I read Michael Tomasky’s piece in the New Republic up to this point:
It has been observed that today’s conservative movement, to use the old Leninist vernacular, is a “vanguardist†movement. The word referred to the revolutionary party, the one that was going to make the revolution happen. (Its weak-kneed counterparts were the “spontaneists,†who were going to sit around and wait for it to happen, being alert to the moment.) Some conservatives welcomed the comparison. In Blinded by the Right, David Brock reports that Grover Norquist had a portrait of Lenin in his home.
A movement intent on hastening the revolution develops certain habits of mind. It has enemies, to be sure. But it knows that it’s an embattled minority, so it welcomes new recruits, as long as they agree on some basic principles. That’s why every liberal who abandons liberalism to join the right—from the Irving Kristol neocons of days gone by, to David Mamet and Donald Trump—is joyously embraced. So you’ve finally seen the light! Welcome!
American liberalism is, of necessity, anti-vanguardist.
He’s dreaming. While I’m glad that he’s discovered vanguardism since it explains so much of what’s happening today, American progressivism is nothing if not vanguardist. Unless he plans to excommunicate Hillary Clinton.
I wonder if Tomasky understands what happened to Lenin’s vanguard in the two decades following the revolution.