Great stuff. It made me think, Trump at least always gives his base the SHOW they want. He won’t deliver for ordinary Americans, but he will perform for them. It often feels like our representatives won’t even do the performance part. Not only do Jeffries and Schumer have no ideas, they aren’t even interested in pretending to care about *displays* of resistance that might make their most engaged democratic voters feel seen.
When Democrats show up for a rigged came, they are blessing it. When Trump refused to promise to honor the results of all three elections, starting in 2016, Clinton and Biden should have refused to debate with him - what's the point of having a debate intended to inform viewers about who is the better candidate if one of them will not promise to acceded to the will of the voters?
And think of the attention it would have garnered! If they refused to debate, the story would have been about that AND THEIR REASONS FOR IT. Certainly, Republicans would have attempted to spin it as Democrats chickening out, but that would have been hard to maintain if Clinton or Biden had said "I will happily take the stage to trounce the Donald as soon as he promises the bare minimum - he will respect the results of the election."
Anyway, no reason to pretend any of this is normal.
All but one (Moulton) of the Massachusetts Representatives and both Senators will not attend the State of the Union.
The more other Dems do the same, the easier it is for those hesitating to also boycott.
Courage can be contagious.
"Silent defiance" is bad oxymoron for submission. Trump thrives on asserting dominance. Deny him the opportunity. A sizable boycott will likely trigger his baser instincts. Give it a try.
If your Rep or Senator has not decided, there is still time to call or email them and urge them to stay away.
A photo of empty democrat benches during state of union, while Trump and Republicans are present, sends a simple message - Trump & friends doing the hard work on governing the country while liberals are absent. This single image is the most swing voters will remember or understand. Trump is here for you, when liberals are lazy at best, and conspiring in secret at worst.
That would only be true if there's no Dem counter-programming. But there will be. Having empty benches sends a message that *This is not normal*. The counter-programming explains why the benches are empty AND cuts into the attention on Trump.
I'm not certain I agree with you, @Bartlomiej, . . . but it's the best counter-argument I've seen.
A different perspective: for people pissed off about where the country is going, a complete Dem no-show provides the visual of R's owning all the mess.
This is a Dukakis moment. Confronted with a rape, the only reasonable and expected response is outrage (and, potentially, violence). You don't sit down with the rapist and stoically listen to him explain why he did what he did--or, for that matter, his future plans.
Sadly (outrageously), this metaphor isn't all that metaphorical when it comes to Trump. If the fence-sitters need a reason to boycott, let it be the actual felons and the countless, yet-to-be-prosecuted crimes. Do they really want to be seen in the room with THAT?
When I saw Mark Kelly was gonna be there my thought was "maybe that will goad Trump into a meltdown". I would recommend responding with eye rolls and wanking motions but (for this and other good reasons) I am not a US Senator.
When decorum, norms & protocols are only expected to be followed by one party they are no longer those things.
I personally don’t think Dems should legitimize what will be an extremely partisan speech filled with lies and propaganda but whether they boycott or not should be a party wide showing. Stick together for a change.
I would like to see them laugh at him all night. Every boast he makes about things that aren't happening laugh and knee slap. That would chap his ass and he would probably go off the rails and show the TV audience what a freaking idiot he is. We all know he can't stand being made fun of, Jimmy Kimmel the shit out of him.
I agree with this, too. Thus, either boycott, or go and heckle. Do NOT take the Jeffries route, and sit in "dignified" silence which would read as submission.
If you’re a football team and the local rugby team challenges you to a winner-takes-all match on their pitch, with their rules, their equipment, their officiating, and their fans, OR you could go play a friendly game of flag in the next town over, do you really gain anything other than a black eye and maybe a missing tooth if you square up against the rugby players just so you can have the empty boast that they didn’t “run you off your block”? I fully agree that a show of strong solidarity would be much more effective than whatever this tepid “we’ll go but we won’t clap” nonsense will be. But hey, I guess hand wringing and “concern” has worked for Susan Collins all these years...
I wanted this to happen last year at the SOTU. But as some Ds were planning to boycott, word got out the Rs were recruiting people to take their seats so the chamber would be full of cheering sycophants with the optics benefitting Trump. When Al Green stood up in defiance, every D should have followed suit; the whole SOTU would have been taken up by Ds being ejected. I agree you win the moral high road by not going. But you don't win the optics by not going; you win the optics by being Al Green.
As always, Dems have to strategize to appeal to two different constituencies: the rank and file faithful, who will applaud their boycott, walkout, and counter-programming; and the supposed centrists/independents, who have to be won over. It's hard to imagine a significant number of the latter watching Dems sit there in stony silence, as Trump tells lie after lie--not only about himself, but about Biden and his accomplishments--thinking, "I'm impressed with how those Democrats respect the tradition!" As Brian succinctly put it, "If you want people to admire you, stand up for yourself."
