Worthy of debate
(Dan here)n There are all sorts of ideas about what is going on right now in the US, and many proposed opinions. Yves offers an opinion on the Women’s March itself, but I am watching both locally and state wide (MA) where the follow up is actually happening, what forms it takes, and who is involved. Perhaps others can add knowledge and experiences to date. Certainly Democratic party leaders at the national level are searching for responses. I am going to leave my own experiences in the comments…I think this time around involvement by newcomers and activists might persist and figure out how to keep this energy effective. On the other hand, the testing of dedication is yet to come.
Women Skeptical of the Women’s March
Posted on February 10, 2017 by Yves Smith
Yves here. I’m hoisting this discussion from Water Cooler the day before yesterday. It echoes other doubts raised about the Women’s March, such as the ones in the Counterpunch story, No Pink Woolly Caps for Me. Seasoned protestors point out that the track record of non-issue-oriented marches, no matter how large scale, is poor, and the status of this march as officially sanctioned (blanket media coverage when other marches of hundreds of thousands of people have been minimized, police not tricked out in their usual riot gear) also indicates that the officialdom does not see it as a threat to the status quo.
In addition, as the discussants point out below, the March organizers’ demands were vague and not internally consistent. The reality was that the march was against Trump, as opposed to for a concrete policy program.
And the problem with pressing for a quick solution to le problème Trump is that the likely outcomes are almost certain to be worse. A Constitutional outcome means President Pence, with even more retrograde policies. (It is oddly unacceptable to point out that Trump spoke out forcefully about the importance of protecting gays after the Florida nightclub massacre, a first for a prominent Republican.) Pence is more conservative, has strong relations in Congress, has a smoother persona, and would create vastly less controversy than Trump. That means Pence would have greater ability to unify his party and get his agenda through.
And an unconstitutional solution, such as a coup, which too many people who should know better are cavalierly advocating, is hardly going to be a plus for the members of the 10% save those who feed at the military/surveillance state trough. People who carry guns for a living are conservative. And in Tahrir Square, where the demand of Mubarak was simply “Leave,” and the protesters had no plans for the day after their victory, ordinary Egyptians were worse off a year later than they were before the protests.
Finally, the continuing strong focus of the Democratic Party on rallying women does not look like a winning path back to power. Without making women a prominent theme of his campaign, Obama got 55% of female vote. With Hillary Clinton, where it was a cornerstone, exit polls showed 54% of the women voters surveyed saying they voted for Clinton.
The notion that the women’s march, in and of itself, was supposed to accomplish some specific policy is misplaced. What it likely accomplished instead was an event helping to energize all of the opposition groups and factions. Consider where we would be without it: pouting with our tails between our legs. A successful movement doesn’t need one focus. In Trump’s win, for example, a number of factions came together: traditional Republican tax cutters, abortion opponents, and economically depressed whites to name just three that immediately come to mind.
What JackD said.
Let’s not make the perfect the enemy of the good.
Basic NC attitudes.
“You neoliberals don’t know as much as us ‘real progressives. BW, have I told you lately that Obamacare is not single payer? Or that Hillary ordered the invasion of Iraq?'”
EM:
I tend to agree with you. I am discussing how the Repubs defunded the PPACA going down about 4 layers deep in detail and I get a return that Part D is in Medicare and not the recognition the same program (Risk Corridor) was also in the PPACA. Then I get a real nicely constructed couple of paragraphs the PPACA cost the Dems the House in 2010. Never mind a poor economy and gerrymandering. It is superficial BS. It was popular to oppose it and it made for good press discussing the evils, the flaws, and the imaginary costs.
Nothing personally, but Clinton was a loser candidate. The fact she got 54% of the womens vote may be viewed positively.
