Post New

Cringe “implies a kind of naïveté that so often gets coded as feminine,” wrote the New York Times columnist Lydia Polgreen, “a silly belief that human beings, through sincere effort, might actually improve themselves and the world.” Such a belief might seem uncool. But it can be a powerful tool with which to cut through the nihilism of Trump and those around him, which draws its power from its insincerity, its refusal to distinguish between truth and falsehood, its willingness to mock and degrade previously treasured beliefs. As one protest sign put it at a demonstration early in Trump’s second term: BE CRINGE. SHIT MATTERS.

“We have a goal for No Kings to be the largest peaceful protest in modern American history,” says Ezra Levin, a co-founder of the progressive organization Indivisible, one of the many groups coordinating the demonstrations. MAGA, at least, is doing its part to deride the gatherings as uncool: “Anyone who participates in a No Kings rally is a dork,” one right-wing influencer wrote on X. Earlier reflections on the Resistance brushed it off as embarrassing pap. But such dismissals now risk ignoring the possibility that earnest outrage, at the right place and the right time, is itself a powerful tonic against the corrosion of American democracy.
—— Quinta Jurecic

... its refusal to distinguish between truth and falsehood, its willingness to mock and degrade previously treasured beliefs.

When I was a wee lad in the early 60s, my teacher would read stories to us about how terrible things would be if the Communists took over.

One story was about the Communists taking over a school like ours. The story described the motherly and loved teacher being led away, and the new teacher, a young woman wearing a uniform, entering the room. The young woman, regarding the traditional national flag in the room, suggested that, if that flag is so wonderful, maybe everyone should have a piece of it. She took a pair of scissors and cut the flag up, so everyone could have a piece, then the bare pole was thrown out the window, onto the lawn in front of the school.

So, when will the Boy Scouts be replaced by the "MAGA Youth"?

Steve...survived anti-communist indoctrination

Earlier reflections on the Resistance brushed it off as embarrassing pap. But such dismissals now risk ignoring the possibility that earnest outrage, at the right place and the right time, is itself a powerful tonic against the corrosion of American democracy.

I think that's probably wrong. And for the same reasons that "Resistance" failed.

The U.S. isn't a Parliamentary system. We're a Presidential system. One of the main differences is that whoever wins the Presidential election gets to be President for the next four years. There are no "no confidence" votes, no shifting parliamentary majorities, no changing coalitions that can change who the Executive is. It is, and will remain, whoever won the last election until the next one.

Protests can convey a message quite powerfully - but if the message is, "We don't want Trump to be President," it's futile and fruitless one. A protest that conveys a message against a particular policy or set of policies can be very useful in demonstrating political support/opposition for those policies. But a protest against the person of the President is pointless. Worse, it isn't a tonic against the corrosion of American democracy, because the possibility of having someone you abhor be elected President and then having to live with it is the core essence of democracy. Democracy doesn't just depend on how the winners act. It also depends on how the losers act, and whether they acknowledge that their side is not the only one that has the right to power.

That doesn't mean ceding the argument, but it does require ceding the office. Which makes protests against the occupant of the office, rather than discrete policies or practices, kind of pointless and easily dismissed as sour grapes.

Which is a long-winded way of saying that these kind of "we oppose everything" protests are very unlikely to accomplish anything. An arrow penetrates because all of its force is concentrated to a single, tiny point - these protests are not. That allows them to be the largest protests in U.S. history (if they get there)....but so what? The people in power already know that millions of folks don't like Trump, the Republican Party, or their overarching platform - so being able to turn out large numbers of folks against those things generally doesn't accomplish very much. It's mostly when you can turn out a very large number of people about one thing (or a small discrete set of things) that you have a meaningful opportunity for change....

Hi Al,

You're absolutely right. That was long-winded. 😉

The U.S. isn't a Parliamentary system. We're a Presidential system. ... There are no "no confidence" votes, no shifting parliamentary majorities, no changing coalitions that can change who the Executive is. It is, and will remain, whoever won the last election until the next one.

Agreed. But we DO have two other co-equal branches of government, Congress and the Judiciary.

So while protesting can't remove the sitting President, it can send a message to Congress that there are significant portions of the electorate that aren't happy with the President and would like Congress to assert their Constitutional authority as a check and balance against the President. While the President may continue to serve the remainder of his (and someday hopefully in my lifetime, her) term, 87% of the members of Congress are up for election relatively soon and could lose their jobs if the people aren't happy with their exercise of their power as a co-equal branch of government.

An arrow penetrates because all of its force is concentrated to a single, tiny point - these protests are not.

A relatively small rudder changes the direction of a large ship because of a small steady pressure exerted over time. And it doesn't destroy things the way an arrow does. But that small steady pressure can turn the ship to the port or to the starboard.

