Especially politicians in the House, where each member only represents a tiny fraction of the overall public.

You're absolutely right that activists are essential. The example of civil rights and voting rights is obvious, and clear cases can be made on all the other issues we've mentioned here. So I'm not diminishing the role of activists. They're essential. (Though sometimes, the way to be an effective activist is not obvious.)


But when it comes to making laws, the game theory of how our system is designed inevitably makes it such that the political side is always from the top down. LBJ (not a hero by any stretch) glad-handed every single member of the House and Senate to push the new society and civil rights legislation through. The issues didn't come from the top down, but the laws most definitely did.

The people in safe seats never need the support of the party, so they don't get it, and they don't expect it. But there are never enough of them to pass anything on their own. The people in swing seats DO need the support of the party. They need everything packaged in a way that they can sell to their shaky constituents. When all these interests align, *then* legislation can happen. But if the interests don't align, it remains an empty talking point.

Single-payer health care has been an empty talking point for the better half of a century. It was only when it was packaged into a palatable but overcomplicated mess (the Public Option in Obamacare) that it *nearly* became a reality. It could come back one day, with another swell of activist fervor. I hope it does. It's certainly a lot more likely than Medicare for all.

My point isn't that people shouldn't be progressive. It's that we shouldn't expect politicians to be overtly activist. The politicians who matter are, by nature, cowards, and they always will be unless someone is ever able to completely rewrite the Constitution. The job of activists is to turn progressive ideas into things that even the most cowardly politicians are compelled to support.