Like so many here, I have been avoiding cable news. The disappointing willingness of elected Democrats and party officials to turn on other Democrats — I mean, because we aren’t facing an effing existential crisis around democracy or anything — I just can’t. However, it has provided some nascent clarity, at least for me.
The very fact of this infighting, public and otherwise, within the Democratic elected and party apparatus really only confirms what I already know: they don’t get it. They never did. Like countless companies imposing an RTO (return to office), Democrats have never accepted that there is no “normal” to return to. They seem to believe that if they only try harder to be bipartisan, the world will return to that condition, which has been largely absent for decades. They still think releasing public statements expressing their concern over this or that will be effective, absent all evidence.
No really — everything’s FINE. See?
Case in point: Biden’s reception of Trump at the White House and the lengthy, smiling photo op that created. I’m not saying Biden should have pulled a Trump and refused the event outright. But he didn’t have to bend over backwards to make it seem so normal. I acknowledge that many are triggered by Trump pictures on here, but I’m going to provide one to underscore my point. This one was taken just last Wednesday. It makes it look as is everything is fine when it isn’t. And even worse: it undercuts all of the dire warnings about Trump and a Trump return to the Oval, warnings the public are going to need moving forward.
I realize it sounds like I’m bashing Biden in the way I criticized above. But that’s truly not my point. The point is simple: high-ranking Democrats have been unable to break the habit of believing that we can work together and therefore get through all of this. We can’t — we haven’t been able to since 2016 (at least), and elected and Party luminaria don’t seem, largely, to have ever adjusted to that fact. They yearn for a different time, one that won’t be coming back in the foreseeable future (a nicer way to say “ever”).
So, we have to be the ones to truly defend democracy. It’s not that Democrats want to destroy it the way Republicans want to. It’s that Democrats can’t break old habits of honoring norms and comportment that the other side obliterated years ago. We have to be the ones to do this thing.
So… how? I have a small short list of starting steps (very basic) and would like input as to how we activate the good ideas, add more ideas, and execute on our plans.
One.
Help rapidly expand anti-Trump non-traditional information outlets (h/t Hunter). My list of regular listening (so far) is as follows:
Find a few you like. Pod Save America (PSA) is a must-listen for me, and I have a $$ subscription, but that’s not required to listen. The Bulwark has rapidly moved up as one of my favorites as well (I paid for a subscription, but that is not required either), and I was gratified to turn on PSA last Sunday to a pre-pod announcement encouraging PSA listeners to head over to The Bulwark and give it a try. They also appear to be appearing on each others’ shows, kind of a cross-pollination. This is exactly what we need — we need these anti-Trump alternate info sources to ally with each other and help activate civil society (us!) to take action. They’re not there yet, but with increasing listenership — paid and unpaid — they are more likely to get there with urging from their patrons. Urge them.
Two.
Prioritization. The reality is, we’re all going to have to help consolidate actions and prioritize which ones could/will have the greatest impact and — most importantly — slow down the Trump Administration. The reality is that there will be so many awful things, we’re going to have to activate and organize around the high value items where we believe we can have the greatest impact. Will this be a fraught process where we disagree on what those priorities should be? Yes. Will it be absolutely necessary that we quickly reach agreement and get on board or else risk inertia and infighting such that nothing gets done in opposition? Also yes.
I have no idea what those priorities are right now. Yes, unhelpful. An obvious one would be opposing Trump’s disastrous named appointments. But — hear me out — they’re all bad. Four are worse than the others. For me, those four are (in order of dangerousness) Gabbard for DNI, Gaetz as AG, RFK Jr. as HHS Secretary, and Hegseth as DoD Secretary. I chose Tulski Gabbardovitch due to the likelihood that allies won’t share some critical intelligence with us if she’s the DNI, and that seems bad.