Small steady pressures can turn the country toward or away from fascism. We're currently seeing that pressure from Trump turning toward fascism. (ICE raids, federalization of the National Guards, prosecution of specific enemies, to name a few). But that pressure can also come from the people demanding a stop to this fascist trend. That's where protests come into play. No Kings. The delightfully quirky protests in Portland. Smaller groups of local citizens coming together in protests that only make the local news.

These protests are far from "futile and fruitless". They are the voice of the population speaking loudly and clearly. They serve to make more ordinary citizens aware of the issues as well as letting elected representatives know where the people stand in a way far more powerful than writing or calling their offices ever will.

--Peter

They are the voice of the population speaking loudly and clearly.

Loudly? Perhaps. Clearly? I don't think so.

It's very clear that the protestors don't like Donald Trump. They are against "kings" as a general matter. But neither of those will, or even could, prompt actual responses from Congress or the judiciary, or from persuadable people who turn on the TV and ask, "What's all this then?"

Are they against ICE and immigration policy? Impoundment and declining to spend money appropriated by Congress? DOGE? Firing inspector generals and fighting independent agencies? Pressure on colleges? Foreign policy in Gaza? Health care premiums? The answer is probably "yes" to any and all of those things and more.

Which makes me think that this will end up being as useless as the Resistance protests. It's not politics, it's performance. It's fun to show up and yell and wave the sign that you made about the subject you chose...but because there's no thought or organizing or shaping a message or structure behind it, it's useless. It's just IRL Hashtag activism, which allows people to think they're accomplishing something but they're really not.

Politics is for power. Getting everyone out on a Sunday to protest doesn't accomplish anything unless it's in service to something that can cause change. When you have a huge protest demonstrates support/opposition on a specific issue, you create enormous leverage on that issue: the Civil Rights marches or the Yellow Vest movements, for example. But when all you're doing is registering generalized unhappiness with everything the government is doing...it doesn't accomplish anything.

To return to my earlier analogy, it's like putting a cork on the tip of the arrow - so the force is applied over a wide area (of issues), instead of focused on one spot. The arrow flies just as fast, but it's literally pointless.

When Google Jockeyism exhibits reality.

It's very clear that the protestors don't like Donald Trump. They are against "kings" as a general matter. But neither of those will, or even could, prompt actual responses from Congress or the judiciary, or from persuadable people who turn on the TV and ask, "What's all this then?"

You know, I'm beginning to wonder which side you're on. 😉

Would a massive "Impeach Trump!" protest be more on point?

Also, I think we need to give up on "antifa" and become "antiki" (anti-kings). Unfortunately, anti-Trump doesn't shorten very elegantly.

Would a massive "Impeach Trump!" protest be more on point?

No. It would be the same problem. Protesting to show that think the President should be someone other than Donald Trump is rather pointless. There's no realistic method by which that could happen.

We don't have a parliamentary system, where if a Prime Minister significantly loses support after taking office it is possible (and indeed likely) that they might be forced out. We have a Presidential system, where the head of government is separately elected and for a fixed term. In our system, communicating that you generally think the President is terrible can't lead to any actual changes - we don't have a House of Commons to consider changing who the PM is, and so there's no vector for that popular expression to manifest in any actual change.

In protest movements like the Civil Rights Movement, there's a specific agenda and set of policies that lawmakers can consider and say, "huh, if we don't do X these people are going to keep protesting," and where they might actually be able to do X. There's a specific thing that the protestors want, and a plausible way to give it to them. Moreover, because the protests were structured within an actual movement that had organization and leaders, there were specific people that were conferred power and legitimacy by the number of people they could call into the streets. BLM had a similar discrete set of issues that the 2020 protests were about, which made that moment a little more powerful (but it, too, was crippled by the decentralized nature and lack of any real leadership structure).

These types of inchoate Hashtag activism events can't translate into actual power. When you're out there protesting everything all at once, there's nothing that anyone can point to and say, "This is what we need to do to get the protests to stop." Saying, "We want Trump to stop being President" isn't going to do anything. "We want Trump to stop acting like a King" won't really do anything either, because (again) it's just too broad to translate into action.

When you have a huge protest demonstrates support/opposition on a specific issue, you create enormous leverage on that issue: the Civil Rights marches

But aren't civil rights a pretty broad and nebulous concept, much like Presidential overreach? What civil rights were people marching for? Voting with fewer impediments? Not having to ride on the back of busses? Not having separate water fountains and restrooms? Integration of schools? Access to jobs at comparable pay?

Presidential overreach is a similar collection of complaints, with multiple potential sub issues and solutions. And multiple issues could be rolled up into a single bill, similar to the various Civil Rights Acts.

