I fully expect people to argue the majority of these points if they even bother to read them. Even in progressive circles there is an astonishing lack of understanding of basic civics and how the different pieces of the government function. There is also a mythologizing of what the people are willing and able to do.
Elections have consequences. The Democratic Party in the federal government has a very weak hand right now in the game of poker.
- We do not control the executive branch and any remaining independence of that branch is being subverted before our very eyes.
- We do not control the legislative branch having been stripped of control of the House in 2022 and the Senate in 2024.
- We do not control the Extreme Court but do have control of many district courts and appellate courts.
Face the facts. Democrats are SEVERELY limited in their options right now. Even Rep. AOC says so.
x
Yes. While there are absolutely things Democrats can and must do to slow, obstruct, etc, GOP hold both House and Senate majorities, severely limiting our options.
Johnson and Thune are handing over the own keys and relinquishing their own power. Even for the cynics this should be a shock.
[image or embed]
— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@aoc.bsky.social) February 2, 2025 at 5:36 PM
We can throw pie at one another over how we got here but that just wastes time and is counterproductive. We also cannot afford to have unrealistic expectations as to what the Democratic Party can and cannot do right now. That’s why I am writing this.
x
Here are the options on the table (which are not mutually exclusive):
1. House Dems bring articles of impeachment*
2. Senate Dems play constitutional hardball and obstruct everything
3. State AGs litigate (and prosecute) everything they can
4. Citizens march en mass
— Asha Rangappa (@asharangappa.bsky.social) February 1, 2025 at 11:25 AM
I will go through what Democrats can do with each of these options below the fold.
WARNING: VERY LONG ARTICLE. DON’T @ ME ABOUT TL;DR.
1. What House Democratic Leaders Can and Cannot Do
As Minority Leader, Rep. Hakeem Jeffries has the least amount of power to do something right now.
The House Democrats have the least amount of power to do things right now. Our attempts at passing legislation or their ability to slow things down is extremely limited by the House rules. There is no filibuster in the House and the rules of debate and the amendment process are tightly controlled by the Speaker and the House Rules Committee.
Our power lies in exploiting the divisions and fractures in the House GOP. Hardliners will make their own demands, and that will stall legislation as long as the Democratic House caucus remains united. FORCE THEM TO PASS THINGS ALONE UNLESS WE GET SERIOUS CONCESSIONS.
In United States parliamentary procedure, a discharge petition is a means of bringing a bill out of committee and to the floor for consideration without a report from the committee by "discharging" the committee from further consideration of a bill or resolution. The signatures of an absolute majority of House members are required.
Discharge petitions are most often associated with the U.S. House of Representatives, though many state legislatures in the United States have similar procedures. There, discharge petitions are used when the chair of a committee refuses to place a bill or resolution on the committee's agenda: by never reporting a bill, the matter will never leave the committee, and the full House will not be able to consider it. The discharge petition, and the threat of one, gives more power to individual members of the House and removes a small amount of power from the leadership and committee chairs. In the U.S. House, successful discharge petitions are rare, as the signatures of an absolute majority of House members are required.
A privileged resolution is a type of resolution in the House of Representatives that allows members to bring certain issues, such as censures or expulsions, directly to the floor for a vote without needing approval from leadership. This process is designed to address matters affecting the rights and conduct of the House or its members.
Questions of privilege date back to the early days of British Parliament, but their formal use in the United States Congress goes back only to the 1880s.
Glassman said members now are more aware of the procedural tool than they used to be, largely because of its use to remove McCarthy from the speakership.
“If you polled members 10 years ago, I bet there’s a huge proportion that had never even heard of a question of privilege or knew it was a tool you could use to sort of hijack the agenda on the floor unilaterally,” he said.
Glassman stressed that a question of privilege is not the actual mechanism of things like discipline, but a tool for getting control of the agenda.
“I don’t doubt that there’s some sort of a learning effect here,” he said.
Members of the minority party can turn to questions of privilege to make their voices heard. Between 1995 and 2014, 72 percent of such questions came from the minority party, according to the Congressional Research Service.
