Guns, Purity, and Compromise

If progressives are ever to enact meaningful gun control, we have to do so lightly, or we’ll never win. Those are just the facts on the ground. And the same applies to all of our policies.

A “pro-life” liberal in a southern seat is preferable to a “pro-life” conservative. A “pro-gun” liberal in a rural western district is preferable to a conservative who has the same blind faith in the second amendment.

Why? Because a “pro-life” liberal in the south can still be a “pro-worker, pro-environment, and pro-universal health care” activist in a key role of lawmaking. That can’t be said of the “pro-life” conservative.

If progressives are ever to achieve our “Blue Wave” dreams of taking back congress in the next round of elections, we have to be realistic. A perfectly pure, azure liberal standard of policy-making simply cannot be applied like a cookie-cutter solution to every race. It can’t even be done district to district, or county to county, or city to town.

Our two-party political platform is like a huge, ugly, dirty old chess game where you have to sacrifice a pawn or two in order to get the queen. Incremental progress is better, and more likely, than landslide victories.

We may well achieve our “Blue Wave” dreams in 2018 and 2020, but it ain’t gonna happen if we only run liberals so perfectly blue that they shit grapes.

The liberal who takes San Francisco will never have San Antonio. The liberal who takes Boulder will never take Colorado Springs…however…there are “mostly liberal” candidates on the interstices who very well might.

It’s vital that we stop our infighting and realized that a “one size fits all” Democrat will never be the solution.