Abstract
Social movements with liberal roots seek to address human rights violations and anti-imperialism. These commitments have been challenged recently amid discussions on stopping mass atrocities. While many social movements protest military expansion and imperialism, some advocate for military force in cases of mass atrocities. This chapter examines the US movement responding to the conflict in Darfur, highlighting tensions in progressive political thinking. Blending social movement, human rights, and security studies, this chapter shows how two strains of left-wing thought circulated within the same movement, producing contention and ultimately a novel understanding of progressive politics. Using narrative analysis, I explore claims about military force and responses from other actors, revealing important dynamics and strategies for redefining progressivism. In this way, I offer new information on how progressive movements demand a pluralist reading to appreciate how they reconcile (or do not) different commitments while managing coalitions across diverse types of actors.