Another powerful reason not to attend with stiff dignity: Attending is a mass act of normalizing. The president speaking to his party and the opposition party, formally assembled, is a striking tableau of civic discourse. It signals that the president is offering considered thoughts as to the welfare of the nation, and that the assembled are listening. And so, it signals that the president actually has thoughts about the public welfare, and that they're cogent, and that he is sincere about them. The Democrats should not attend, but also need to press thru their exclusion from the public platforms of the MSM to make clear why they didn't attend: because the president is no longer cogent; in any event has no concern for the public welfare, only his own infantile needs; and doesn't select his words for correspondence to any external reality, so that they may, by chance, form poetry of a sort, but carry no civic meaning. The only assembly with a reason to watch Trump speak would be a team of mental health professionals, and then only thru a one-way glass.
I called Rosa DeLauro's DC office to ask if she will be boycotting the State of the Union lie-fest tonight.
I was told she would be attending.
At this point, it takes a real lack of political self-respect to attend and be lied to, abused, and gaslit for an hour. Nothing is gained by attending. It confers an unearned dignity on Trump's speech and sends the dishonest message that you think things are normal.
Dems need to stand up for truth by refusing to sit still for lies.
I emailed her office the link to this post, Brian.
Well put . . . particularly the comments about Obama. As a fan of his since he first ran for office in Chicago, this has been a frustration of mine for YEARS. Most Dems celebrate his dignity; I don't argue with that. But they whitewash the fighter. They forget that this was the guy who told Rahm, "F it, we're going for all the marbles on healthcare"; they forget that this was the dude who knocked Alice Palmer off the ballot in 1996. There's steel there, and it's an example to follow if we're willing to look for it.
While I will never watch Trump give a SOTU speech, I do believe that at least the party leadership is required to. I remember when the Republican congressman stood up in Obama’s first SOTU and said “you lie!” I was appalled. I feel that was the beginning of our downward divide. The average American is disgusted by displays like that. They want our politicians to act like adults and to work together. I think it’s better for the more fiery Democrats to hold their own SOTU than attend the actual one and make a spectacle and I will be watching the alt SOTU tonight.
Wouldn't showing up...then walking out during his lie fest be more effective?
Sure. I’m pro-any middle finger gesture, figurative or literal.
yeah, that's fine but especially if all of them do it at once, in mass.
Great stuff. It made me think, Trump at least always gives his base the SHOW they want. He won’t deliver for ordinary Americans, but he will perform for them. It often feels like our representatives won’t even do the performance part. Not only do Jeffries and Schumer have no ideas, they aren’t even interested in pretending to care about *displays* of resistance that might make their most engaged democratic voters feel seen.
Agreed, 100%.
When Democrats show up for a rigged came, they are blessing it. When Trump refused to promise to honor the results of all three elections, starting in 2016, Clinton and Biden should have refused to debate with him - what's the point of having a debate intended to inform viewers about who is the better candidate if one of them will not promise to acceded to the will of the voters?
And think of the attention it would have garnered! If they refused to debate, the story would have been about that AND THEIR REASONS FOR IT. Certainly, Republicans would have attempted to spin it as Democrats chickening out, but that would have been hard to maintain if Clinton or Biden had said "I will happily take the stage to trounce the Donald as soon as he promises the bare minimum - he will respect the results of the election."
Anyway, no reason to pretend any of this is normal.
All but one (Moulton) of the Massachusetts Representatives and both Senators will not attend the State of the Union.
The more other Dems do the same, the easier it is for those hesitating to also boycott.
Courage can be contagious.
"Silent defiance" is bad oxymoron for submission. Trump thrives on asserting dominance. Deny him the opportunity. A sizable boycott will likely trigger his baser instincts. Give it a try.
If your Rep or Senator has not decided, there is still time to call or email them and urge them to stay away.
No audience for lies and criminality!
Ha! Moulton. Barf.
A photo of empty democrat benches during state of union, while Trump and Republicans are present, sends a simple message - Trump & friends doing the hard work on governing the country while liberals are absent. This single image is the most swing voters will remember or understand. Trump is here for you, when liberals are lazy at best, and conspiring in secret at worst.
Swing voters are typically disengaged from politics and won’t even be watching.
Yep. Older voters who are fairly entrenched in their views are the ones who watch these things.
Making decisions on what swing voters might think is also what has gotten the dem party here, too scared to offend anyone to the point of inaction.
They don't have to watch. They just have to see a meme on their phone. That's how they get their "news."
That would only be true if there's no Dem counter-programming. But there will be. Having empty benches sends a message that *This is not normal*. The counter-programming explains why the benches are empty AND cuts into the attention on Trump.
I'm not certain I agree with you, @Bartlomiej, . . . but it's the best counter-argument I've seen.
A different perspective: for people pissed off about where the country is going, a complete Dem no-show provides the visual of R's owning all the mess.