But as internal feuding gripped the Republican Party this Congress, the tool has also gained traction as a way for lone actors in the majority to force a vote on pet resolutions — or to stage an outright rebellion.
- The Democratic House members can also vote to suspend the rules on compromises. This requires a 2/3rds vote in the House to do that and pass legislation.
This was used as a tactic to keep the lights on during the last Congress. When the GOP hardliners revolt, it forces Speaker in Name Only Johnson to have to rely on Democrats for must pass legislation. Two instances where this could come into play next month are the budget and raising the debt ceiling. Help only if there are HUGE concessions from President Musk and the House GOP.
Suspension of the rules is used to provide expedited consideration of relatively non-controversial legislation. It is the most commonly used method for raising measures for consideration in the House. Between two-thirds and three-quarters of measures that became public laws in recent Congresses have been considered by this method. The procedure for suspension of the rules is spelled out in House Rule XV, clause 1. Under this rule, the Speaker may recognize a Member to move to suspend the rules and pass a particular measure. There is no requirement limiting suspension motions to measures reported from committees.
- The House Democratic members can make a spectacle of the committee hearings and votes.
Rep. Jasmine Crockett, Rep. Jared Moskowitz, and Rep. AOC are especially effective at this. Sunshine is the best medicine and the only way to shine light on what is happening is to garner media attention through being compelling.
Here are some examples from this week!
"Mr. Chairman, I think it's outrageous that this committee will not even entertain a motion," said Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-NM), as Comer spoke over her. "Somebody that's breaking the law and dismantling our federal agencies and firing federal employees and [accessing] federal data. You will not even entertain a motion to bring him in front of the Oversight Committee? Yes, let's have order in this country."
x
Why is the GOP shielding Elon Musk from Oversight!?
Maybe…because while we’re sitting here he’s dismantling agencies, threatening national security, stealing our data, and breaking the law.
Dems are not clutching our pearls.
Dems are fighting back.
And we won't stop!
[image or embed]
— Rep. Melanie Stansbury (NM-01) (@repstansbury.bsky.social) February 5, 2025 at 1:17 PM
x
Reps. Judy Chu (D-Calif.) and Gwen Moore (D-Wisc.) barged into House Speaker Mike Johnson’s office unscheduled on Wednesday and challenged him about Elon Musk's team gaining access to a sensitive payment system at the Treasury Department.
www.politico.com/live-updates...
[image or embed]
— Lauren Ashley Davis (@laurenmeidasa.bsky.social) February 5, 2025 at 4:35 PM
x
Today I confronted Speaker Johnson over Elon Musk's hostile takeover of the federal government because the American people deserve answers about how their private data is being used.
If Republicans don't want to give me a seat at the table, I'll bring my own chair.
[image or embed]
— Congresswoman Gwen Moore (@repgwenmoore.bsky.social) February 5, 2025 at 7:50 PM
- The House Democratic members can file articles of impeachment, even if the GOP buries them or blocks them.
Rep. Al Green has already done this in the last week. The House Democratic members need to do this EVERY time the figurehead or President Musk breaks the law.
- Use social media and the power of the microphone to maximum advantage.
The press conference at the US Treasury is an excellent example of this tactic. We tried to gain access to Treasury Secretary Bessent and his DOGE stooges.
x
Sydney Kamlager-Dove: "It's total corruption... to try to take control of our govt, to have access to our social security numbers, our medical benefits, all of the information we use when we're trying to get a motherfuckin' tax return. And you're gonna take our money? Homie don't play that."
[image or embed]
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) February 4, 2025 at 6:19 PM
x
Ayanna Pressley: "I want to say to our Republican colleagues -- pay attention. We're here today in the hopes that you will see the light. But if you do not see the light, we will bring the fire. Resist!"
[image or embed]
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) February 4, 2025 at 5:45 PM
There are plenty more examples of them using this strategy and it is bearing fruit. Seize the bullhorn and the microphone and raise Hell wherever you can. If you do it well enough, the media will follow.
