Being "realistic" doesn't mean forever giving up on anything beyond increments.

[Ken Burch]

Look, we all know that in some situations there are only partial victories. Sometimes an increment is all you can manage.

But that doesn't mean we have to work on the assumption that, for the rest of eternity, we can never even propose anything beyond small changes, or that we should be dismissive about anything more visionary than increments.

A party like ours can only survive if it has space for dreams.

And we can be realistic without being dismissive.

[JHan]

1. who is arguing this?

SIGH

[Ken Burch]

2. There have been all these threads emphasizing the need to be "realistic" this week.

That's the implication behind those threads-they imply that a lot of people are pushing for the adoption of an undiluted utopian agenda by this party, and that isn't happening.


We all know that, at least until 2020, we're fighting defensive battles on the federal level.

[JHan]

3. I haven't read into those threads that single payer or UHC Is impossible..

Incrementalism gets us where we want to be in stable progressive steps - a goal is implied there because steps take you to some where - in this case Universal Health Care. Some may not care for a cautious approach but both sides agree on the final goal - so the question is not the dream, it's how to attain the dream ( whether "quickly" , or cautiously EDIT - or pragmatically )

[shanny]

5. sorry

when the house is burning down, you don't incrementally introduce flame retardant and fire hoses

and yeah, the house is burning down. if it weren't tRump wouldn't be sitting on his pimply butt in the WH

[guillaumeb]

4. Agreed. "NO WE CAN'T" is certainly not a winning electoral slogan.

What is considered realistic depends on the situation, but if we decide in advance that nothing significant can be done than we will do nothing significant.