There’s a lot of talk about progressives forming an actual, functional movement. Ordinarily, progressives blow off steam, with silliness, like the Occupy Movement, which was big on symbolism and had zero effect on the real world. They risk doing that again, calling themselves “the Resistance,” but some are also talking about forming a left-wing movement fashioned after the Tea Party, called, “Indivisible.”

After the largest change election in a long time, and the highest approval ratings seen in decades, progressives thought they had a Reagan-like movement in 2008. But the Tea Party was all over the media by 2009, and took control in 2010, wiping out any chance of Obama accomplishing much.

Democrats could get a movement going, especially if the excessive expectations on Trump bring frustration among blue collar workers, for instance. But it’s a reach. Republicans are sitting pretty to maintain majorities in both the House and Senate in 2018. But that could change. After all, who would have thought Trump would be able to win Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and even Wisconsin and Michigan??

The Washington Enquirer says progressives are finally waking up to strategy.

A group of former Democratic congressional staffers wants to stop President Trump and thinks emulating the Tea Party is the way to do so, assembling a new group called “Indivisible” to push back against Trump from the grassroots.

Their manifesto, “Indivisible: A practical guide for resisting the Trump agenda,” is a 26-page “how to” manual written by scores of former staffers that outlines how progressives can use the most successful tactics employed by the Tea Party to their advantage. . .

“We examine lessons from the Tea Party’s rise and recommend two key strategic components: A local strategy targeting individual members of Congress; a defensive approach purely focused on stopping Trump from implementing an agenda built on racism, authoritarianism, and corruption,” they wrote.

They advise voters to assemble at the local level and to focus solely on their own elected representatives. . .

“[W]e can all learn from their success in influencing the national debate and the behavior of national policymakers,” the group says about the Tea Party. “To their credit, they thought thoroughly about advocacy tactics.”

The “indivisible” group does not advocate replicating bullying and violent methods, which they say the Tea Party used.

“In terms of some of that violence and aggressive and abusive rhetoric and behavior — we are 100 percent opposed to that as a tactic and it’s not consistent with our values,” Padilla said.

You can get the booklet here.

One of the things “Indivisible” suggests is going to go to town halls, but from my experience, that’s a waste of time if the representative is not in a contested district. In fact, town halls can be counter-productive. In 2003, leading up to the Iraq War, Republican Representative Fred Upton scheduled a number of town halls in Michigan—not to “hear” from constituents, but to let them blow off steam.

Prior to the town halls, people talked about going into the streets to protest. But after speaking at the town halls, all their energy was gone. They even kissed up to Upton, gee wiz, thanking him for “listening.” He wasn’t listening. He voted against their wishes, and since their energy had been dissipated, there was no protest—and the country was doomed to be in Iraq for many years.

As noted above, 2018 will not be as friendly to progressives as 2010 was for conservatives, according to The Blaze.

The problem progressives face is that the 2018 electoral map presents a brutal challenge for Democrats, particularly in the Senate. Democrats will be defending an astounding 25 seats in the Senate, compared to only eight for Republicans. Moreover, none of the Republican seats up in 2018 is in a state won by Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton in 2016, whereas Democrats will be defending 10 seats in states won by Trump.

Democrats’ best chance in 2018 might well be to retake the House and replicate the Republicans’ tactics of forcing constant budget showdowns with Trump over policy areas that are mostly unrelated to the actual budget.

Of course, thanks to clever and powerful Gerrymandering, it’s really not likely that Democrats will pick up many seats in the House.

The Women’s March showed some power.

They want to be the tea party, but they’re worried they’ll be Occupy Wall Street.

Millions of people — hundreds of thousands in Washington alone — flooded cities across the country on Saturday, completely overwhelming expectations and planned routes for the Women’s March. With the stands behind them at the Capitol still in place from President Donald Trump’s inauguration on Friday, they covered the Mall well beyond the crowd that showed for him.

Now they have to figure out what to do next to channel the raw energy of the marches into political action. And what is it that they’re about: Women’s equality? Reproductive rights? Race? Climate change? Stopping Trump from putting someone they don’t want on the Supreme Court? Making him release his taxes? All of the above? Signs (and costumes) for all of that and more were all over the place on Saturday. . .

It has to be more than opposition in order to have an impact. And, like the Tea Party, “Indivisible” will have to challenge the its own party.

Liberal filmmaker Michael Moore, an initial Sanders backer, made a sharp plea for a more organized opposition.

