The difference is being able to tell from one’s imagination, and one’s capability. It’s the same as how people have come to assume ‘potential’ and ‘actual’ mean the same thing. They’re not, and believing that they are is how we ended up here. Because at a the end of this path, lies the mindset that good is the enemy of perfect.
My point is that we haven’t had good candidates as evidence by their losing. When we actually do have a good candidate that wins we are suddenly the idealists that aren’t practical, as if winning power (in spite of both political establishments) is something other than an act of pragmatism.
And my point is- we don’t know if he’s good. So far he’s said a lot of good things. That’s it. Hopefully he can make it happen, but a big part of the problem we’re having here is there’s an entire group of disillusioned people that think any untested wet-behind-the-ears candidate is our only hope. This is where idealism is being faulted. Because the question to ask is:
At what point is “not Trump” worse than “not a democrat”?
Both are based on an absence of what we dislike, yet neither are based on any amount of things we do.
Those that voted against the fascist did the right thing. They took the best of the worst situation and ran with it without looking back, where if they did- all they’d see is a bunch of disillusioned idealist’s middle finger.
It is silly to think we can’t learn lessons on how Mamdani won because he hasn’t exercised the office yet. This isn’t about how you did that right thing and voted against fascism that one time. This is about winning power, and if that is too idealist for you then I don’t know what else to say other than I’ll see you on the campaign trail.
The difference is being able to tell from one’s imagination, and one’s capability. It’s the same as how people have come to assume ‘potential’ and ‘actual’ mean the same thing. They’re not, and believing that they are is how we ended up here. Because at a the end of this path, lies the mindset that good is the enemy of perfect.
My point is that we haven’t had good candidates as evidence by their losing. When we actually do have a good candidate that wins we are suddenly the idealists that aren’t practical, as if winning power (in spite of both political establishments) is something other than an act of pragmatism.
And my point is- we don’t know if he’s good. So far he’s said a lot of good things. That’s it. Hopefully he can make it happen, but a big part of the problem we’re having here is there’s an entire group of disillusioned people that think any untested wet-behind-the-ears candidate is our only hope. This is where idealism is being faulted. Because the question to ask is:
At what point is “not Trump” worse than “not a democrat”?
Both are based on an absence of what we dislike, yet neither are based on any amount of things we do.
Those that voted against the fascist did the right thing. They took the best of the worst situation and ran with it without looking back, where if they did- all they’d see is a bunch of disillusioned idealist’s middle finger.
It is silly to think we can’t learn lessons on how Mamdani won because he hasn’t exercised the office yet. This isn’t about how you did that right thing and voted against fascism that one time. This is about winning power, and if that is too idealist for you then I don’t know what else to say other than I’ll see you on the campaign trail.
He’s a politician let’s see if he actually does anything. You must be young with your blind faith in politicians.