Okay, another example. In the US, Pesident T seated three Supreme Court Justices, and an R Senate blocked the obam nominee garland, who has become an activist at the highest level. Another activist at the highest level would be maiyorkiss, with his southern and northern porous border policy, both devised by an administration. I argue intentionally that the two, activism and politics, cannot be separated.
The US would look quite different, if the billary, of Canada based off shore political foreign campaign fundraising foundation, had shaped the high court of the US. The activists were still around, and so was the hypocrisy of so called, social attitudes? No big deal, you win, but votes matter and affect policy.
Craig, I'm not saying those things aren't important. And I'm not saying that activism and politics aren't intertwined. But they happen because the groundwork has been laid. Over a long period of time. Politics alone won't win the game. For confirmation of that statement, look around.
From a 'shaping of society" standpoint, which is what this thread started out about, it starts with activism, that tills and prepares the soil, so politicians and judges can create the laws and legal precedents.
You can't get a Mayorkas out of the blue. His activism sits of the shoulders of thousands of lower level people who made it possible for him to reach those heights of power.
The way you get the votes is to have softened up the electorate to the ideas of the activists.