“The old guard of the Democratic Party has got to go,” Moore told a crowd that included many Democratic members of Congress. He urged marchers to call their elected representatives “every single day” to speak up against Trump’s policies, and expressed support for Rep. Keith Ellison, one of six candidates to be the new Democratic National Committee chair.

Some say Bernie Sanders is the natural leader of “Indivisible.” But he has his own opinions.

Sen. Bernie Sanders bristled at the idea that liberal protests against President Donald Trump all over the country are analogous to the protests and demonstrations that marked the beginning of the tea party movement.

“It’s not a tea party because the tea party was essentially funded by the billionaire Koch brothers family,” Sanders said during an interview with NBC News’ Chuck Todd on Sunday on “Meet the Press.” “This is a spontaneous and grass-roots uprising of the American people.”. . .

“On February 25th, two weeks from yesterday, there is in fact going to be rallies all over this country, and I think you’re going to see people in conservative areas, in progressive areas, asking the Republicans: ‘What are you going to do when you throw 23 million people off of health insurance?'” Sanders said, adding: “‘How many of them are going to die? What’s your plan when you raise prescription drug costs, on average, $2,000 for senior citizens? Are you really going to repeal the protection against preexisting conditions so that people who have cancer or heart disease will no longer be able to have health insurance? You going to throw kids off of their parents’ health insurance programs?’

Sanders has given us a “red line.” If there are huge protests the weekend after this, Indivisible will be on its way to having an impact. If the energy has already dissipated, with small crowds, regardless of volume, then “Indivisible” will just be another embarrassing footnote. Time will tell.

31 COMMENTS

  1. I suspect the success or failure of this new left-wing resistance movement will be predicated somewhat on how strongly President Trump can keep his supporters engaged. Even if there are motivated Democrats ready to vote in 2018, there may be just as many Trump supporters ready to go back to the polls if their President keeps them incentivized to help him keep pushing his agenda.

    Some of the Tea Party successes happened because Democrats tend to ignore off-year elections. That coupled with Tea Party enthusiasm created big wins in 2010 and 2014, despite President Obama winning re-election.

    • I think the “movement” will peter out the way all liberal movements fall apart.

      As Will Rogers said, “I don’t belong to ANY organized political party. . .I’m a Demmycrat.”

      • All liberal movements have not fallen apart. You can thank “liberals” for a long list of accomplishments: Social Security, Civil Rights, Healthcare, Labor Laws, Voting Rights. Too many to mention. Do your own research. Liberals build and Conservatives attempt destruction of the many gains in order to give the richest 1% their tax breaks. Resisting Trump will not even be necessary if he continues down his current path, i.e., millions losing healthcare, ridiculous tariffs that will harm American farmers (we export millions of dollars of beef and diary to Mexico). This list is also too long to post. This so-called president is his own worst enemy and Russia can’t save him (even though they would like to).

      • We very seldom delete posts. Spam is an immediate criterion. And profanity, although sometimes we just delete offensive words.

        Lately, we’ve had an issue with two posters going after each other, personally, instead of adding to the discussion. In that case, we’ll delete their whole thread, but we usually give a warning, first.

        • I read that hgb’s comment over to try to understand it. Hgb said, “this,” so it was reaferring Hgb’s post. That is, that Hgb expected to be deleted.

          As for Nate’s comment, I totally agree. It was just a statement of facts.

  2. The Tea Party movement promoted physical, cultural and racial separation. A strong sentiment nourished since pre-civil war days. Democrats did fail to see their potential, primarily because they did not believe the common man was still mentally fighting the civil war theories. Not to forget, that the Tea Party was primarily funded by the Koch Brothers and other staunch Republicans. Grass root people could never have afforded the start up costs.
    Republicans who claim to love the Constitution have kept their lips zipped, hands folded, while Trump has shamed a document they claim to cherish and defend.The unusually elaborate lifestyle of America’s new first family is straining the Secret Service and security officials beyond the limit, stirring financial and logistical concerns from many local communities, and costing far beyond than what has been typical for past presidents — a price tag, based on past assessments of presidential travel and security costs, could balloon into the hundreds of millions of dollars over the next four years.
    Today, Trump’s sons Eric and Don Jr., with their Secret Service details in tow, will be nearly 8,000 miles away in the United Arab Emirates, attending the grand opening of a Trump-brand golf resort. And, you, the American taxpayer, will foot the bill for most of it.
    Meanwhile, in New York, police and secret service keep a 24 hour vigil at Trump Tower in Manhattan, the chosen home of first lady Melania Trump and son Barron, all protection at taxpayer expense. And the tiny township of Bedminster, N.J., is preparing for the daunting prospect of having to pay the costs for when the local Trump golf course serves as a sort of northern White House for as many as 10 weekends a year.
    Trump’s three Mar-a-Lago trips since the inauguration have probably cost the federal treasury about $10 million, based on figures used in an October government report analyzing White House travel.

