complain about unjust wars, others organize to try and stop them or at least challenge the state that is conducting them. Some complain and disapprove of discrimination, others organize against discrimination and take action. Some, being materially comfortable see no reason to go "too far" in doing something to help those who are not materially comfortable. Others are not satisfied that they themselves are living well, their beliefs obligate them to do something--to act to help those who are not doing so well simply because they have been born into a class that is not favored or priveleged.

Radicals want substantive change. The "rationals" don't really want substantive change at all. They like the status quo and want to make a little tweak here and there so they don't feel so uncomfortable about their own privelege, but that doesn't upset the apple cart all that much.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/02/sound-and-fury-signifying-what-exactly.html

You might be interested to see his follow-up thoughts in response to various responses he got (specifically Sirota and one other).

I think a balance of Idea and Will is a pragmatic good.

Thanks for you comments!