This is an eloquent and heartbreaking analysis. Very few electeds are people of this kind of courage. Certainly Kamala Harris, who never should’ve been the candidate, has not exhibited such leadership and never will. We should start by stopping Janet Mills from running against Graham Platner.
Obama and Bush are like the two people who in the eyes of low-trust voters most strongly represent the "corrupt establishment". Many Trump voters still do protest voting against the elites and establishment. It would do a world of good for Dems to separate themselves from previous presidents, just as republican did.
Low trust voters, especially from the midwest are the key constituency. They are the Obama-Trump swing voters. One poll after another shows that they don't like neither Republicans nor Democrats, don't really care much about policy but are very, very perceptive to the populist message. Not really economic populism, but the "stick-it-to-the-elites" populism that Trump impersonates. They may even vote Dem if only the candidate is someone with equal anti-elite message and brand. Then, it would be difficult for President Trump, sitting in his golden office, to represent himself as anti-elite. On the other hand, if he is against Bush or Obama, then the situation becomes clear.
The all hands on deck method may lead to great protests, millions marching on Washington, and such, but on the end of the day it is Mr. and Mrs. Swing from Bumfick, MI who decides the future of nation.
Mr & Mrs Bumfick will have to pay more for their healthcare and eggs, while no one will buy their soybeans or their uncle's soybeans. Sticking it to the libs will be the last thing on their minds.
Also, I do think there are more of us than there are of them. Oct 18 will tell a story.
The '3.5% rule': How a small minority can change the world.
Nice piece, Brian. I agree with this statement, "You are actors in history, you’re writing your own epitaphs," and I feel that when a person finds themselves buffeted by a maelstrom of events, like all of us are feeling now, each one of us has to play their part. You can throw yourself into resistance, actively or passively, while at the same time realizing that the collapse of our country may go on anyway. The meaning of your life comes from knowing how you behaved in the face of merciless people. History will grind on, as it always has, but it does take small detours depending on the acts of individuals. Collective action is essential, but so is relentless opposition by each person every day.
Obama and Bush together was my first thought after reading the opening paragraphs. Nobody likes Bush but the two together would be a potent team. But I have to say that the failure of Obama to speak out more often and more forcibly so far has been inexcusable and inexplicable.
I read and hear about courts, politicians, ordinary citizens, and occasionally businesses as fulcrums of power in a play for resistance. I never hear about the military. But they are the be-all and end-all of power fulcrums. Trump and Hegseth certainly know this otherwise they’d not of dragged the upper echelons of the forces in to witness a dog and pony show. Trump has assembled his own personal force, ICE, composed of people very eager to do his bidding. He’s already sending national guard troops to blue states and cities as a show of force. Ultimately, if he really intends to subvert the constitution it will be with guns, not with EO’s. And that circles back to my question about our military. What crosses their mind as they watch this horror show unfold? The silence is deafening.
FUCK we are so far from the "sufficient national resistance" that's described here. In my eyes, because the response has been thoroughly insufficient, all we're really left clinging to is three plays: the midterms, him dying of poor heath and advanced age while in office, and the 2028 election. Reading what the game plan could actually could like, in more specificity here, is sobering. There's a reason you play the game, but given that we're really NOT playing it, and your acknowledgement that "It’s late in the game," just how late do you think it is?
One idea I’ve heard that sounds especially compelling—and could have a massive impact if enacted on a national scale—is the concept of a generalized economic strike (credit to Scott Galloway and Kara Swisher for platforming the notion).
Hitler rose to power with little to no resistance from business leaders—many were complicit. We’re seeing troubling parallels today: technocrats visiting the White House one by one to bend the knee or funnel money (read: bribes) into the President’s “library,” CEOs silencing critical voices, and corporations in general avoiding any friction with the administration.
When over a million Americans began posting on social media that they were canceling their Disney+ subscriptions and theme park vacations, Bob Iger and ABC suddenly found their spines and reinstated Jimmy Kimmel. The U.S. economy is almost entirely consumer-based. Moreover, the top 10% of Americans by income account for roughly 50% of all U.S. spending—and many of these individuals are not part of Trump’s constituency.
If such a strike were enacted for just a few days—particularly among top earners or on high-revenue days like Black Friday—it would exert massive pressure on corporations, the broader economy (potentially dropping GDP by over 1%), and, by extension, the White House. Trump and the GOP are heavily reliant on the stock market (which is almost entirely driven by the performance of ~7 tech companies) and the perception that he’s somehow “good for the economy.”
We tend to underestimate our power as consumers. If the business community and influential elites were actually forced to turn on Trump, I think he would be gone pretty quick.
