The Democratic primaries are winding down. As Joe Biden’s nomination as the Democratic candidate for the presidency looks all but inevitable, it seems Bernie Sanders supporters are in for disappointment, yet again.

Many of them, according to a recent poll, appear to want to protest this “injustice” of Bernie Sanders not getting the nomination. 15% of Sanders supporters say they will vote for Donald Trump on Election Day. Others plan on staying home. They are, of course, free to vote for whomever they want, or not vote at all. We’ll certainly see if those numbers hold up and how they affect the outcome of the election.

After two disappointments in a row for the presidential nomination, you’d think they’d consider leaving the Democrats and joining another party that welcomes them, or forming their own party. I don’t blame them for not trying though. In America’s two party system, being part of a third party almost always guarantees political irrelevancy. They want a future. They see that their future is only possible by being in a major political party.

I want to talk to them directly about this. If you are a Bernie Sanders supporter thinking about revolting and you’re reading this, I’m here to tell you that your harmful voting tactics, both to yourselves and to the rest of the Democrats, would ensure that there’ll be no future for you at all.

I understand that many of you are young and idealistic. You support Bernie’s way of doing things, believing that he has the power to get all or most of his ideas enacted because that’s what the people want. You believe he’s an effective politician and will get things done. But then if you look at Bernie’s record in the Senate and House, you’ll see that he hasn’t gotten any of his ideas enacted at all.

Why, you ask? Simple. It’s because Bernie’s an uncompromising man. You see that as a positive, but it’s that exact trait that makes him incapable of leading effectively. “Compromise” is not a dirty word, but if you don’t like it, you can also try “pragmatism,” or realpolitik; call it what you like, the point is that that is how things get done, whether it’s business or politics or just about anything else that requires decision making.

And believe it or not, compromise has gotten leftist ideas implemented in the country too. Gather ‘round kids, it’s story time. Let me demonstrate this principle by invoking one of the biggest social issues of the early 21st century: the issue of same-sex marriage.

How same-sex marriage was gradually legalized in America

Same-sex marriage was legalized nationwide in 2015, via the Supreme Court in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges. Some people might ask, “Why did it take so long for this to happen? Should’ve litigated this decades ago!” Well, they did. Back in 1971, in the case of Baker v. Nelson. The Supreme Court rejected them that year. Some might call that a setback. I call it the greatest thing that happened to their movement. You may think that had the Supreme Court ruled in favor of them back in 1971, then the issue would be “settled” back then. If only it were that simple.

Unlike other civil rights movements of the time, which focused around racial and ethnic minorities, the gay rights movement was still very much in its infancy. The American public, by and large, did not support gay people (and in fact, they were still widely demonized), and same-sex marriage was a fringe idea. There’s a good chance that you, my dear Sanders supporter, might not have supported it had you been around back then. Had the Supreme Court legalized it in the 1970s, there would be a massive backlash to the decision. Congress would likely pass a law that would ban it again, with broad support from both parties. Worst case scenario, in order to avoid any more legal issues, a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage across the nation would sail through Congress, get ratified by just about every state in the country, and that would have “settled” the issue for a long time to come. Do you have any idea how difficult it would be to repeal a constitutional amendment? If that scenario had come to pass, then there’s a good chance that same-sex marriage would not be legal anywhere in America today, and the fight to get it done would be that much harder.

If you think this is all hyperbole, consider the fact that back in 1993, same-sex marriage was being litigated in the Supreme Court of Hawaii, in the case of Baehr v. Lewin. The court, at the time, did not rule in favor of same-sex marriage, but did make allowances for the idea that bans against them may infringe on constitutional rights, and sent the case back to a lower court. That’s all it took to scare the crap out of conservatives across America. The court case didn’t legalize same-sex marriage, and would only apply to Hawaii, but you had Americans in other states scrambling to make sense of this, and they reached the conclusion that their definition of marriage wasn’t safe as long as courts could possibly rule in the other direction. In response, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, which banned same-sex marriage at the federal level and passed with broad, bipartisan support, and the legal backlash against same-sex marriage began in earnest. The states then started passing state constitutional amendments against it, and Republicans even brought up the Federal Marriage Amendment to constitutionally ban it nationwide. It never came close to passing in all the times it was introduced, but they sure as hell tried. Do you know why that never passed? Because those “establishment” Democrats you hate so much never allowed it to.

