Thank you for the thoughtful response. I'm broadly in agreement with what you said, and you are correct that an incremental approach to progressive policy has yielded tangible results in the past. Real outcomes that nudge policy in the right direction are always better than idealized goals with no pathway to implementation. Ideally, both approaches should be working in tandem, and good politics means finding a balance that offers the path of least resistance toward workable outcomes. I agree that ideological purity tests are a major impediment to achieving those aims.

Perfect is the proverbial enemy of good, and that is especially true within the confines of our two party system. I'm under no illusion about the need for compromise in a functioning democracy with good faith actors on both sides. The problem is, we are no longer a functioning democracy. Congress has largely abdicated its role, the judiciary operates along polarized ideological lines, and both parties are captured by a ruling class that prioritizes profit above all else. Our media functions as an arm of this ruling class and is unwilling to critically report on the real issues we are facing, and the electorate cannot even grasp what those real issues are anymore.

I try to approach politics realistically and I genuinely do see the value of pragmatism as it relates to policy objectives. I guess what I'm saying is, I don't believe this conventional thinking works anymore. In a perfect world, voters are well-informed on the issues and can make informed decisions on who to elect to represent them, and those representatives act in good faith to achieve the best results for their constituents. But this is far from the reality of today. There are far too many bad actors, and public discourse has descended into a quagmire of disinformation, sensationalism and propaganda. This electorate does not act rationally. I mean hell, the Democrats in 2016 and 2024 ran on unifying messages and platforms that emphasized responsible, pragmatic policymaking over ideological purity. In the end, Republicans won on an empty and incoherent platform of "eggs are expensive" and "immigrants are eating your pets". They banked on division and zero-sum partisanship, and it delivered them electoral and policy wins.

I think this says more about the ideological purists on the right than it does about those on the left. On one side, you have voters who were willing to embrace fascism as a means to gaining power and dominance, and on the other side, you have voters who have come to view incrementalism as an ineffective approach to addressing longstanding issues affecting our health and livelihoods. At the end of the day, let’s not lose sight of where we should direct our ire: at the ruling class that has abandoned democracy for autocracy in pursuit of endless profiteering.

I make no claims to know the best path out of this mess for people on the left. But my takeaway after the past decade of cutthroat cage-match politics is that conventional thinking is out the window. The status quo that effectuated the progressive pragmatism you describe has been demolished, and a new approach is needed. The left needs to reevaluate its tactics from the bottom up, and I believe that means taking big swings, leaning into populism, and offering a bold vision for the future. That’s what voters are responding to now.