Thanks
Thanks for the thoughtful post.
I don’t disagree with your arithmetic, or with the description of what is procedurally achievable in this Congress. Where I disagree is with the premise that legitimacy should be granted or reinforced simply because an institution is currently unavoidable. Some lines are not drawn because they can be enacted today, but because failing to draw them normalizes what should never be treated as acceptable. Reform can save lives in the short term, yes — but it can also entrench structures that are abusive by design and make deeper change harder, not easier, over time.
Rustin was right that movements need concrete demands, but he was writing in a period when institutions were expanding rights, not contracting them, and when legitimacy itself was not the central question. In moments like this, opposition is not a substitute for governing — it is a necessary precursor to any governing worth defending. I’m not confusing agitation with action; I’m arguing that without moral boundary-setting, action collapses into management of harm. What we choose to legitimize now shapes what becomes thinkable later, regardless of what passes this session.
History is full of moments where "what was achievable" preserved institutions that later proved catastrophic. The question isn’t whether reforms might save some lives now — it’s whether they entrench a structure that will take many more later. That’s the risk I’m naming.