The whole point is Democrats need to boost their Congressional election turnout. Period. I would ignore the 2016 election nationally. It was a fluke. Pure and simple. It was heavily driven by Evangelical “Democrats” who dropped out on Hillary Clinton after the Comey letter. It at least cost her 4 state and maybe up to 8 states +2-4 senate seats and 10-15 house seats. That is nuts. But it is true. Then think about how weak she really was before that. compared to somebody like Obama or Clinton?
Democrats need to get back to grassroots and less national politics that the Clinton’s used through Tim Kaine,DWS era. Fight the trench wars in the medium/smaller cities/suburbs.
Democrats need to get back to grassroots and less national politics that the Clinton’s used through Tim Kaine,DWS era. Fight the trench wars in the medium/smaller cities/suburbs.
NYT’s Nate Cohn reports Trump won by trading places with Obama playing the blue collar hero v Wall Street — trade (unions) back. States can realistically rebuild labor union density — one state at a time — leaving Republicans no place to hide.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/23/upshot/how-the-obama-coalition-crumbled-leaving-an-opening-for-trump.html
Suppose the 1935 Congress passed the NLRA(a) intending to leave any criminal sanctions for obstructing union organizing to the states. Might have been because NLRB(b) conducted union elections take place local by local (not nationwide) and Congress could have opined states would deal more efficiently with home conditions — or whatever. What extra words might Congress have needed to add to today’s actual bill? Actually, today’s identical NLRA wording would have sufficed perfectly.
Suppose, again, that under the RLA (Railroad Labor Act — covers railroads and airlines, FedEx) — wherein elections are conducted nationally — that Congress desired to forbid states criminalizing the firing of organizers — how could Congress have worded such a preemption (assuming it was constitutionally valid)? Shouldn’t matter to us. Congress did not! :-O
For more musings on what and how else to rebuild union density locally: http://ontodayspage.blogspot.com/2016/12/wet-backs-and-narrow-backs-irish.html
Dennis:
Fighting this: “Democrats need to get back to grassroots and less national politics that the Clinton’s used through Tim Kaine, DWS era. Fight the trench wars in the medium/smaller cities/suburbs.” will win back state governments which are gerrymandered in swing states and push the possibilities of going Republican in national elections. Too many states under Repub control.
“Nothing personally, but Clinton was a loser candidate.”
Nothing personally, but bullshit. Clinton beat Trump by nearly 3 million votes.
Yes, the Democratic party needs to do something about state and local elections, which could fix the problem with gerrymandering that is the reason the party can’t regain the House. That has nothing to do with Hillary.
Can we please use facts and evidence here?
Sounds a bit like the occupy movement which could never pull together a single consistent list of demands/solutions desired. This is just like on some other blogs where folks complain about regulations against uber, but the city in question has local initiative, but they folks are unwilling to engage in a campaign to put an initiative on the ballot to forbid regulation of taxis for example. Or folks that think the only place regulation happens is the federal level, states actually have more regulatory powers than the feds. In addition your state rep typically represents fewer folks than a us rep so you may be able to talk to him easier.
Yeah, we would not want Dems to try to appeal to women. That is obviously such a loser strategy….
So, the point of the march was to show the size and strength of the anti-Trump movement and feeling, not any particular policy issue or proposal. I mean, hey, it was the day after the inauguration. There were no policies to protest yet specifically.
As it was I would say it was a success in that it paved the way for what is going on now, which is very serious, this mass uprising of people showing up at congressional town hall meetings mostly to protest the move to repeal Obamacare, with I think almost nobody expecting this. But there it is, and it is getting to where GOP congresspeople simply cannot show up in their districts to have a town hall meeting without having it swamped by critics who make the 2010 Tea Party town hall meetings look like just a clown show. This might actually scare these bastards into laying off Obamacare.
The NC attitude is prevalent among the “real liberals”. Their actions are those of spoiled two year olds, and are the greatest impediment to progressive policies in the US. They divide, and the GOP conquers. And to rub salt into the wounds, they blame neoliberals.
They should pay some attention to our history;
“We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.” Benjamin Franklin
They cannot, or will not, do that math.