The argument in this piece by @maxbsawicky seems to be that, because there are obstacles to the most ethical and logically sound policy, we shouldn’t push for it. I heard this argument a lot when I worked in DC policy and have never found it coherent. https://inthesetimes.com/article/means-test-tax-credit-eitc-child-tax-credit-social-security-insurance-basic-income
I’m a big proponent of the safety net and the good it does but our choices are not “pretend our current safety net programs are the best approach” and “lose the safety net.” We can defend what we have from attacks without arguing against things that would clearly be much better!
Yes, social justice advocates are up against major obstacles. But part of the reason progressives lose a lot is that progressives negotiate with themselves. People with privilege-defending politics win more because they actually advocate hard and fight for what they want.
One great counterexample to this argument is the #FightFor15, which has been one of the most successful movements of the past decade. It was not a remotely defensive strategy and was considered a pipe dream by pretty much every “serious” Democratic policy wonk in DC back in 2012.
This allegation is absurd. The #FightFor15, for example, has secured numerous meaningful, incremental reforms - by demanding the change workers actually need and deserve. They don’t tout partial victories as good enough. They celebrate them while reiterating their demands.
You don’t win fights by preemptively conceding. It is truly bizarre to me that a number of smart, well-intentioned policy people have convinced themselves that you do.
You can follow @BenSpielberg.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: