Philosophical Productive Discussion

[Megamandrn001]

In a democracy, which of the following positions do you actually think gets closer to the end goal of progressive change that you want?
Pragmatic realpolitik and compromising where you have to in order to make tiny steps forward
Recalcitrant ideological positioning, where you would rather have nothing than water down what you want (which is coincidentally the end goal of the people who hate the very principle of the change you want to make)

Niether gets closer to it, it's a trick question. In a Democracy, you must have at least two opposing positions that nevertheless are participating in good faith. America has never had this, so you can never compromise to get what you want. Even if you could, the right wing destroys progressivism faster than compromise and incremental change could ever create, and this is why the Democratic party is, and always will be unless pressed by force, useless for actual positive change. If the Democratic party was capable in any way, shape or form of making the country better, they would have by now, but they have not. Republicans have largely attained all the goals they set out to achieve around the time Reagan was elected, but Democrats are still eternally on step one of... well, any issue they're supposed to be behind. Change will come from the direct and collective action of the people in various forms, not a party.

Okay, so let's just test this thesis quickly on a broad level;
Let's concede that in a democracy, any given minority voting only in that minorities interests is at a disadvantage, because a majority vote will always win.
Lets take gay people as an example, with ~10% of the population.

Is a typical gay man worse off, better off, or about the same today as a typical gay man in 2000?
In 1975?
In 1950?
Feel free to use any test of 'better / worse / the same' you choose in terms of the ability to pursue happiness: financial, social, legal, medical, educational.

Is your assumption that any gains this minority group has made is due to a political party that listened to constituents and passed laws/regulations/what have you during the natural course of operating the democratic machine?

Because this is not the case. Every civil rights gain in America has been due to activists fighting and putting outside pressure on a party, until the party either had no choice but to bend, or said activism made the aforementioned civil rights gain politically advantageous.