I’m not calling for members of Congress to get arrested for their actions under the Musk/Trump regime, but that is an option they can consider as well. Rep. Maxwell Frost explains why that is a poor option right now.
x
Republicans have a 2 seat majority in the House. They’d love nothing more than a few progressive members of Congress being behind bars for days/weeks while fighting federal obstruction charges. Every vote matters over the next two years.
— Maxwell Frost (@maxwellfrost.bsky.social) February 7, 2025 at 11:55 AM
2. What Senate Democratic Leaders Can and Cannot Do
As Minority Leader, Sen. Chuck Schumer has a few tools at his disposal. Does he have the will though?
The Senate works differently than the House and there are a lot more tools to obstruct and waste time there. The same limitations in terms of passing an agenda exist though.
The problem with the Senate is the comity and the patrician atmosphere. I’ve called it the most exclusive club in the world for a reason. There is an attitude of stuffy tradition — especially on the Democratic side of the aisle.
That will need to come to an screeching halt for any of the tactics below to work.
x
Murphy: "We need to act like a real opposition party in the middle of a constitutional and democracy crisis. That means we should not be moving forward nominees or legislation in the Senate. Ds should not be giving votes to nominee or legislation in the Senate until Rs get serious about this crisis"
[image or embed]
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) February 5, 2025 at 10:40 AM
The procedure for invoking cloture is as follows:
- A minimum of 16 senators must sign a cloture motion that states, "We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on [the measure]."
- Any senator (generally the majority leader) may present the cloture motion at any time (including while another senator is speaking) while the question to which the cloture motion is directed is pending.
- The Senate then often moves on to other business.
- One hour after the Senate convenes on the second calendar day of session following the filing of the cloture motion (or at a time designated by unanimous consent), the cloture motion ripens, and the presiding officer directs the clerk to report the cloture motion.
- The presiding officer directs the clerk to call the roll to ascertain the presence of a quorum. In practice, this mandatory quorum call is almost always waived by unanimous consent.
- The presiding officer puts to the Senate the question, "Is it the sense of the Senate that debate shall be brought to a close?"
- The Senate votes on the cloture motion by the yeas and nays. A majority of three-fifths of senators duly chosen and sworn (60 votes if there is no more than one vacancy in the Senate) is required for most questions.
- A two-thirds majority of senators present and voting is required to invoke cloture on a motion or resolution to amend the Standing Rules of the Senate.
- Under the precedents set by the Senate on November 21, 2013, and April 6, 2017, a simple majority of senators present and voting is required to invoke cloture on nominations.
I italicized the key provision. Force the GOP to get to 60 votes on anything. There are ways around it (chiefly reconciliation for budgetary matters) but it is the strongest tool in the arsenal of resistance.
I underlined another key provision — it is very hard (but not impossible) for the GOP to play Calvinball with the rules of the Senate. The GOP need 2/3rds of the vote to officially change the rules now. They didn’t substantially change the rules at the beginning of the 119th Congress so it is much more difficult now.
I bolded why Democrats are powerless to stop President Musk and the White House figurehead’s nominees. The rules have been changed over time to allow *any* nomination through with only 50+VP votes on cloture. WE CAN ONLY DELAY THE NOMINEES. WE CANNOT STOP THEM UNLESS 4 REPUBLICANS JOIN US.
More on cloture rules:
After cloture is invoked, the Senate automatically proceeds to consider the measure on which cloture was invoked (if it was not before the Senate already). The following restrictions apply:
- The clotured measure remains the unfinished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of.
- No senator may speak for more than one hour. A senator may yield part or all of their one hour to a floor manager or leader, who may in turn yield that time to other senators. (No manager nor leader may have more than two hours yielded to them by another senator.)
- The two-speech rule does not apply.
- Senators may yield back part or all of their one hour; however, this yielding does not reduce the total time available for consideration of the measure.
- No senator may propose more than two amendments until every senator has had the opportunity to do the same.