    Guess Trump’s election promise to “stop waste, fraud, and abuse in the federal government” doesn’t apply to him and his.

    • You are complaining about the amount that will be spent protecting Trump and his family. Since he is only taking $1 / year in salary, something that his predecessor, what’s his name didn’t do, how can you really bring this up? ?

      What did Obama accomplish other than perhaps improve his golf score while in office? Mind you all this was done multiple times a year at of course taxpayer expense. If I am correct, he also drew his full salary, for what accomplishment I don’t know??

      • The president’s salary is $400,000. a year. That is not a drop in the bucket for what the amount cities, states, and federal government have paid out on Trump’s unique family living arrangements for one month.

        Trump is not the first president to give up his salary. John Kennedy was the wealthiest man ever sworn in as President of the United States. He gave his congressional salary to charity as well as his presidential salary. Herbert Hoover did not take the presidential salary. While president, Obama, who was not a rich man, donated his $1.4 million Nobel Prize money to charity. In 2013,Obama started putting 5% of his paycheck back into the federal government’s coffers in a show of unity with furloughed federal workers

        True, most presidents do golf. Donald Trump has just returned from his fifth golfing expedition in the four weeks he has been in office. Of course, he doesn’t golf at the Washington courses. At tax payers expense, Trump flew Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan to play on his courses in South Florida: 18 holes at the Trump National Golf Club in Jupiter, and nine more at the Trump International Golf Club in nearby West Palm Beach. Food and bedding at Trump’s Mar-A-Lago isn’t cheap either.

        Neither Obama or George W Bush hit the golf course until after 3 months in office.

        • After being soaked by O’Bugger you are quibbling over small things. Whether you like it or not it is not only customary but necessary to protect the president and the first family.?

          Getting back on subject, INDIVISIBLE is going to fold like a cheap suit. Democrats have the staying power of a three year old. Something strikes their fancy today but alas it will be forgotten tomorrow.?

      • Let me get this straight.

        You’re saying that since der Schmuckenführer is sufficiently wealthy as to take ‘looks-good-to-the-rubes’ token salary that Obama should’ve done the same? How is that supposed to work?

        Not to mention the false comparison of the cost of der Schmuckenführer‘s vacations having already significantly exceeded Obama’s salary for his entire two terms.

        Calling such silliness ‘ridiculous’ fails to do your version of ‘logic’ the justice it deserves.

        What did Obama accomplish other than perhaps improve his golf score while in office?

        Granted you’re clearly a supporter of der Schmuckenführer, but such a question only serves to display, at best, a mind-boggling level of ignorance and/or dishonesty. Only you know which for certain.

        However to answer said question, there are literally hundreds of example from which to choose if you were genuinely interested to look for yourself. Your having asked the question strongly suggests this is not the case.

        Some examples are:

        Signed an Executive Order ordering an audit of government contracts, and combating waste and abuse. http://1.usa.gov/dUvbu5

        Froze White House salaries for the duration of the Great Recession. http://cbsn.ws/2aNMqNN

        Committed to phasing out unnecessary and outdated weapons systems and signed the Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act, in an attempt to limit waste, fraud and abuse in the defense procurement and contracting systems. http://bit.ly/hOw1t1

        Created the post of Chief Performance Officer, whose job it is to make operations more efficient to save the federal government money. http://n.pr/hcgBn1

        Banned gifts from lobbyists to anyone in the Executive Branch. http://bit.ly/fsBACN

        Banned anyone from working in an agency they had lobbied in previous years and placed strict limits on lobbyists’ access to the White House. http://nyti.ms/gOrznV

        Signed the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act giving the federal government more tools to investigate and prosecute fraud in every corner of the financial system, and create a bipartisan Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission to investigate the financial fraud that led to the economic meltdown. http://abcn.ws/g18Fe7

        Created and implemented rules to reduce the influence of speculators in the oil market. http://bit.ly/MDnA1t

