The Rio Stanton Report

Tag: Progressive ideas

  • Political Courage and the Question of What Is “Realistic”

    Political Courage and the Question of What Is “Realistic”

    One of the more puzzling arguments I have seen on social media comes from people (ADOS and FBA) who dismiss policies like universal healthcare, tuition-free public college, or a living wage as unrealistic “pie-in-the-sky” ideas, while simultaneously insisting that reparations for slavery and Jim Crow should be a major policy priority.

    This contradiction became especially visible during the 2020 Democratic primary when people attacked Bernie Sanders’ supporters online. I posted a Bernie “Infinity Gauntlet” meme referencing several progressive policy goals, and the response from some critics was predictable: comments about how those policies were impossible, along with sarcastic questions like “Where is the reparations stone?”

    But that criticism raises a serious question.

    If policies that benefit tens of millions of Americans—things like universal healthcare or free public college—are supposedly too politically difficult to achieve, what does that say about the political chances of reparations?

    A $15 minimum wage benefits workers across racial lines. Universal healthcare benefits everyone who needs medical care. Free public college benefits families nationwide.

    Reparations, by definition, address a specific historical injustice and would primarily benefit the descendants of enslaved people. That makes it politically even more challenging within the current American political system.

    This is not an argument against reparations. I support the idea of reparative policies for the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.

    The point is about political honesty.

    If a politician tells voters that universal healthcare or a Green New Deal is unrealistic while simultaneously promising to pursue reparations, it is reasonable to question whether that promise is sincere or simply a form of political pandering.

    Real political change rarely begins with cautious, incremental thinking. It begins with bold proposals that shift the boundaries of what people believe is possible.

    Abolitionists were once told that ending slavery was unrealistic. Civil rights leaders were told that full legal equality was politically impossible. Major social reforms, from labor rights to voting rights, often began as ideas that the political establishment dismissed as radical.

    Not every bold proposal becomes law immediately. In fact, many fail in the short term.

    However, political movements often start by pushing ideas that expand the horizon of what people are willing to imagine.

    That is why the debate about “realistic” politics matters.

    If political leaders only pursue policies that the existing power structure already accepts, meaningful change rarely happens. Progress usually comes from those willing to challenge the limits of what the political establishment considers possible.

    If universal healthcare, free-college tuition, and other progressive campaign promises and goals are unrealistic, then so is the possibility of America paying the debt that it owes Black Americans.

    Whether one supports Bernie Sanders or not, that broader principle remains true.

    Political courage has always been the starting point for major social change.

  • The Myth That Progressive Ideas Are “Too Radical”

    The Myth That Progressive Ideas Are “Too Radical”

    For years, progressives have been told that our ideas are “too radical” for American voters.

    Apparently, wanting things like:

    • police accountability when unarmed citizens are killed
    • wages that working people can actually live on
    • tuition-free public college
    • universal healthcare
    • serious action on climate change
    • investment in social services instead of endless militarization
    • stronger labor protections and workers’ rights

    …is supposed to be political extremism.

    But here’s the strange part: when these ideas are polled individually, they often receive majority support among the American public, including significant support from voters who identify as independents or even Republicans.

    So if the policies themselves are popular, why do political strategists keep insisting that progressive politics is the problem?

    Too often, Democratic leadership responds to electoral setbacks by blaming the left. We observed this after the 2016 election and again after the disappointing election cycles that failed to produce a victory for the Democrats in 2024.

    However, that explanation overlooks a more fundamental issue with their messaging to voters.

    For decades, Democratic campaigns have frequently tried to position themselves in the political center, appealing to moderate Republican voters and emphasizing bipartisanship. The problem is that this strategy often yields campaigns based on vague platitudes rather than specific, tangible promises.

    “Reaching across the aisle” may sound noble in theory, but it rarely inspires voters who are struggling with stagnant wages, rising healthcare costs, student debt, and unaffordable childcare.

    Concrete policies do inspire people.

    Free public college would dramatically expand opportunities for working-class families. Universal healthcare would provide security to millions of Americans dealing with rising medical costs. A workers’ bill of rights guaranteeing living wages, overtime protections, paid leave, and fair labor standards would materially improve the lives of millions.

    These are not fringe ideas. Versions of them already exist throughout much of the developed world.

    Yet in American political discourse, these proposals are frequently labeled “socialist” or “radical.”

    The reality is that progressive politicians who campaign clearly on economic issues often generate enthusiasm among voters who feel ignored by traditional party messaging.

    Figures such as Zorhan Mamdani, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Katie Porter, Ro Khanna, Rashida Tlaib, Ayanna Pressley, and Barbara Lee, among others, have built strong political followings by speaking directly about economic inequality, corporate power, and the needs of working people.

    Whether one agrees with every progressive policy or not, it is difficult to deny that these campaigns often generate energy and engagement among voters who might otherwise stay home.

    The lesson here is not that progressives are the enemy of the Democratic Party. In many cases, they are the ones providing the clearest economic (and even social) message.

    Political movements succeed when they offer people tangible improvements in their lives. Voters are far more likely to mobilize around real material change than around abstract promises of moderation and compromise.

    If the goal is to build a stronger and more equitable society, the debate should not be about whether progress is “too radical.”

    It should be about whether our political system is willing to deliver it.