Just for grins, let's call it the No Kings Act. It could include multiple issues in a single Bill
-giving citizens the right to sue the President for impounding funds appropriated by Congress
-Requiring states to have independent redistricting committees to redraw US Congressional districts after every census, removing that power from state legislatures and governors
-Add clearer guidelines on the use of uniforms, masks, and identification for all Federal law enforcement officers
-Putting Inspectors General under the supervision of Congress and not the President
-Reinforce the War Powers act to strengthen the role of Congress in declaring and prosecuting wars
-Update the laws on the ability of the President to Federalize and deploy the National Guard
-Limit the President's ability to declare various states of emergency and the powers that flow from that. Perhaps require Congress to agree to the declaration within a certain period of time.

What I'm saying is that the No Kings movement IS very similar to the civil rights movement of the mid 20th century. It's not a single specific issue, but a collection of related issues.

--Peter

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."

By the time we get to the March on Washington, after years of those very issue-specific protests,

Yes - it took years to get to some more concrete action items. I'd suggest that the protests against Trump are still in that early stage. The Civil Rights Act didn't spring fully formed from MLK's head after the march on Washington. It took years of work to get to that point. Were all of the previous protests therefore useless? I don't think so.

These protests against Trump are still in the formative stage. While they are not as single issue focused as some of the earliest civil rights protests, they are a bit more focused than you are giving them credit for.

There are protests from time to time against the current practices of ICE and CBP. The current ones in Portland are perhaps one of the better examples. They're pretty much a one issue thing. No Kings is somewhat focused on Presidential overreach. And it has some larger organizational activity behind it. You can point to a couple of key leaders of that movement. Sure, there are a bunch of individual things hiding in that "overreach" umbrella, but it is a group in its early stages. Will it become what Civil Rights did? I don't know. They probably need a more charismatic leader to make that happen. But it's certainly possible.

At a minimum, I think these protests could be the beginnings of a more cohesive, more erudite, more actionable future. Just because they aren't there now doesn't mean they can't get there at all.

It's much like a previous thread on the comparisons of Trump to Hitler. Trump isn't the late 30s to 40's Hitler. He's closer to the 20's Hitler. Will he become the full blown fascist we fear? Don't know. Will the No Kings protest become the Civil Rights movement of the 60's and 70's? Don't know yet. But there are similarities to the earlier Civil Rights movement of the 40s and 50s. Still in the general unrest stage with an uncertain future.

--Peter

Protesting to show that think the President should be someone other than Donald Trump is rather pointless. There's no realistic method by which that could happen.

Sure there is. With a massive blue wave in Nov, 2026, in both the House and Senate, Trump can be impeached.

I'd suggest that the protests against Trump are still in that early stage. The Civil Rights Act didn't spring fully formed from MLK's head after the march on Washington. It took years of work to get to that point. Were all of the previous protests therefore useless? I don't think so.

Exactly. That's my point. With "No Kings," Democrats are trying to skip straight to the end (the biggest possible rally!) without doing any of the things first that make the biggest possible rally an effective culmination of a strategically sound protest movement. That make it clear what the big rally is actually for (or against), rather than just being as many people as possible with as many agendas as exist in the Democratic Party.

The previous protests were not useless - they were critical. And they were focused, narrow, and coherent.

Again, nothing wrong with having a big old rally to protest everything. It's just not likely to have any different impact than all the Resistance rallies in Trump's first administration, which the OP recognizes didn't really amount to much.

With a massive blue wave in Nov, 2026, in both the House and Senate, Trump can be impeached.

I like your optimism, but this won't happen.

Even if the votes were there, the fix is in. Barring some kind of miracle, I think we are in for one party rule for quite a while.

Even if the votes were there, the fix is in. Barring some kind of miracle, I think we are in for one party rule for quite a while.

We, yes, there is the not so minor issue of GOP clearly racial gerrymandering sanctioned by SCOTUS to deal with, but if enough democratic governors counter-gerrymander it can be combated.

To return to my earlier analogy, it's like putting a cork on the tip of the arrow - so the force is applied over a wide area (of issues), instead of focused on one spot. The arrow flies just as fast, but it's literally pointless.

Or it's a shotgun that hits everyone in the vicinity.

When you're out there protesting everything all at once, there's nothing that anyone can point to and say, "This is what we need to do to get the protests to stop." Saying, "We want Trump to stop being President" isn't going to do anything. "We want Trump to stop acting like a King" won't really do anything either, because (again) it's just too broad to translate into action.

Impeaching him? Not that this would happen given the MAGA Congress. But that's what the people want, and the basis would be his numerous illegal orders that violate any number of laws (and the Constitution).

If we had a responsible Congress, it probably already would be under way.

Post New

Mechanical Investing FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.