Thank you for this thoughtful assessment of where we are and what we could do to hit the brakes. I can call and text and protest. Hopefully it all adds up.
I think this is excellent forward thinking. I would add this piece to the crucial and still underutilized tool of messaging. The media, and in this case I mean anyone who gives a fuck about democracy who gets to ask questions and put microphones in front of politicians, would serve us much better if they realized the strength of acting as a team. Business as usual goes like this--someone will occasionally ask a decent question, the Republican(you can fill in the blank on this one) will lie, and as these are the last words of the exchange the liars continue to have the upper hand in controlling the narrative, in framing the issue. Teamwork would entail the next questioner, and the next one after that and so on, to act like herding dogs and go right back to the same premise that was avoided with the first lying answer. And keep after them like that relentlessly.
Thank you for this. I have made a great deal of effort to occasionally put himself in the rooms you're talking about to make exactly this sort of pitch--I will be in one of those rooms again next week--and it's encouraging to know my message roughly tracks your thinking. I particularly like some of your framing, e.g., "You are actors in history, you’re writing your own epitaphs." Along those lines, I've talked about a third founding and invoked Neville Chamberlain in lengthy conversations with multiple sitting Democratic Senators. Unfortunately, while I've had a Senator privately admit back in March to fears of blood in the streets, the message has NOT been well received, though I allow that some (but definitely not all) of the fault may be with the messenger. Thanks again.
The thought experiment in the first segment is so interesting, because that's exactly how I and other regular folks I know *have* thought about our actions in this moment. Back in December I decided that what mattered most to me personally during this time was that I not be ashamed of what I did or didn't do while it was happening. That when the museum of this moment was built, I would be on the wall of those who did what we could--not by name, but able to say "these people who did that thing, I was one of those."
The amazing thing is that the leaders you're talking about *will* be named, by name, in that museum, but they don't seem to be thinking that way! Politics attracts folks with delusions of grandeur, but that seems to have gone weirdly missing from almost every elected Democrat.
this should be required reading for every single person in the legislature on all levels of government—local to federal.
This is an eloquent and heartbreaking analysis. Very few electeds are people of this kind of courage. Certainly Kamala Harris, who never should’ve been the candidate, has not exhibited such leadership and never will. We should start by stopping Janet Mills from running against Graham Platner.
I have been saying this far a very long time. Where the hell are Obama and Bush?? I agree with everything you write!!
Obama and Bush are like the two people who in the eyes of low-trust voters most strongly represent the "corrupt establishment". Many Trump voters still do protest voting against the elites and establishment. It would do a world of good for Dems to separate themselves from previous presidents, just as republican did.
I diasagree. All hands on deck. Low trust voters are not engaged and don't mobilize for anything except calling in their votes for American Idol.
Low trust voters, especially from the midwest are the key constituency. They are the Obama-Trump swing voters. One poll after another shows that they don't like neither Republicans nor Democrats, don't really care much about policy but are very, very perceptive to the populist message. Not really economic populism, but the "stick-it-to-the-elites" populism that Trump impersonates. They may even vote Dem if only the candidate is someone with equal anti-elite message and brand. Then, it would be difficult for President Trump, sitting in his golden office, to represent himself as anti-elite. On the other hand, if he is against Bush or Obama, then the situation becomes clear.
The all hands on deck method may lead to great protests, millions marching on Washington, and such, but on the end of the day it is Mr. and Mrs. Swing from Bumfick, MI who decides the future of nation.
Mr & Mrs Bumfick will have to pay more for their healthcare and eggs, while no one will buy their soybeans or their uncle's soybeans. Sticking it to the libs will be the last thing on their minds.
Also, I do think there are more of us than there are of them. Oct 18 will tell a story.
The '3.5% rule': How a small minority can change the world.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190513-it-only-takes-35-of-people-to-change-the-world
Nice piece, Brian. I agree with this statement, "You are actors in history, you’re writing your own epitaphs," and I feel that when a person finds themselves buffeted by a maelstrom of events, like all of us are feeling now, each one of us has to play their part. You can throw yourself into resistance, actively or passively, while at the same time realizing that the collapse of our country may go on anyway. The meaning of your life comes from knowing how you behaved in the face of merciless people. History will grind on, as it always has, but it does take small detours depending on the acts of individuals. Collective action is essential, but so is relentless opposition by each person every day.
Thank you Brian.
Obama and Bush together was my first thought after reading the opening paragraphs. Nobody likes Bush but the two together would be a potent team. But I have to say that the failure of Obama to speak out more often and more forcibly so far has been inexcusable and inexplicable.