- No amendment may be proposed unless it had been submitted in writing to the journal clerk by 1 o'clock p.m. on the day following the filing of the cloture motion in the case of a first-degree amendment or one hour prior to the beginning of the cloture vote in the case of a second-degree amendment.
- All amendments must be germane.
- Senators may continue to offer amendments even if their time for debate has expired.
- No dilatory motions or quorum calls are in order.
- After 30 hours of debate on the measure, the presiding officer puts the question on any pending amendments and the clotured measure. (Under the precedent set on April 3, 2019, post-cloture time on all nominations, other than those to the Supreme Court of the United States, those to the United States courts of appeals and those to a position at Level I of the Executive Schedule, is two hours.
- Once post-cloture time has expired, the only motions in order are motions to reconsider and motions to table. One quorum call may also be demanded by a senator. Any senator who has not used nor yielded back ten minutes is guaranteed such time to speak to the measure.
I italicized the first key provision. The Senate cannot go to other business until the matter in front of them is finished and voted upon. That means that it needs to be voted up or down or discharged with a motion to reconsider or a motion to table.
I underlined another key provision. Much time can be wasted on amendments. FORCE THEM TO TAKE BAD AND EMBARRASSING VOTES. The amendments have to be relevant (and the Parliamentarian will decide that) but waste precious time here. Every Democratic Senator should have at least one amendment in their back pocket for every bill.
I bolded yet another key provision. The ultimate waste of time is holding the floor for 30 hours of debate for EVERYTHING. The Senate Democrats just did this with the Russ Voight nomination for OMB Director a couple of nights ago.
The filibuster is a powerful legislative device in the United States Senate. Senate rules permit a senator or senators to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose, unless "three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn" (usually 60 out of 100 senators) bring debate to a close by invoking cloture under Senate Rule XXII. Even if a filibuster attempt is unsuccessful, the process takes floor time. Defenders call the filibuster "The Soul of the Senate".
Now this was used much more frequently in the past — especially by segregationist Senators to block civil rights legislation. The threat of a filibuster is what gives cloture its teeth. For as long as a Senator has the floor and at least 41 out of 100 Senators back the effort, everything comes to a screeching halt. The only limitations are from the human body. Former segregationist Sen. Strom Thurmond went 24 hours straight in his talking filibuster!
The procedure is not enumerated in the U.S. Constitution; it only became theoretically possible with a change of Senate rules in 1806, and was not used until 1837. Rarely used for much of the Senate's first two centuries, it was strengthened in the 1970s, and especially since the 2010s the majority has preferred to avoid filibusters by moving to other business when a filibuster is threatened and attempts to achieve cloture have failed. As a result, in recent decades this has come to mean that all major legislation (apart from budget reconciliation, which requires a simple 51-vote majority) now requires a 60-vote majority to pass.
- Democratic Senators can place holds on nominations or other legislation.
In the United States Senate, a hold is a parliamentary procedure permitted by the Standing Rules of the United States Senate which allows one or more Senators to prevent a motion to proceed with consideration of a certain manner from reaching a vote on the Senate floor, as no motion may be brought for consideration on the Senate floor without unanimous consent (unless cloture is invoked on the said motion).
If the Senator provides notice privately to their party leadership of their intent (and the party leadership agrees), then the hold is known as a secret or anonymous hold. If the Senator objects on the Senate floor or the hold is publicly revealed, then the hold is more generally known as a Senatorial hold.
Now holds can be overcome. It is strictly a delaying measure to force the GOP to vote individually on every nominee. Candidly Tiff explains more in this tweet.
3. What the Courts Can and Cannot Do
Sad to say but the courts may be our best shot at slowing down the destruction of the USA.
The courts are probably our best bet for slowing down President Musk and the figurehead. Former President Biden added 235 qualified judges to refresh the court system after Trump I, and it is these judges (and the Obama ones, and the Clinton ones, and even some Bushx2 and Reagan ones) that will form the back bone of court resistance to Trump 2.
