As Americans that believe in the Republic, what exactly are we supposed to do about this? Should we continue to implore congress to take action against this lawless behavior?
I called both my senators' offices yesterday, because I still haven't gotten a response to my emails from a few weeks ago. Still waiting to hear back.
I also told them that working on legislation for protecting George C Marshall's house, and protecting bourbon, are not valuable uses of their time given the destruction currently being waged on the US Government.
I think that the most effective way to get change would be if the economy tanked, that's the one thing the electorate seems to be motivated by. A general strike would be one way to do that, but I doubt that one could be organized on any meaningful scale. I'd love to be wrong about that.
I'm trying to restrict my spending as much as possible. No new car, no vacation (or at least nothing big), limiting eating out, etc. I'm cutting back on as many unnecessary expenses as I can, and being mindful of what businesses I do spend my money on.
I’m gonna be straight with you. I used to think this way — that living small was a form of protest against the ills of society. But life is too short. For many of us, that cardiac arrest, car accident, or pandemic-related terminal illness is right around the corner. Don’t say no to things that bring meaning, joy, purpose, and expansion to your life. You only have one life to live.
First, don't listen to the "we're so f*cked" posts on reddit. Only actions lead to results.
If you are a Republican but don't approve of how the GOP majority has basically rolled over and abdicated its duty as a check on the president, remind your congresspeople that they owe loyalty to their constituents, not to other politicians. Taxpayers pay their salaries.
The Democratic party is also in desperate need of repairs if you are interested in direct political action. They have been self-destructing over the past couple of years, plagued by infighting, deer-in-the-headlights paralysis, political tone-deafness, and incompetence in messaging.
In addition, the increasingly authoritarian shift by the Federalist society ought to make room for a new counterpart promoting the rule of law. IANAL but have always wondered why the Federalist society had no similarly prominent opposing organization.
I am furious at the Democratic Party for bringing this about. They are the only organization capable of losing to this guy TWICE. With everything at stake, they actually thought it was a good idea to put up an unpopular president who had dementia, and tried to sneak him past the electorate like this is Weekend at Bernie’s 3. Then when that idea collapses, they just give it to the default next person in line. This should have been an easy win.
I am furious at the gutless Republican Party for making this happen. While different choices should have been made by Democrats, blaming them is not helping the situation. The Republicans did this, their media and propaganda apparatus created this disaster, they own this completely. If we lose our republic permanently, I hold each and every Republican voter personally responsible.
The current guy in power has just as many cognitive issues, but it is a few years younger, is louder and doesn't have a stutter. That is, apparently, enough.
Democrats did screw up by not allowing the people to choose the candidate. They also screwed up again by not preemptively creating safeguards in case Trump won, and by not strengthening the elections. Too many ballots were thrown out.
Now they are further enabling this by basically displaying no opposition.
> As Americans that believe in the Republic, what exactly are we supposed to do about this?
If you are in a red state/district, first step would be to contact your elected federal rep(s) and tell them that you're displeased.
Use language like "Trump was elected to correct Biden's overreach, but he's now overreaching in a much worse way." Put it in language where you frame things like a 'Constitutionalist' and 'limited government'. The stereotypical small-government, Originalist GOPer.
If you come off sounding like a Democrat they'll probably ignore you, but if the (so-called) 'grass roots' MAGA folks are thought to be upset then you'll probably get more traction.
There is no social cohesion or solidarity in the US, that's the biggest problem
In France if they'd raise the price of baguettes by 10% you'd have strikes from teachers, public transportation drivers, dock workers, train drivers, doctors, trash truck drivers, &c. all at once, after a week it would be complete chaos and the government would have no choice but to negotiate
In the US everyone is playing their little game on their side, decades of free for all capitalism at work
Honestly, I donate enough money to politicians to make them stand up and take notice when I email or call them and share my thoughts, which leads me to the conclusion that people in the middle and lower class are going to need to find ways to pool money in such a way that they can change their party politics. It's not that all politicians are completely motivated by money, but IMO you unfortunately have to aim at the lowest common denominator.
You can only donate $3500 to any politician. (legally, if you do something illegal and are not caught...). There are complex limits notice when you say something. (for a small city that limit will make them listen, but nothing national or even a large city)
What you can do is get out votes. People knocking on doors is still one of the largest drivers of votes so if you organize those systems they will listen to you.
I donate to the party, and I donate at the individual limit. At that level they still care because people who donate at that level are connected with other people who donate at that level, and those people tend to reach out and coordinate. Periodically I get emails from other donors who ask me to reach out to such and such a person, a candidate or a party rep, and encourage that they take a look at X issue through a particular perspective.
I think more people would benefit from forming Super PACs and using that as leverage in pushing political change with parties.
I am not at all familiar with the US system. How come there is a $3500 donation limit to politicians, but the tech billionaires have donated hundreds of millions to the inauguration fund?