I read and hear about courts, politicians, ordinary citizens, and occasionally businesses as fulcrums of power in a play for resistance. I never hear about the military. But they are the be-all and end-all of power fulcrums. Trump and Hegseth certainly know this otherwise they’d not of dragged the upper echelons of the forces in to witness a dog and pony show. Trump has assembled his own personal force, ICE, composed of people very eager to do his bidding. He’s already sending national guard troops to blue states and cities as a show of force. Ultimately, if he really intends to subvert the constitution it will be with guns, not with EO’s. And that circles back to my question about our military. What crosses their mind as they watch this horror show unfold? The silence is deafening.
Thank you for positive action suggestions. If only those with a big voice would coordinate to set a date and an action.
Take your idea and find someone who will start it.
FUCK we are so far from the "sufficient national resistance" that's described here. In my eyes, because the response has been thoroughly insufficient, all we're really left clinging to is three plays: the midterms, him dying of poor heath and advanced age while in office, and the 2028 election. Reading what the game plan could actually could like, in more specificity here, is sobering. There's a reason you play the game, but given that we're really NOT playing it, and your acknowledgement that "It’s late in the game," just how late do you think it is?
This is excellent. Thank you for articulating what so many of us are feeling.
One idea I’ve heard that sounds especially compelling—and could have a massive impact if enacted on a national scale—is the concept of a generalized economic strike (credit to Scott Galloway and Kara Swisher for platforming the notion).
Hitler rose to power with little to no resistance from business leaders—many were complicit. We’re seeing troubling parallels today: technocrats visiting the White House one by one to bend the knee or funnel money (read: bribes) into the President’s “library,” CEOs silencing critical voices, and corporations in general avoiding any friction with the administration.
When over a million Americans began posting on social media that they were canceling their Disney+ subscriptions and theme park vacations, Bob Iger and ABC suddenly found their spines and reinstated Jimmy Kimmel. The U.S. economy is almost entirely consumer-based. Moreover, the top 10% of Americans by income account for roughly 50% of all U.S. spending—and many of these individuals are not part of Trump’s constituency.
If such a strike were enacted for just a few days—particularly among top earners or on high-revenue days like Black Friday—it would exert massive pressure on corporations, the broader economy (potentially dropping GDP by over 1%), and, by extension, the White House. Trump and the GOP are heavily reliant on the stock market (which is almost entirely driven by the performance of ~7 tech companies) and the perception that he’s somehow “good for the economy.”
We tend to underestimate our power as consumers. If the business community and influential elites were actually forced to turn on Trump, I think he would be gone pretty quick.
Thank you for this thoughtful assessment of where we are and what we could do to hit the brakes. I can call and text and protest. Hopefully it all adds up.
I think this is excellent forward thinking. I would add this piece to the crucial and still underutilized tool of messaging. The media, and in this case I mean anyone who gives a fuck about democracy who gets to ask questions and put microphones in front of politicians, would serve us much better if they realized the strength of acting as a team. Business as usual goes like this--someone will occasionally ask a decent question, the Republican(you can fill in the blank on this one) will lie, and as these are the last words of the exchange the liars continue to have the upper hand in controlling the narrative, in framing the issue. Teamwork would entail the next questioner, and the next one after that and so on, to act like herding dogs and go right back to the same premise that was avoided with the first lying answer. And keep after them like that relentlessly.
Thank you for this. I have made a great deal of effort to occasionally put himself in the rooms you're talking about to make exactly this sort of pitch--I will be in one of those rooms again next week--and it's encouraging to know my message roughly tracks your thinking. I particularly like some of your framing, e.g., "You are actors in history, you’re writing your own epitaphs." Along those lines, I've talked about a third founding and invoked Neville Chamberlain in lengthy conversations with multiple sitting Democratic Senators. Unfortunately, while I've had a Senator privately admit back in March to fears of blood in the streets, the message has NOT been well received, though I allow that some (but definitely not all) of the fault may be with the messenger. Thanks again.
The thought experiment in the first segment is so interesting, because that's exactly how I and other regular folks I know *have* thought about our actions in this moment. Back in December I decided that what mattered most to me personally during this time was that I not be ashamed of what I did or didn't do while it was happening. That when the museum of this moment was built, I would be on the wall of those who did what we could--not by name, but able to say "these people who did that thing, I was one of those."
The amazing thing is that the leaders you're talking about *will* be named, by name, in that museum, but they don't seem to be thinking that way! Politics attracts folks with delusions of grandeur, but that seems to have gone weirdly missing from almost every elected Democrat.