Est-il acceptable, souhaitable, responsable d'utiliser des arguments d'essence néo-libérale (rentabilité, performances, compétitivité etc) pour défendre des valeurs progressistes ?

Whenever I make an argument like that I get similar responses: “You have to be pragmatic” or “Games of intellectual purity don’t get us anywhere” or “The argument needs to work for those we want to convince” or “Shut up” (it still is the Internet after all). And I am not saying that those replies don’t have any value. They are pragmatic. Saying something in a way that people in power like or that supports their world view increases the chances of creating change. Especially when one has facts and studies at one’s disposal (at least that was how it maybe was a bit in the past before the reign of Musk).

But I think there is a cost. Because I think people mistake tactics for strategy. The basic difference between tactics and strategy is that while tactics focus on smaller, short-term actions, strategy looks at the long-term big picture. And I feel like that is where the costs stack up.