No. of Recommendations: 1
But aren't civil rights a pretty broad and nebulous concept, much like Presidential overreach?
Not really. The Civil Rights Movement was very much concentrated on providing equal civil rights for black people. That's a fairly discrete set of goals - lots of individual things might be articulated within that discrete set of goals, but a fairly concrete issue set. Pick an individual out of a civil rights march back in the day and ask them to describe what they are marching for, and they'd probably list most of the same things that made it into the CRA - prohibiting workplace discrimination based on race, prohibiting limits on the right to vote based on race, prohibiting discrimination in housing based on race, etc.
But then look at the list you provided above. There's no unifying principle between "independent redistricting committees" and "uniform and mask guidelines for federal LEO's" and "a right to sue the President for violating the impoundment Act." And I think that if you asked a dozen protestors what they were marching for, you'd get two dozen responses that appear nowhere on your list - issues relating to Gaza, climate change funding, rules on college speech, USAID, and the shutdown to name a few. I mean, they might all be good ideas - but they don't all fall under a single subject like "stop treating black people differently based on their skin color."
Plus, while we aggregate a lot of the protest activity of the time under the rubric of the Civil Rights Movement, most of the specific protest activity was focused on a single, specific demand. The sit-ins were protesting the exclusion of blacks from restaurants - not ballot access, not housing, not affirmative action for schools, but that one specific thing. The Montgomery bus boycott was targeting discrimination in public transit (and specifically in that one transit system). The Selma-Montgomery marches were specifically about voting rights.
By the time we get to the March on Washington, after years of those very issue-specific protests, there is a discrete and concrete Civil Rights Act that is explicitly being supported by the marchers. And any observer could give you a fairly accurate recounting of what the major demands of the group were, and weren't.
Of course, there isn't a "No Kings Act." There's no organizational structure or leadership group like existed during the Civil Rights Movement, no draft legislation that the group activity is being directed towards. No one's done the hard political work that is required for these kinds of things to be more than just a bunch of people having fun being angry together. They haven't built organizations, they haven't worked towards specific action, they haven't identified leaders or used the mass movement to empower them to walk into the rooms that need walking into. It's just an undifferentiated shout of being unhappy with everything that's going on.
So I think it will end up being as useless as "Resistance."
