Accepting marginally better isn’t better in the long term. As Republicans shift to the right and Democrats are in lockstep behind them, ‘marginally better’ keeps shifting to the right too. That’s how we got into this mess.
Marginally better is better ifwe’re failing at the very first step of getting a progressive in via the primary or general election who would actually bring progress.
If we can’t muster real progress through a progressive then marginally better is progress or at least not an active slide backwards.
They could be the most progressive candidates to ever win. But if they challenge the status quo or ruffle too many feathers they will not be given any committee assignments that would threaten the system and will be primaried out of government. Reform is always a path towards failure
Your version of marginally better is how we went from a former president that builds homes for the homeless to a president denying a genocide they funded and provided weapons for. Incrementalism always faces right.
The race in this post was regarding a governor level seat at the state level. It’s a position which could apply a decent amount of pressure if there was a progressive elected to power.
If it’s a progressive running for a federal level seat in the House, like your comment is implying, then there is a more limited scope to what they can accomplish on their own if there are not more federally elected progressives to help boost their effectiveness. Even at the state level, it sounds like an issue of over promising and under-delivering which gets them voted out.
Reform is not always a path towards failure, just look at how much Mamdani is accomplishing for New York City residents for instance.
Also as opposed to what? The bare minimum is supporting candidates trying to better the system. You can do other important actions like trying to change the voting system to be RCV and you can try to get third parties off the ground as well at the same time.
We would have had that issue anyways, imo, as there are not enough progressive leaning people in the country that care to prevent those kinds of actions from being taken. Especially not when looking at how power in split in a country of 50 different states.
Accepting marginally better isn’t better in the long term. As Republicans shift to the right and Democrats are in lockstep behind them, ‘marginally better’ keeps shifting to the right too. That’s how we got into this mess.
Marginally better is better if we’re failing at the very first step of getting a progressive in via the primary or general election who would actually bring progress.
If we can’t muster real progress through a progressive then marginally better is progress or at least not an active slide backwards.
They could be the most progressive candidates to ever win. But if they challenge the status quo or ruffle too many feathers they will not be given any committee assignments that would threaten the system and will be primaried out of government. Reform is always a path towards failure
Your version of marginally better is how we went from a former president that builds homes for the homeless to a president denying a genocide they funded and provided weapons for. Incrementalism always faces right.
The race in this post was regarding a governor level seat at the state level. It’s a position which could apply a decent amount of pressure if there was a progressive elected to power.
If it’s a progressive running for a federal level seat in the House, like your comment is implying, then there is a more limited scope to what they can accomplish on their own if there are not more federally elected progressives to help boost their effectiveness. Even at the state level, it sounds like an issue of over promising and under-delivering which gets them voted out.
Reform is not always a path towards failure, just look at how much Mamdani is accomplishing for New York City residents for instance.
Also as opposed to what? The bare minimum is supporting candidates trying to better the system. You can do other important actions like trying to change the voting system to be RCV and you can try to get third parties off the ground as well at the same time.
We would have had that issue anyways, imo, as there are not enough progressive leaning people in the country that care to prevent those kinds of actions from being taken. Especially not when looking at how power in split in a country of 50 different states.