But, the idea that we’re going to be able to thwart all of the bad announced appointments (newsflash: they will all be bad) seems… unrealistic. So how do we prioritize even within this one thing, let alone all the things that aren’t this thing? I don’t have those answers — but asking the question can help lead to suggestions that lead to answers that enough of us can get behind to represent a coordinated front. Yes, unsatisfyingly vague, but right now that’s where I’m at. My own “concept of a plan”. Ha!! Too early for that joke?
Three.
I strongly recommend listening to this particular episode of The Bulwark podcast. It’s more action oriented, and at least starts leaning towards being prescriptive even if it’s not quite there yet. It features a former DeMint and Cruz staffer, Amanda Carpenter (wait until you’ve read number four before getting upset about that), during the rise of the tea party, and the mechanics she discusses of just knowing the rules of Congress as a minority party and how that can be orchestrated to slow things down substantially.
Let’s face it — we all hated that McConnell refused Obama his nomination of Garland (at least at the time). But it was done within the rules, and they expertly used the rules against us in that scenario. The whole “it’s an election year” thing was just a distraction. Within the Senate rules, they can basically do that whenever. What Carpenter is starting to do is lay out employing those tactics against Trump.
Do we have rules-savvy folks here? I’m not one of those, but I’m convinced that one or more of those would be extremely helpful as we move into this mess.
Four.
Be open to unnatural alliances. The degree to which I recoiled when I heard that Amanda Carpenter (in three above) was instrumental in executing on the Tea Party’s plans to slow Obama down was visceral. But she’s also avidly anti-Trump (I’ll excuse for a moment that the Tea Party and Gingrich before them are the reason we have Trump at all) and she’s offering her first-hand knowledge of how to do these things to anyone who will listen, and by default anyone who will listen and try to participate in deploying these legal tactics is anti-Trump.
I’ve also given the example here of Exxon’s desire to remain in the Paris accords and to continue Biden-era Federal tax incentives for carbon capture technologies. If you’re a GenX-er like me, the disgusted reaction to Exxon generally after the Valdez oil spill in 1989 is automatic. I would have never had “ally with Exxon” on my bingo card, yet here we are. They want these things because they have invested their corporate money in these things. There’s no higher ideal they’re serving — it’s their own bottom line. BUT. Since we agree we should stay in the Paris accords and that we should continue these clean(er) energy tax credits, I would suggest we should be open to an unnatural (and slightly nauseating) alliance with them specifically focused around this issue.
It’s likely that this Exxon issue won’t be the only one where we have the opportunity to ally with people/entities we otherwise revile. But if that union helps thwart Bad Things wrought by Trump (another newsflash: all of his things are bad), I would argue we need to be open to it. We’re not in a pick and choose environment — we’re in an existential survival crisis.
Which leads me to…
Five.
I am an idealistic person. I believe in right and wrong, and I fight against wrong even when it harms me financially as a person who earns a good income (knock on wood). It’s how I’m wired. I have reshaped my thinking, however, in this existential crisis climate. I will evaluate all actions and potential (temporary) alliances with any/all parties based on their motivations. With the exception of abortion and other so-called social “wedge” issues, Republicans and especially Republican-supporting entities aren’t ideological. They support whatever helps them make more money/profit and/or accrue power unto themselves. That is their motivation. I will evaluate these things based on the assessment of whether or not the alliance/partnership/whatever will bring money and/or power to those entities while simultaneously supporting something we value. The Exxon example from four above demonstrates that we could get something we want that we would otherwise not get under Trump if we are willing to align.
I realize this is a high level start to my own thought process. I’m putting this out there as a space to start focusing on the overall effort and not to any specific Trump action within that evil effort, if that makes sense.
A few things I know:
- We are going to need to lead on this, not party electeds/leaders
- We are going to need to stop any infighting (if it occurs)
- We are going to need to focus on the existential threat to democracy Trump presents
- We can do this — we just need to adjust our personal apertures so that the focus is always on the goal, and learn to let go of noise — even important noise — that gets in the way of the goal
- We need to work together if we stand a chance
So… how does that happen? Let me know below. :)