The drawback is the courts are generally slower than events in real life. That is why President Musk is doing so much of his criming at Friday night news dump time. The earliest a preliminary injunction can be filed is Monday morning giving the Musketeers all weekend to do their illegal actions.
Candidly Tiff is back to explain what the courts can and cannot do to delay President Musk.
youtube.com/…
Forum shopping is the key!
Forum shopping is a colloquial term for the practice of litigants taking actions to have their legal case heard in the court they believe is most likely to provide a favorable judgment. Some jurisdictions have, for example, become known as "plaintiff-friendly" and thus have attracted plaintiffs to file new cases there, even if there is little or no connection between the legal issues and the jurisdiction.
The term became more widely used as a result of legal developments that expanded the number of available forums for litigants to bring cases, thus allowing litigants to effectively "shop" for the forum they believe will provide the best outcome. For example, in International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945), the U.S. Supreme Court expanded the concept of personal jurisdiction to allow courts to hear disputes over defendants who had only 'minimum contacts' with its jurisdiction. Foreign litigants were also attracted to file suits in the United States due to a perception that it had a more favorable litigation climate. Other examples include the United Kingdom, which offers stricter defamation laws and generous divorce settlements.
The term "forum shopping" has taken on a negative connotation amongst some who view it as gamesmanship and manipulation that undermines the legitimacy of the judicial system, in order to obtain an unfair advantage. On the other side, some believe forum shopping is not inherently bad or evil, but merely the natural consequence of litigants being able to select from a number of potential forums to bring a case, and thus naturally selecting the forum they think will provide the most favorable outcome.
Finding the right venue to hear your case is critical in delaying President Musk’s actions. File your case in blue states or DC where the judges are usually more liberal and the appellate courts (especially the 1st and 9th Courts of Appeal) are more liberal. MAGA loves those Texas judges because they are so archconservative and the appeal is before the archconservative 5th circuit. Glad we have finally learned to face fire with fire in the court system!
But what about the Extreme Court? Well, they cannot possibly take every case and override it, even from just the liberal circuits. Many of these rulings in our favor will die at the district court or the appellate court level because the Extreme Court has only a limited number of cases they take up.
However, as always, there is a catch. The Extreme Court has the shadow docket which has become increasingly full in recent years. They can cause damage to select cases with the shadow docket.
The shadow docket (or non-merits docket) refers to motions and orders in the Supreme Court of the United States in cases which have not yet reached final judgment, decision on appeal, and oral argument. This especially refers to stays and injunctions (preliminary relief), but also includes summary decisions and grant, vacate, remand (GVR) orders. The phrase "shadow docket" was first used in this context in 2015 by University of Chicago Law professor William Baude.
The shadow docket is a break from ordinary procedure. Such cases receive very limited briefings and are typically decided a week or less after an application is filed. The process generally results in short, unsigned rulings. On the other hand, merits cases take months, include oral argument, and result in lengthy opinions detailing the reasoning of the majority and concurring and dissenting justices, if any.
It is used when the Court believes an applicant will suffer "irreparable harm" if its request is not immediately granted. Historically, the shadow docket was rarely used for rulings of serious legal or political significance. However, since 2017, it has been increasingly used for consequential rulings, especially for requests by the Department of Justice for emergency stays of lower-court rulings. The practice has been criticized for various reasons, including for bias, lack of transparency, and lack of accountability.
The Extreme Court also has to play a delicate balancing act. If they cede too much of their power, they become irrelevant. If they rule against President Musk too often, they will suffer from Andrew Jackson syndrome — ”The Supreme Court has made its decision, now let them enforce it.”
President Musk and the Pumpkin Pinochet ignoring the courts entirely will provoke a constitutional crisis such that our nation has yet to see. If you think things are bad right now (and they are), things will get a LOT worse when the courts lose their power. That’s why the immunity decision was such a stupid one for the courts because it ceded power to the executive branch and took away their own power.
Think that courts are unhelpful right now? Think again!
x
🚨BREAKING: Federal Court BLOCKS "deferred resignation" plan from moving forward. Orders government to take no action until court hearing on Monday. OPM must notify government employees that there will be no deadline/action taken.