        Signed the GOP-authored PPACA which resulted with inflation in the healthcare sector dropping to its lowest point in 50 years. http://on.wsj.com/1E6cYjF

        Bloced the merger of several health insurers to ensure that competition remains in the health insurance business. http://bit.ly/2cvHV9P

        Pushed through and signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, also known as “the stimulus package” even (though it was too small and too much was squandered on tax cuts for businesses and the wealthy) He also launched recovery.gov, a website that allows taxpayers to track spending from the Act. http://bit.ly/2aw6HGt

        In 2010 alone, more jobs were created than had been created during Bush’s eight years. Not all great jobs to be sure, but that’s never been part of the statistics except to those victimized by them. http://bit.ly/hrrnjY

        Oversaw a reduction in the federal budget deficit by two-thirds since taking office. http://bit.ly/1xKMmjY

        Reduced the federal budget deficit from 9.8% of GDP in Fiscal Year 2009 under Bush, to 2.5% of GDP in FY 2015. http://bit.ly/2cI4ABV

        And crap-tons more.

        Care to guess how quickly the GOP will scrap these?

        And, of course, the single longest uninterrupted stretch of overall job growth in US history. http://on.msnbc.com/1TKFCPQ http://1.usa.gov/1Xhizho

        I can’t help but wonder if you were as critical of da shrubs’ significantly higher number of vacations. I’m going to go out on not much of a limb and ‘guess’ “No”.

        According to the right-wingers at JudicialWatch, the total cost of the Obama family vacations is approximately $90 million. Not a paltry sum.

        However, based on expenses from previous administrations, da shrubs’ vacations cost American taxpayers at least three times that.

        And just to appeal to your potential sense of irony, have you noticed how few conservatives are upset about der Schmuckenführer being endorsed by the KKK? Remember when those same conservatives believed that Obama had gotten a similar endorsement and were trying to use that against him? http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/kkk.asp

        More and more it seems that ‘GOP’ is an abbreviation for ‘hypocrisy’.

        • You seem like an intelligent, thoughtful liberal. You have to be an aberration, most liberals do no more than throw around adjectives like RACIST, MISOGYNIST, XENOPHOBIC among others. You actually put some thought into your response. That being the case I will attempt to do the same.?

          First off you are right, I am no fan of O’Bugger, his constant APOLOGY tours grated on my nerves. I can think of no other president in my lifetime who was as racially divisive. You would think that the first black president would help bridge the divide between the races but no he widened the divide. I am certain you remember ‘THAT COULD BE MY SON’, when Trayvon Martin was shot. If you or I say something it isn’t given the same credence as when the president says it.

          You listed several of O’Buggers accomplishments. One of them was job creation. You admitted yourself that the some jobs created in 2010 weren’t the greatest, however what I want to focus on is the overall jobs throughout his presidency. I read that the majority of jobs created were part time jobs, better than nothing but not when you have to string two, three jobs together to get the equivalent of one full time job.

          Of course you know that each president inherits the problems of his predecessor. Poor W inherited two doozies from the GREAT FORNICATOR. First of course there was 09/11. Prior to Afghanistan, Al Qaeda had their training facility in Somalia. The Somalis wanted to give Bubba, Osama’s head on a plate. But no Bubba was too busy in the Oral office. Then there is the gaffe that is still with us to this day. In 1998 Bubba said that the Glass-Steegal act was no longer appropriate for the time. This allowed Banks to offer a sort of insurance, which of course 10 years later lead to the GREAT RECESSION & the loss of TRILLIONS of dollars by the private sector.

          Finally we get to President Trump. Politicians will always be politicians and they will obstruct with those not of their party. We are seeing that currently by how slowly Trumps nominees to different posts are being approved by the Senate. Only George Washington had fewer cabinet posts filled at this point in his presidency. The Democrats and the RINOS in the Senate and Congress will be treated to a rude awakening come the midterms if they are running.

          What galls me more than anything is the hateful attitude of some liberals. OK it was a hard fought election but the past is just that the past. The Democrats ran a dog and lost, they shouldn’t be angry with Trump but with the idiots at the DNC who screwed any Democrat not named Clinton. Bernie Sanders should have won the Democratic primary. As I said I had no love for O’Bugger but I sure wasn’t out protesting violently, like him or no

          • Thank you for the compliment. It is appreciated.

            Would that I could return the favor and maintain my integrity.

