question for all

[gtf]

Hi All

This question was designed for Chaim but I would like others opinions too.

I agree with you most of the time in principle except when it comes to implementation.

Here is the q; Wouldn't it be wiser if we pursue our goals step by step instead of attempting to eat the elephant all in one meal ?

Then once we have achieved that step then we can move onto propositions more "radical". But at that stage the general political climate would of edged to the right somewhat and the average person would be more accepting of the next step which was previously deemed too extreme or radical.

An example - instead of demanding geographic seperation of races we instead focus our energies on abolishing affirmative action programs. Once that is achieved we re-assess the situation and we start working on taking the next realistic step.

So in effect we avoid being too extreme for the current political climate because being perceived as too radical only serves to marginalize us, creates resistance and we run the risk of people rejecting our statements out of hand because of perceived radicalism.

On the other hand - we don't sacrafice our ultimate aims . We just focus on moving towards our goals step by realistic step instead of all at once.

What do you think of this line of reasoning objectively ? Isnt it better to achieve something toward the right direction instead of nothing or the reverse ?

The reality is that we need to find a way to work with the masses of (often irrational) people because however wrong  - they are still a force to be reckoned with. We have a tremendous challenge ahead of us and we need to think of all possible strategies.

(Revised This Q)