Follow @democracydocket.com for details.
www.democracydocket.com
— Marc Elias (@marcelias.bsky.social) February 6, 2025 at 1:38 PM
These are just the tip of the iceberg, with many more lawsuits filed and others ready to go based upon what actions President Musk and his White House figurehead take.
But what about criminal prosecution? Fat chance of federal prosecution under the President Musk and Cheeto Caligula regime. In fact, we can expect their enemies — real or perceived — to be prosecuted and persecuted instead. Even if by some chance criminal prosecution occurs at a federal level, Trump is immune and can pardon or commute Musk and the Musketeers for their criminal actions.
The criminal prosecution has to be made at the state level by Democratic state Attorneys General. There is no Trump pardon power for state crimes. Remember that every grand jury indicted Trump and a state jury found him guilty of 34 felony counts in New York. It is here where the prosecution of crimes will bear fruit.
Blue state Attorneys General can also file lawsuits against the federal government just like everyone else. In fact, that strategy has been employed several times already.
4. What WE Can and Cannot Do
We may feel powerless, but we still have some power to determine the outcome of events.
This is the tough section to write. While I believe in people power, the USA is different from smaller nations. We are such a vast nation with an apathetic populace that many strategies that work in other places are much more difficult to organize and successfully use here. That’s not to discourage organizing. It is to acknowledge the great difficulty in pulling off some of what people are asking for.
I will go from easier actions to take to more difficult ones to take.
- Contact your House member and members of the Senate frequently.
Calls are worth more than emails and are worth more than letters/faxes/postcards. If you have a swing seat House member or a swing state Senators, your calls are even more valuable. Even calling Republican members isn’t a waste of time because they realize there is opposition to their abdication of constitutional responsibilities.
I think the appearance of a spine amongst Democrats can be traced to the exact point the phone lines started to get flooded.
- Resist in the office (especially in a federal office) by throwing sand in the gears.
I wrote about an old OSS (the forerunner to the CIA) manual on resisting fascism HERE. Basically, small sabotaging actions over time add up to cripple their agenda. Yes, each individual action may not matter but the key is delaying their agenda long enough to have the other pieces above shine a light on what is happening and delay/block it.
Simple sabotage ideas include:
- “Insist on doing everything through ‘channels.’ Never permit short-cuts to be taken in order to expedite decisions.”
- “Make ‘speeches.’ Talk as frequently as possible and at great length. Illustrate your ‘points’ by long anecdotes and accounts of personal experiences. Never hesitate to make a few appropriate ‘patriotic’ comments.”
- “Bring up irrelevant issues as frequently as possible.”
- “Haggle over precise wordings of communications, minutes, resolutions.”
- “‘Misunderstand’ orders. Ask endless questions or engage in long correspondence about such orders. Quibble over them when you can.”
- “In making work assignments, always sign out the unimportant jobs first. See that the important jobs are assigned to inefficient workers of poor machines.”
- “To lower morale and with it, production, be pleasant to inefficient workers; give them undeserved promotions. Discriminate against efficient workers; complain unjustly about their work.”
- “Hold conferences when there is more critical work to be done.”
- “Multiply paperwork in plausible ways.”
- “Make mistakes in quantities of material when you are copying orders. Confuse similar names. Use wrong addresses.”
- “Work slowly. Think out ways to increase the number of movements necessary on your job”
- “Pretend that instructions are hard to understand, and ask to have them repeated more than once. Or pretend that you are particularly anxious to do your work, and pester the foreman with unnecessary questions.”
- “Snarl up administration in every possible way. Fill out forms illegibly so that they will have to be done over; make mistakes or omit requested information in forms.”
- Have those difficult conversations with coworkers, acquaintances, and family members — ESPECIALLY IF YOU ARE WHITE.
The 92% (the percentage of Black women who voted for MVP Harris) are tired of being the vanguard and the backbone of the Democratic Party without any reward. Many of them are taking a backseat and letting others sort this problem out.
