Mailbag: The Immigration Freakout Was A GOP Propaganda Coup
No Kings ... Marie Gluesenkamp Perez ... Ruben Gallego
Happy Juneteenth, readers, and thanks as always for your questions.
Off Message will likely be dark tomorrow, but if you have a question for next Thursday’s mailbag? Leave it in the comments below.
Steven Zax: This will be after the fact, but I was curious to get your thoughts on the Indivisible protest tactic to avoid DC.
I understand the thinking behind it but couldn't help but wonder if this may be a missed opportunity.
Peaceful, civil disobedience could be quite powerful in DC -- esp in front of a military parade. It would definitely get media coverage (which we need) and could result in a powerful image as well.
I also understand the idea that we don't want to provoke an over-reaction from Trump in DC. But isn't that kinda the point -- to provoke? And if we're afraid to do that -- then we've already lost in some ways.
I appreciate that it is not an easy call at all...Thx!
I think you can argue the decision both ways, and that erring on the side of prudence isn’t really worth second guessing. But it’s worth noting that there were protests in DC on Saturday, notwithstanding the No Kings organizers’ admonition to protest everywhere but DC. They were just smaller than they might otherwise have been.
If you were gaming it out in advance, you might try to evaluate the odds of various outcomes:
A big, peaceful show of resistance in DC that dwarfs the military parade crowd — 20 percent;
A big, peaceful show of resistance in DC that Donald Trump responds to violently—10 percent;
A peaceful show of resistance in DC that’s overshadowed by a larger MAGA crowd—20 percent;
A big show of resistance in DC that attracts rioters and black bloc types—10 percent;
A protest-boycott of DC that creates space for a big, well-attended, unopposed parade—10 percent;
A protest-boycott of DC that helps draw attention to the miserable failure of the Trump parade—30 percent.
Those are obviously made up percentages, but you get the idea. Outcomes one and two might’ve been politically optimal (or, I should say, politically useful in the case of state violence). But they court the risk of something more like outcomes three and four, which would have been counterproductive. We ultimately got that last outcome, and it strikes me as a pretty good one.
Tim Larson: A huge number of people (8-10 million?) crossed our southern border illegally during Biden's presidency, right? How did Democrats not realize that this border disaster was going to be fatal for us? Why did we not take action, reduce the flow, and reduce Trump's chances of winning? I know Republicans blocked legislation, but we could have taken emergency steps. Why did we not? To keep Latinos in the party happy?