The United States and Washington state are going through an extremely difficult period. In addition to the climate crisis, economic instability is intensifying, as are pressure on immigrants and communities of color and restrictions on the rights of LGBTQ+ people. Rather than seeking solutions together, the federal government, in the author’s view, is pursuing policies that only deepen the current problems.
The urgency of the moment demands new approaches. Yet after the 2024 elections—and long before them—progressives have continued to argue about past campaigns, the limits of acceptable radicalism and the future of the Democratic Party. The author believes it is more important not to choose a single “correct” path, but to combine different strategies while taking local conditions, available resources and participants’ actual influence into account.
This is particularly important for cities such as Seattle and for Washington state as a whole. Left-leaning views dominate here, but disagreements remain within the progressive camp over the pace of reform, taxes, public safety and the role of business. Activists often shape the political agenda, while elected officials must seek the compromises needed to pass budgets and implement laws effectively. Decisions are also influenced by party primaries, unions, public hearings and local initiatives.
In such a political environment, it is easy to focus on internal conflicts and lose sight of the scale of the threats facing the nation. That is why the author turns to From Presence to Power, a book by civic leader and strategist Rashad Robinson.
Robinson argues that lasting change requires more than visibility—taking part in marches or running social media campaigns. Movements must gain real influence and create incentives for companies and politicians to support their demands. The strategy, he says, is a realistic and achievable plan that brings together different sources of power at the right time to accomplish a specific goal.
In the Seattle area, potential allies for progressives include the mayor’s office and City Council, King County government, the state administration, Sound Transit and local school districts. SEIU and AFSCME carry significant influence, as do unions representing education, transportation and construction workers. Organizations advocating for homeless people, housing coalitions, environmental groups and ethnic-minority organizations are also important.
Major regional companies, including Microsoft, Amazon, Starbucks and other technology firms, can support specific initiatives—such as housing construction, climate projects or transportation development. At the same time, their interests do not always align with activists’ demands, so cooperation with business requires clear conditions and an understanding of the possible compromises.
For Robinson, victory means neither winning an argument nor achieving moral superiority, but producing real changes that improve people’s lives. He cites New York, where Mayor Zohran Mamdani, despite controversy surrounding his socialist views, has gained support through practical results, including efforts to address everyday urban problems. The mayor’s successes and the activity of his supporters, in turn, are forcing the more moderate governor to make concessions to progressives.
In Washington, the passage of progressive initiatives also often depends on coalitions with moderate politicians and business leaders. The state remains liberal on social issues, but decisions are constrained by the budget, tax rules and legal disputes, as well as the need to win support from different counties. In the suburbs and outside Seattle, voters may support social programs while also worrying about high taxes or sweeping changes to public safety policies.
Business interests have money, expertise and jobs at their disposal, so their participation can help secure funding and ensure that reforms are implemented in practice. However, negotiations with them sometimes lead progressives to soften their initial demands. That is why coalition politics requires not abandoning one’s goals, but setting priorities and defining achievable stages for putting them into practice.
Housing policy and homelessness in Seattle are among the clearest examples. Public statements about social justice cannot replace construction permits, funding for affordable housing, coordination among social services, or the creation of temporary and permanent housing. In transportation, results depend on stable funding, expanded routes and safety—not merely on declarations of support for public transit.
The same applies to climate adaptation, which requires investment in flood protection, modernization of energy infrastructure and preparation for heat waves and wildfires. These challenges highlight the difference between symbolic activism and practical policymaking. Sustainable results require administrative work, compromise and measurable goals.
Robinson considers “maximalism” one of the main obstacles—the belief that any position falling short of the most idealistic one constitutes a betrayal of values or demonstrates cowardice and corruption. This outlook also implies refusing to work with people who do not yet share all of the movement’s views. In the author’s opinion, such an approach makes movements smaller and weaker.
The history of the struggle for LGBTQ+ rights and marriage equality demonstrates the opposite: long efforts to win over allies gradually changed social values and made marriage equality an accepted mainstream standard. Robinson also warns against “magical thinking,” in which activists assume their analysis is entirely correct, fail to study how systems of power operate and do not test their own assumptions.
The decisions made today will affect the lives of future generations. Robinson therefore urges people to understand their own power, find allies and networks, and determine what contribution each person can make. Escaping the current crisis will require not excluding those who disagree, but bringing more people together around concrete goals, practical change and results that can be measured.
Based on: Why progressives must ditch the maximalist, all-or-nothing approach