The demographics that need to clean their own house before attacking Black and brown people (who mostly understood the assignment) are white women and especially white men.
It is time for us to step up and have those difficult conversations. Start with leans Democratic voters first, work your way to nonvoters, and then finally to the MAGA in your circle. Ask a lot of questions instead of preaching sanctimoniously to them. Don’t give them an inch and excuse them for their beliefs but try to guide them to better thinking. Don’t expect Rome to be built in a day. It will take time. What is important is touching grass and connecting with potential voters instead of posting in our echo chambers all day.
Especially do this on social media if you still use it. And BlueSky doesn’t cut it as it falls into echo chamber thinking too (though there are plenty of leftists on that platform that need this strategy used on them as well). You might not convince the target but you can lay down a marker for others to read.
- Join your local chapter of a national organization, join the local Democratic Party, or volunteer in some other way.
Time is the barrier here for a lot of people. It is quite the commitment to work for something for little or no pay and have long hours. That’s why it is lower down on the list despite being amongst the most effective things you could do. Just watch out — a lot of local chapters a cliquish and chummy at first and it will take a lot of legwork to prove that you can be trusted. If you come in with guns blazing you’re likely to be ignored. Don’t expect Rome to be built in a day.
Someone put it this way in an excellent comment in the APR:
[We need to] mitigate the harms (e.g., supporting families with a working parent swept up in ICE action). When shutting down USAID hits farm incomes, Democrats ought to be taking the lead in supporting rural communities.
If people see Democrats helping, it will provide a better environment for 2026 Democratic campaigns.
- Join protests, marches, and other means of getting the word out.
This is where I start to expect to be flamed. I personally don’t see much value in taking to the streets in the USA. There are significant risks and not much in the way of rewards. Read this excellent discussion comment thread in the APR for the crux of my arguments from people who have been there, done that.
- The populace is too busy living paycheck to paycheck and are too apathetic to protest in numbers that are meaningful. Many protest movements are ineffectual for this reason.
- You’re asking people not only to take time out of their lives but to risk being assaulted and arrested. That’s a bridge too far for most people and it’s another reason many protests never reach critical mass.
- Protests thanks to provocateurs carry the risk of turning violent. That gives President Musk and the Tangerine Terror the excuse to declare martial law. “When the looting starts, the shooting starts”.
- The messages of the protests are too easily co-opted by bad faith actors. Look what happened to Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter. As soon as they started having success the grifters hijacked the message and then the far-right pounced.
- Some protest tactics such as the blocking of roads and bridges or vandalizing monuments and art alienate the very people you are trying to convince. People get annoyed by blocked streets when all they want to do is get home. People get upset when cultural heritage sites are defaced by idiotic climate protestors.
That being said, there are situations where protests can do a lot of good.
- They can be tools to organize and recruit people. The blue wave of 2018 was built upon the backs of many women running for office and the 2017 Women’s March was a likely catalyst.
- They can generate positive media attention and headlines if done right. Many people idealize the MLK, Jr. “Million Man March” but that was the culmination of decades of small actions and community building. MLK didn’t start in DC, he started in Georgia and Alabama in the churches and the movement grew as time went on.
- They apply pressure on elected officials to join in the protests in their own fashion. Note that the Democratic politicians started their protests because of successful prodding from the grassroots. Protests done right give them permission to do their own. They are MUCH more likely to garner media attention than we are.
- All it takes is one spark to cause a mass protest to occur. Before he did it, did Mohamed Bouazizi expect to launch the Arab Spring protests by immolating himself? I highly doubt it. Yes, the Arab Spring was a false dawn but the point is that this spark was the catalyst for huge action and gave them a chance for change.
- If focused in a narrow fashion, they can cause elected officials to take action and pass legislation. The #RedForEd protests in red states in 2018-19 were very effective in getting teachers better wages in Arizona, West Virginia, and other red states. But they were organic and spread organically.