            First: O’Bugger? Really? Are you one of those implying that he’s gay? Have you any concrete irrefutable facts with links with which to back up said claim?

            Second: What ‘apology tours’? Again, concrete irrefutable facts with links please. (I’ll spot you this one hint: such lies were quickly and thoroughly debunked). Any grated nerves on your part were as imaginary as were the apologies.

            Third: The widening of the divide was wholly came from the right’s longstanding divisiveness which can be traced back to Newtwit’s letter on how to demonize the opposition, but could also arguably begin with America’s (formerly favorite drug-addled pedophile announcing, “I hope he fails” immediately upon the announcement of Obama’s 2008 victory, or could also be laid at the feet of the fourteen traitors who met in the Caucus Room on the night of Obama’s first inaugural ball laying down their plans to stymie Obama accomplishing anything.

            Choices, choices…

            Fourth: The reason our musings fail to gain the same credence as the famous is pretty obvious.

            Fifth: Please cite your source claiming that most of the jobs Obama created were part-time. Granted it’s been pretty well established that with the Congressional Republicans shipping so many of America’s better-paying jobs out of the country at taxpayer expense, their replacements will not usually make up for former incomes starting with da shrub’s squandering of a projected $2.2 trillion surplus that could have gone into badly needed infrastructure repair.

            Sixth: Remember when da shrub told that lady holding down three part-time jobs, “Uniquely, American, isn’t it?”

            Seventh: It was da shrub and <i.only da shrub who dropped the ball viz 9/11. it was in no way the fault of the previous administration. Should you prefer to use this version of ‘logic’ I feel compelled to point out that it is da shrub’s father who is more to blame with his insistence on having an airbase in Saudi Arabia since OBL said that that was specifically what set him off.

            Eighth: He got a blow job. That is not fornication.

            Ninth: There was no evidence at the time that OBL had committed any crimes against American citizens. Even if the Sudanese government really did offer to hand OBL over, the U.S. would’ve had no grounds for his detention. In fact, the DOJ did not even secure an indictment against OBL until 1998 – at which point Clinton did order a cruise missile attack on an al Qaeda camp in an attempt to kill bin Laden that ultimately failed; all of which pales in comparison to da shrub announcing, ““I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.”

            I could go on ad nauseum but the intelligent would pick up on where this is going by now.

            Have a good day.

        • When George Washington was first elected, he suggested that he receive no salary. But people looked at his expense account and saw that he was a big spender. They decided it would be cheaper to give him a salary and make him pay his own expenses. While Trump has said he wouldn’t accept the salary (which is a pittance, anyway, especially when compared to astronomical corporate CEO salaries). But the costs of maintaining Trump’s lifestyle will be expensive, indeed. And, as with his campaign, a lot of the payments will go to Trump companies.

  3. Just like all progressive movements, INDIVISIBLE will be all bark and no bite. I would be terribly surprised if I read about this movement anywhere but in this forum.?

    The fact that 25 Democratic senators will be up for reelection in 2018 really doesn’t bode well for the party. As far back as I can remember it seems most registered Democrats only seem to care in the presidential election. If this holds true next year the Democrats will become the MINOR minority party, as they will get their clock cleaned.?

    Finally the Democrats and RINOS have to let President Trump fail or succeed on his own. All of this obstruction is going to do nothing more than galvanize Trump’s supporters even more. Speaking for myself, I didn’t like Obama but I wasn’t out in the street rioting violently against him.?

  4. To be fair, any chance of Obama getting much done was wiped out when America’s (formerly) favorite drug-addled pedophile announced that he hoped Obama would fail upon his electoral victory.

    Then there’re the events of the evening of his 2009 inauguration when assorted high-powered republicans got together in the Caucus room to strategize against Obama’s accomplishing anything.

    Then came the well-funded “grassroots” Tea Bagger movement that so many fell for.

    The problem as I see it is that while it takes a bit to rile up the Left, getting them sufficiently riled for a long-term successful movement is damned near impossible (thus putting the lie to so many FRWNJ’s assertion of liberals moving in ‘lock-step’).

    It can happen; the progress of the early and mid-twentieth century attests to that. This will require a possibly historic groundswell from the left due to the author’s ‘clever and powerful Gerrymandering (sic) observation. It’s going to take a helluva lot of really pissed-off people to overcome that in order to ‘kick the bastards out’.