The tides were turning in favor of gay people during the 1990s and 2000s. More education as well as exposure to gay people through media and in real life got Americans to care more about them and their rights. Democrats in government began caring about the rights of gay people, supporting employment non-discrimination laws and hate crimes laws against them, among other laws. But one of the issues where the tide hadn’t fully turned yet was same-sex marriage. Throughout the 2000s, it remained a minority view in the polls. A growing minority, mind you, but still a minority. Whereas it may had only been around 20–30% support in the 90s, it was around 30–40% support in the 2000s, maybe sometimes slightly higher. It’s arguably this issue that cost the Democrats the presidential election in 2004, which saw many states enacting same-sex marriage constitutional bans via the ballot that year and most of those states giving their votes to Republicans, despite Democrats generally not supporting its legalization. (John Kerry sure didn’t.)

There were other ways to support same-sex couples at the time. The most common way was through supporting the legalization of civil unions, or domestic partnerships, depending on where you lived. Civil unions were seen as a compromise situation, which would give same-sex couples all the benefits of marriage without the word “marriage.” They were more popular among the public than same-sex marriage was back then, and so it was easier for Democrats to support civil unions in various states and not have to worry so much about backlash.

You could argue that civil unions didn’t go far enough; that they created a system of “separate but equal” institutions for same-sex couples. And for the most part, you’d be correct. But you know what else they did? They changed so many people’s lives for the better. They gave same-sex couples tax breaks they sorely needed. They gave them rights that they didn’t have before. Most importantly, they legitimized their unions and opened people up to the idea that same-sex unions would cause no harm to them, paving the way for more action. Consider the predicament that Democrats were in at the time. Same-sex marriage did not have majority support back in the 2000s. In a lot of places, it was either not a winning strategy to run on legalizing it, or it was too risky to run on it. Even if they wanted to legalize it, it just wasn’t politically viable for them to do so. With civil unions, they were presented with an opportunity to do something for same-sex couples without having to incur too much risk to their power. You could argue that the Democrats should have done more, and I’m sure many of them would have liked to have done more. But the fact of the matter is, civil unions was more than anything that same-sex couples had gotten at the time; more than the Republicans had ever done for them. If the Republicans had their way, same-sex couples would have received absolutely nothing at all. If the Democrats had lost power to the Republicans, then they would have tried everything possible to take away whatever little same-sex couples had.

It wasn’t until close to when the 2000s ended that same-sex marriage finally started receiving majority or plurality support in the country, according to the polls. It was no longer a politically risky position for Democrats to take, and the movement to legalize it accelerated. Barack Obama started supporting it in 2012, despite opposing it in 2008 when he first ran for president. So did most other Democratic politicians, both at the state and the national level. Civil unions lost ground to full marriage equality, getting replaced by such in the states where they once existed. More states started passing legislation to enact it. A few more got it legalized through the state courts. When all those states had them enacted, the movement to litigate same-sex marriage in the rest of America through the federal courts had begun and finally culminated in the Supreme Court legalizing it nationwide in 2015.

Was there a backlash when that happened? Sure. But nowhere near the backlash that would have occurred back in the 1970s. The gay community now had the support of a large majority of Americans and a major political party on their side that would protect their rights, so now there was assurance that no nationwide ban would ever be enacted in the country, whether statutory or constitutional.

So what have we learned?

The point of this story is to illustrate the fact that gradual, incremental, compromising change can be far more effective than drastic change. Had the gay rights movement succeeded in jumping the gun back in 1971, they might have been pushed back far more than they would have liked, to the point where movement was nearly impossible. But because they took small steps, they were able to soften people up to the idea that they deserved equal marriage rights, and they ultimately got what they wanted. The gay community still has battles left to fight, but they understand that they need to be dealt with one step at a time.

This principle of gradual change applies to various other issues that you may feel strongly about. Medicare for all, for example. Or perhaps free college. Sure, you could get a majority of people to believe that everyone should have healthcare. Maybe after some convincing, a majority of people would support free college. But can you get a majority of people to believe that your proposals (or Bernie Sanders’ proposals) for getting them enacted is practical? How much would they cost? Where would you get the money from? Would they be set up demographically? (That last question is particularly important — how will these proposals give black people, among other minorities, the leg-up they need to catch up with the rest of America? Or will it benefit white people more than anyone else? Any proposal has to understand the nuances of race in America and how they affect class structure before it could gain black people’s support.) On the other hand, proposals that incorporate some of the ideas you have, but changes things at a smaller scale, are much more likely to get enacted, and still change many peoples’ lives for the better.

