Friedersdorf has noticed that many "hard core progressives" and "movement conservatives" think that "their ideology would prevail more often if only their partisans were more angry, their attacks more pointed, their operatives more ruthless." He thinks this mistaken:

Lots of hard core progressives and movement conservatives are wrong: Political and ideological gains don't come from being best at smashing faces through plate glass windows or winning news cycles or employing the most extreme rhetoric. Perhaps you disagree with some of the examples I used. These are contentious issues. Overall, however, I hope you'll agree that the subset of people who treat politics as guerrilla warfare have a terrible win-loss record, and a warped, wrongheaded view of how winning in politics is done. I don't really know if one side of the political spectrum or the other engages in this kind of nonsense more often, but this isn't an argument about which side is worse, its an observation that some people on both sides are operating on a faulty premise.

Disagree? Have counterexamples? I'd like to hear them.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.