In my personal life, I have resolved not to be silent if confronted with a pro-Trump opinion being voiced. To state unequivocally and without needing to elaborate that what is occurring is something un-American and goes beyond partisan differences, that Trump and his lieutenants are destroying our Federal government for a generation or more while permanently damaging our place among democracies in the world. That the people who voted for him are making America a worse and weaker country for their children.
I'm going to write essays to those I care about and also coordinate action plans with like minded individuals to be ready for scenarios of neo-nazi rallies or certain extreme behaviors, should they occur in my city.
I'm debating protesting solo with signs along our roads; someone did that recently in my city and said they had to flee because Trump supporters surrounded him and threatened him. But it needs done.
<sarcasm> Maybe we should try to stop believing in money next and see where that gets our experiment in civilization. </sarcasm> All of this 'believing in ideas' is an experiment that requires years of indoctrination. It is extremely dangerous to play with the jenga game of removing core beliefs.
The actual answer here is to exercise actual power.
Oligarchs are always greatly outnumbered.
The only thing that is genuinely effective is mass movement. A coalition of labor unions could shut down all of Elon and Trumps businesses in hours. Block the entrances to the factories. General strikes, boycotts, that kind of thing. It’s not actually that complicated.
Instead the modern Democratic Party is in love with appeals to the referees. They think that if they can just convince some court or The NY Times editorial board or a 75 year old former republican special prosecutor they’ll win.
As we have seen that approach is a total and complete failure.
If someone in opposition was able to generate mass collective action however the change would be swift. Nobody is really trying that though.
What the modern Democratic Party knows, but understandably doesn’t go around trumpeting, is that they cannot organize mass collective action because there’s not enough people on their side. You talk about “a coalition of labor unions”, but even union members barely lean Democratic these days. There’s very few groups outside of the Democratic Party infrastructure which are polarized enough to take a side.
There are absolutely enough people on "their side" in the sense that there are plenty of people on the side of working people, way more than enough.
The problem is the actual leadership of the Democratic Party isn't on the side of working people at all, and is actually actively hostile to those in favor of classic labor policies.
Don't get me wrong the other side is absolutely not on the side of working people either, that's more than apparent.
But with those caveats out of the way, a bona-fide labor movement could make short work of all this bullshit. Unfortunately the purpose of the modern Democratic Party appears to be to occupy the place in our system where a labor party is supposed to reside.
I agree with a lot of what this article has to say, and it's true that the politics of the US would be quite different if one of the major parties were a bona fide labor movement. But they're not, and I worry that the label of "elites" makes it harder to see why they're not. It's genuinely challenging - although I agree sometimes necessary! - to explain to someone who's really fired up about racial justice or climate change that they're not representative of the public and their concerns need to take a back seat to kitchen table issues.
It's also not obvious to me that a bona fide labor movement would take a particularly strong stance on an executive order curtailing independent agencies. Being invested in the details of how paper-pushing agencies are structured is a very elite concern.
> to explain to someone who's really fired up about racial justice or climate change that they're not representative of the public
To some extent yes. But also those issues have big implications for working people. It's possible to talk about them in a way that inspires and builds a movement, or in a way that makes people feel stupid and excluded from the conversation. Often they choose the latter.
> It's also not obvious to me that a bona fide labor movement would take a particularly strong stance on an executive order curtailing independent agencies
It should be absolutely obvious why the labor movement might be opposed to what is literally the largest layoff in American history.
I'm not saying that nobody supports the Democrats over the Republicans. There's two interrelated points:
* Supporting the Democratic Party against its main opponent is very different from supporting it in its own right. There's a lot of people in the US who would prefer for Chuck Schumer to be the majority leader, but very few who look to him for cues on what they ought to believe or fight for.
* There's very few spaces where the Democrats are dominant enough to form a nucleus of mass resistance. 50-43 among union members is a nonzero lead, but if you go to your union local to organize an anti-Trump protest, that 43% represents quite a lot of voices who won't agree with the premise that there's anything to protest.
Irrespective of sides, I would imagine that most Americans believe they are on the 'side' of democracy and a constitutional republic. When they become aware that this is being taken away, I might suggest that many will change their vote.
So far it seems at least half of the people do agree, though.
And the US military doesn't answer to the people at least not directly. I don't think it should be swayed by public opinion like that. I mean, we're talking about a military coup here. I despise Donald Trump and would like nothing more than to see him drummed out of office, but the military making that happen means we don't have a democracy anymore.
I hope it doesn't go that far, but it is always an option. It only has a chance of working if the army either goes with, or at least is so divided they won't stand against you.
Trump is bringing up the point that this Republic's constitution only provides for three branches of a government, not 4.
This reminds me of a supreme Court ruling a few years ago where the rights of native Indians had been trampled on in Oklahoma for 100 years. The court said something like "well, now that you bring it up--stop it!"
Trump is bringing up the point that all employees of the executive branch owe fealty to him, and must act directly in accordance with is directives above Congress.