    Whether it will happen again now remains, of course, to be seen. Things may well need to get much, much worse before enough rise up to overthrow the seemingly inevitable Depression 2.0 .
    With or without der Schmuckenführer, with the GOP running the show (into the ground), said depression seems inevitable.

    Although with the constant examples of malfeasance, increasing examples of possible treason, and general incompetence, we might get luck and have this happen before the turn of the decade.

    Maybe. The numerous examples of the DNC saying that ‘the GOP has always held that seat is another source of significant inertia to overcome.

    *sigh*

  5. This has to be the most ahistorical, nonsensical, clueless political opinion piece I’ve read in a while. What in the world was the author thinking? Was he literally born last week and hasn’t been filled in on American and world history yet?

    Saying Occupy was pointless as led to nothing reveals an embarrassingly poor understanding of how political discourse works. Occupy started a modern, national conversation about Wall Street, income inequality, minimum wage laws, giant banks, etc.

    For the love of Michael Jordan, why do you think Hillary was forced to downplay her ties to Wall Street in order to win the primaries? Why do you think Donald Trump, of all people, is forced to portray Goldman Sachs as the enemy even while he appoints several Goldman Sachs leaders to his cabinet? You think this stuff came out of nowhere? Well, I’ve got news for you, it didn’t. Progressive activists started this conversation, and now even conservative billionaires feel obligated to piggyback off our accomplishments and pay lip service to our philosophy in order to win votes.

    A hundred years ago, women were not allowed to vote. Progressives changed that. Do you remember reading about thw Suffragettes in school? No?

    Do you remember the civil rights movement, which was and still to this day is opposed by conservatives? Radical progressive MLK and other civil rights leaders were so successful that modern day conservatives are forced to try to claim him as a conservative, as ridiculous as that idea seems, even while actively working to undo his accomplishments.

    Remember a few years ago, when DADT was law and even a centrist like Obama couldn’t openly support full equal rights for LGBTQ+ people. Now even Donald Trump is laughably trying to paint himself as the great defender of gay people, because the popular opinion on the community has shifted so radically that it would be political suicide even for aspiring GOP leaders to openly oppose gay rights. Even while appointing vehemently homophobic monsters like Pence and DeVos, Trump claims to be friendly to LGBTQ+ people. You think this reality just came out of nowhere as well?

    Even on a current topic like climate change, progressive action has been so successful that conservatives are forced to keep changing their rhetorix and talking points in order to come across as somewhat sane and reasonable. They (including Trump) used to say climate science was a hoax. Then they said it’s real but not caused by human activity. Now they say human activity is a contributing factor, but not the major factor. Tomorrow they will say climate change is real, human activity is the cause, but there’s nothing we can do about it. Then they will say that we need to combat climate change, and that conservatives were the real defenders of the environmeny all along. They will claim Bill Nye as a conservative, once he’s passed away and can’t defend himself.

    This is what conservatism is. Progressives work for progress, conservatives fight them all the way, eventually public opinion shifts and conservatives adopt the rhetoric of progressives for political gain, and in the final phase conservatives claim they were always on the right side of the issue. And then they will work to scrub the dirt from school history text books, like conservative leaders all over the world did with South African apartheid.

    For your own sake, author, delete this article before more people see it. It’s an embarrassment. If you were in my history or political science class you’d be flunked. It’s unbelievable that a (presumably) adult person could be this utterly uneducated and naive.

  6. This has to be the most ahistorical, nonsensical, clueless political opinion piece I’ve read in a while. What in the world was the author thinking? Was he literally born last week and hasn’t been filled in on American and world history yet?

    Saying Occupy was pointless and led to nothing reveals an embarrassingly poor understanding of how political discourse works. Occupy started a modern, national conversation about Wall Street, income inequality, minimum wage laws, giant banks, etc.

    For the love of Michael Jordan, why do you think Hillary was forced to downplay her ties to Wall Street in order to win the primaries? Why do you think Donald Trump, of all people, is forced to portray Goldman Sachs as the enemy even while he appoints several Goldman Sachs leaders to his cabinet? You think this stuff came out of nowhere? Well, I’ve got news for you, it didn’t. Progressive activists started this conversation, and now even conservative billionaires feel obligated to piggyback off our accomplishments and pay lip service to our philosophy in order to win votes.

    A hundred years ago, women were not allowed to vote. Progressives changed that. Do you remember reading about the Suffragettes in school? No?