The mistake that you seem to be making is that you think that those who are on the center-left, or the center, don’t care about the issues that you do. They care plenty. The difference is between the approaches to solving the problems that you both care about. They want change on a much smaller scale, with lots of compromise, but also much more likely to happen.

Run the government the way America is, not the way you want it to be

So why are the “establishment” Democrats more popular than you? Why have they been more successful in getting nominated, and getting elected into office around America? It’s quite simple.

America’s not a far-left, or even a leftist nation. It’s in the center. Depending on who you ask, it’s center-left, or center-right. The reason “establishment” Democrats are not like you is not because they’re against you, but because they’re trying to represent the kind of country that America is. America is a country where even a slight breeze can completely change the course of an election, whether it’s presidential or anything else. In order to win elections, you need to form coalitions of voters from differing, but mostly similar, ideologies, and find solutions that are palatable to all. This includes liberals, progressives, center-leftists, centrists, and maybe even a few center-rightists. It’s these people who make up the majority of America. It’s these groups that give the Democratic Party their power. Appealing to only one group of people, such as the far-left, is a recipe for failure, as Jeremy Corbyn supporters in the UK learned the hard way in their last election.

You may see this coalition-forming as a betrayal of your principles, but once again, that’s how government works — it’s all about finding compromises that appeal to the majority of the people. The “establishment” Democrats are willing to give up ideological purity if it means they can be in control of the government. You may think that means that they care more about power than they do about people, but the fact of the matter is, without power, you can’t use the government to help people at all.

The name of the game in politics is, and always has been, power. Not ideology, power. Without power, your ideas don’t matter. Without Democrats in power, you get Republicans. Republicans will not listen to you at all. They’ll enact policies that are the exact opposite of what you want, they’ll attempt to remove any victories that your side may have achieved in the past; you name it. To you, this might not matter. Their policies might not affect you at all and all you really care about is ideological purity. But consider the people that you claim to want to help — how will they be affected by Republican policies? Are you willing to let the Republicans get away with hurting them for the sake of your principles? Are you willing to give Republicans more and more power, letting the Democrats fade away and leaving no opposition, including no left-wing opposition, just so you can feel morally superior? Are you willing to accept no change at all?

America is willing to accept change. It’s been changing constantly for its entire existence. But not all change is popular, or even desirable. America wants a government that works, one that actually gets things done, one that works with people to achieve that end. They want reforms in the system that help the regular average person; they don’t want to tear down the system entirely. You don’t win elections by pontificating to the voters, you win them by listening to what the voters want. Free college may seem like a cool idea, but you’d have to explain to the working-class voters in Michigan or Florida how that’s going to help them pay next month’s bills — you know, something that’s very important to them. It’s about giving the voters what they need, not what you think they need.

The choice is yours

For all the bad luck Bernie Sanders has had in appealing to mainstream America, he does have a certain appeal to young people. Perhaps they’ll be the ones to inherit America’s political culture in the future. It’s good that so many of them felt so energized by his candidacy, but they need to keep that energy up. If you really do care about the things Bernie Sanders cares about, then you need to support a party that’s at least willing to meet you halfway. If not, you’ll end up with a government run by a party that doesn’t meet you at all. Some is always better than none. As the Rolling Stones once said, you can’t always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you might find, you get what you need.

Until the Republicans are out of power and gone, you’ll have to gain as many allies as possible in order to take over the government. They may not agree with you on everything, but if they come close enough, you’re better off making friends with them than not. Together you have to get rid of the Republicans. Explain to voters why your ideas meet their needs and the Republicans’ ideas don’t. You’ll have to compromise on them sometimes, but it’s all for the greater good of getting the Republicans out. Eventually, if you can get a future where your party wins the war of ideas in America and the Republicans have no chance of coming back to power, then you can play Centrists vs. Leftists. But now is not the time for that war. Being ideologically pure while not in power is putting the cart before the horse.

Do you want purity, or do you want power? The choice is yours.