The points above are why I think the 50501 protests (search for them on social media) have a chance. They aren’t putting the cart before the horse and are building organically and locally. Let the pot simmer and the protests will grow. Then, we go for the “Million Man March” style rally when the time is right. Don’t expect to topple the government with this though.
- A corporate boycott of goods? Do the better choice and support local and minority-owned businesses!
Again, there is this myth that people will economically boycott corporate bad actors and the corporation will magically see the light and change policy. With stock buybacks and mega corporations with worldwide sales, any protest along those lines is an accounting rounding error. They mythologize the boycotts of Cesar Chavez and think that it will work again.
Both the far-right and the left have called for boycotts of organizations hostile to their beliefs. Yet they have had little impact because people either don’t know or don’t care enough to stop buying the offending good or service.
A better idea is to support businesses that align with your goals and interests — especially if they are small and local. Double points for supporting businesses from marginalized groups. They need the help right now.
I keep posting about them, but DebtorsPrison and Brainwrap on Daily Kos are the exact types of people you should support with your money. Go to your local farmers’ market. And don’t shame people for buying things they need to survive by going to the big box stores.
x
We have TWO simultaneous 20% off promotions happening: Black History Month, and our RESIST! promo. Some books are in both, like these two: An Abolitionist's Handbook, by Patrisse Cullors, and Wake Up, America, by Keisha N. Blain
theliteratelizard.com/black-histor...
theliteratelizard.com/resist-2025
[image or embed]
— The Literate Lizard (@theliteratelizard.bsky.social) February 6, 2025 at 7:51 PM
x
Welcome new followers!
I'm a healthcare policy analyst, advocate & blogger who focuses primarily on the ACA. I’ve also gained some attention for my COVID19 data analysis.
I also raise money online for Democratic candidates.
You can follow my work (& even support it!) at ACASignups.net.
[image or embed]
— Charles Gaba ✡️ (@charlesgaba.com) November 12, 2024 at 6:40 PM
I have seen people call for this, even on this very site. I’m trying hard not to laugh. If you think protesting is risky, a general strike is even riskier. In addition to all of the negatives above for protesting, you add these problems on top of it.
- You’re asking people to sacrifice their career and means of providing for their families for a slim chance of change. For most people, this is madness. They live paycheck to paycheck and cannot afford to miss even a single day of work.
- If you think protests have the risk of being bloody, read about the history of the labor movement and revolutions. A general strike will be harshly suppressed by the powers that be. That’s why labor unions don’t call for them anymore.
- It’s illegal in the USA under the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947. The ringleaders risk severe repercussions — especially under the Musk/Trump regime.
- Labor unions are at their weakest power politically in a long time. Less than 10% of workers are a part of a labor union. Labor union rank and file members in the trades are increasingly gravitating towards far-right politics. Service employee unions are taking the opposite tack and are migrating to the left. Solidarity even amongst what’s left of the labor movement is probably not possible.
You can make the case for a general strike in the comments, but it will take an awful lot of convincing for me to see any positives in taking such an action.
Conclusion
If you’ve read this far, I want to commend you. It was very wonky and extremely long. I tried my best to keep my opinions out of the top 3 sections but likely failed in the 4th section. I expect the majority of comments to be about that section picking it apart.
If I’ve missed something, please inform me of it. I’m not defensive and open to learning. In such a long article, I have probably botched something anyways.
If you want to know more about the procedures of Congress, ringwiss is the person to follow on social media. He does get bogged down in the weeds but I’ve learned a LOT from him. He’s also pretty neutral in terms of political statements.
Please chime in on accounts to follow for court matters. For the Extreme Court, I follow SCOTUSBlog. They analyze every step of the Extreme Court process from petitions to arguments to decisions. They’re unbiased and avoid editorializing as well.
Here’s a good place to start in terms of advice for resisting. I don’t agree with all of them necessarily but many of these are invaluable. Please feel free to add more tips in the comments.
Finally, we can throw pie all day at one another about how to climb out of the abyss. All it does is dig the hole deeper.
Let’s seek a greater understanding and try to work together instead of tear one another apart.