    Do you remember the civil rights movement, which was and still to this day is opposed by conservatives? Radical progressive MLK and other civil rights leaders were so successful that modern day conservatives are forced to try to claim him as a conservative, as ridiculous as that idea seems, even while actively working to undo his accomplishments.

    Remember a few years ago, when DADT was law and even a centrist like Obama couldn’t openly support full equal rights for LGBTQ+ people. Now even Donald Trump is laughably trying to paint himself as the great defender of gay people, because the popular opinion on the community has shifted so radically that it would be political suicide even for aspiring GOP leaders to openly oppose gay rights. Even while appointing vehemently homophobic monsters like Pence and DeVos, Trump claims to be friendly to LGBTQ+ people. You think this reality just came out of nowhere as well?

    Even on a current topic like climate change, progressive action has been so successful that conservatives are forced to keep changing their rhetorix and talking points in order to come across as somewhat sane and reasonable. They (including Trump) used to say climate science was a hoax. Then they said it’s real but not caused by human activity. Now they say human activity is a contributing factor, but not the major factor. Tomorrow they will say climate change is real, human activity is the cause, but there’s nothing we can do about it. Then they will say that we need to combat climate change, and that conservatives were the real defenders of the environment all along. They will claim Bill Nye as a conservative, once he’s passed away and can’t defend himself.

    This is what conservatism is. Progressives work for progress, conservatives fight them all the way, eventually public opinion shifts and conservatives adopt the rhetoric of progressives for political gain, and in the final phase conservatives claim they were always on the right side of the issue. And then they will work to scrub the dirt from school history text books, like conservative leaders all over the world did with South African apartheid.

    For your own sake, author, delete this article before more people see it. It’s an embarrassment. If you were in my history or political science class you’d be flunked. It’s unbelievable that a (presumably) adult person could be this utterly uneducated and naive.

    • The movement has targeted this weekend to put-up-or-shut-up. I assume you will be out there. If you plan to sit at home, you deserve what you’ll get.

      • What the heck are you talking about? What do you think a movement is? Hint: it lasts longer than a day.

        Maybe you should try responding to some of the criticism instead of making incoherent replies.

        • Just so you know, I went up to see what you were talking about, but your posting was on hold, since someone had flagged it for moderation. I approved it, so it’s back.

          • OK. You’re probably right. Occupy didn’t have “zero effect on the real world.” It had about five effect.

            Yeah, I guess forcing Trump to trash Goldman Sachs verbally, and then appoint a bevy of their henchmen was a big success for Occupy.

            I don’t remember the Suffragettes, but I do remember when President Eisenhower forced schools to take Black kids. I saw it, live, on our black-and-white TV. And it was Douglas Edwards, not Walter Cronkite who showed us.

            But every liberal “movement” since Vietnam has been a flop. Even with the Pentagon Papers, the war droned on for years.

            As for climate change, don’t hold your breath that the country will continue to lead on it. Or, maybe, hold your breath, so you won’t be poisoned by it.

            • So you are seriously making the case that the situation for LGBTQ+ people in the United States is unchanged since the 1970s? Women’s rights are exactly where they were half a century ago? Climate change awareness is the same as it was during the Vietnam war?

              Okay then. Good to know what kind of miseducation I’m dealing with here.

            • LGBTQ and women’s rights were not won by a progressive movement. Women and gays were mostly on their own, heavily dependent on the courts.

              And “awareness” don’t mean squat if action can be easily thwarted or reversed.

              Since Reagan, progressives have been pansies–even afraid to call themselves “liberals.”

              Wave your flag and beat your drum. I’ll be impressed when I see some results.

            • Progressivism and liberalism are not the same thing. You need to do some 101 reading.

              Awareness is hugely important. A movement can get nowhere if nobody knows about it. You are simply uneducated about how political change happens, snd probably shouldn’t attempt to write about it.

              You have just demonstrated that when you do see results, you don’t want to credit progressives with the victory. You’re pretending as if it’s a coincidence that LGBTQ+ people are overwhelmingly progressive, and not a natural consequence of progressives supporting their rights.

              There are Republican LGBTQ+ people. They have accomplished nothing. The Republican party is still disgustingly homophobic. The Democratic party is not. That’s not a coincidence. It’s not magic.

              Your fallacy is no true Scotsman, by the way. You say no progressive movement is successful. I give an example of a hugely successful progressive movement. You say no TRUE progressive movemeny is successful. This is a logical fallacy. Get smarter, Goethe. This is embarrassing.

Comments are closed.