This content originally appeared on Go Make Things and was authored by Go Make Things
Last month, Pete Buttigieg caught a bunch of shit for failing to fully support trans athletes.
And a whole lot more people jumped in to argue that if we demand complete moral purity from our elected officials, we’ll never make any progress. Something, they argue, is better than nothing.
In the abstract, they’re not wrong.
But in practice, its always the most vulnerable minority groups that get sacrificed for the progress of other, less vulnerable groups. And once those groups get what they want… they put down their weapons and stop fighting.
Solidarity means everyone.
It works because it means you fight for me even when it doesn’t directly affect you, and I do the same for you when the roles are reversed.
You can’t complain that people don’t show up to vote for you when they know you’ll bail on them the second it’s politically inconvenient to support them.
When I talked about this one Bluesky recently, someone was like…
If one politician wants to take $500 from you, and the other wants to keep your bank account exactly where it is, obviously the one who won’t take your money is better. Not as good as someone who gives you money, but still…
But what if your metaphorical bank account is empty? What if you’re already in the negative, socially?
Obviously, the politician who wants to drive you further into debt is worse. But how is the politician who wants to keep you in debt meaningfully, materially good for you in any capacity?
No candidate will ever be morally pure. Humans are all deeply flawed.
But at a minimum, your allies need to actually support everyone. I want my elected officials to actually give a shit and actually fight for the people they want votes from.
Real solidarity or GTFO.
Like this? A Lean Web Club membership is the best way to support my work and help me create more free content.
This content originally appeared on Go Make Things and was authored by Go Make Things