I’d reply that anyone can justify any conclusion if they’re allowed to pick and choose the evidence under consideration. We should aim to produce a political theory that accounts for decades of history and change.

From the DNC’s perspective, going left lost against Nixon of all people, during a deeply unpopular war. Going left was crushed by Regan. Both Bush presidents won by attacking centrist candidates from the right. Clinton ran very centrist campaigns and won. Obama was at best more practical than ideological. Carter and Biden picked up the pieces of disasters, but that didn’t translate in to long term gains, and neither of them got credit for what wins they delivered the left.

I agree the DNC should go left, but I understand it’s hard to make the case based on the last 60 years of experience.

I too grew up in an era of action movies, where the good guy decisively self-defenses the bad guy to death, saves the world, goes home and has marital relations with the prom queen. It’s a powerful story, but ultimately it’s just a story.

Peaceful resistance does work, but there isn’t a single event that achieves change. It has to be an accumulation.

Rosa Park’s arrest didn’t achieve anything “in terms of change”.

Ghandi’s protest fasts didn’t achieve anything “in terms of change”.

When the Baltics had their singing revolutions, there wasn’t a single performance that achieved anything “in terms of change”.

All these were parts of larger efforts of peaceful resistance that culminated in change.

What did Cory Booker’s speech achieve? It’s too early to say. It’s possible it will be part of an accumulation that culminates in measurable results. On the other hand, it’s possible cynicism will poison the resistance and it will achieve nothing. We’ll only know once the history is written.