This is a Dukakis moment. Confronted with a rape, the only reasonable and expected response is outrage (and, potentially, violence). You don't sit down with the rapist and stoically listen to him explain why he did what he did--or, for that matter, his future plans.
Sadly (outrageously), this metaphor isn't all that metaphorical when it comes to Trump. If the fence-sitters need a reason to boycott, let it be the actual felons and the countless, yet-to-be-prosecuted crimes. Do they really want to be seen in the room with THAT?
When I saw Mark Kelly was gonna be there my thought was "maybe that will goad Trump into a meltdown". I would recommend responding with eye rolls and wanking motions but (for this and other good reasons) I am not a US Senator.
Laffs at "wanking motions." Yes please!
When decorum, norms & protocols are only expected to be followed by one party they are no longer those things.
I personally don’t think Dems should legitimize what will be an extremely partisan speech filled with lies and propaganda but whether they boycott or not should be a party wide showing. Stick together for a change.
I would like to see them laugh at him all night. Every boast he makes about things that aren't happening laugh and knee slap. That would chap his ass and he would probably go off the rails and show the TV audience what a freaking idiot he is. We all know he can't stand being made fun of, Jimmy Kimmel the shit out of him.
I agree with this, too. Thus, either boycott, or go and heckle. Do NOT take the Jeffries route, and sit in "dignified" silence which would read as submission.
If you’re a football team and the local rugby team challenges you to a winner-takes-all match on their pitch, with their rules, their equipment, their officiating, and their fans, OR you could go play a friendly game of flag in the next town over, do you really gain anything other than a black eye and maybe a missing tooth if you square up against the rugby players just so you can have the empty boast that they didn’t “run you off your block”? I fully agree that a show of strong solidarity would be much more effective than whatever this tepid “we’ll go but we won’t clap” nonsense will be. But hey, I guess hand wringing and “concern” has worked for Susan Collins all these years...
I wanted this to happen last year at the SOTU. But as some Ds were planning to boycott, word got out the Rs were recruiting people to take their seats so the chamber would be full of cheering sycophants with the optics benefitting Trump. When Al Green stood up in defiance, every D should have followed suit; the whole SOTU would have been taken up by Ds being ejected. I agree you win the moral high road by not going. But you don't win the optics by not going; you win the optics by being Al Green.
100%. I'd like a full "Questions for the Prime Minister" type approach, with constant jeering, booing, and whistling.
As always, Dems have to strategize to appeal to two different constituencies: the rank and file faithful, who will applaud their boycott, walkout, and counter-programming; and the supposed centrists/independents, who have to be won over. It's hard to imagine a significant number of the latter watching Dems sit there in stony silence, as Trump tells lie after lie--not only about himself, but about Biden and his accomplishments--thinking, "I'm impressed with how those Democrats respect the tradition!" As Brian succinctly put it, "If you want people to admire you, stand up for yourself."
Another powerful reason not to attend with stiff dignity: Attending is a mass act of normalizing. The president speaking to his party and the opposition party, formally assembled, is a striking tableau of civic discourse. It signals that the president is offering considered thoughts as to the welfare of the nation, and that the assembled are listening. And so, it signals that the president actually has thoughts about the public welfare, and that they're cogent, and that he is sincere about them. The Democrats should not attend, but also need to press thru their exclusion from the public platforms of the MSM to make clear why they didn't attend: because the president is no longer cogent; in any event has no concern for the public welfare, only his own infantile needs; and doesn't select his words for correspondence to any external reality, so that they may, by chance, form poetry of a sort, but carry no civic meaning. The only assembly with a reason to watch Trump speak would be a team of mental health professionals, and then only thru a one-way glass.
I called Rosa DeLauro's DC office to ask if she will be boycotting the State of the Union lie-fest tonight.
I was told she would be attending.
At this point, it takes a real lack of political self-respect to attend and be lied to, abused, and gaslit for an hour. Nothing is gained by attending. It confers an unearned dignity on Trump's speech and sends the dishonest message that you think things are normal.
Dems need to stand up for truth by refusing to sit still for lies.
I emailed her office the link to this post, Brian.
Well put . . . particularly the comments about Obama. As a fan of his since he first ran for office in Chicago, this has been a frustration of mine for YEARS. Most Dems celebrate his dignity; I don't argue with that. But they whitewash the fighter. They forget that this was the guy who told Rahm, "F it, we're going for all the marbles on healthcare"; they forget that this was the dude who knocked Alice Palmer off the ballot in 1996. There's steel there, and it's an example to follow if we're willing to look for it.
While I will never watch Trump give a SOTU speech, I do believe that at least the party leadership is required to. I remember when the Republican congressman stood up in Obama’s first SOTU and said “you lie!” I was appalled. I feel that was the beginning of our downward divide. The average American is disgusted by displays like that. They want our politicians to act like adults and to work together. I think it’s better for the more fiery Democrats to hold their own SOTU than attend the actual one and make a spectacle and I will be watching the alt SOTU tonight.