The Tea Party movement, which rose up in the early years of the Obama presidency to oppose pretty much everything he stood for, was a reactionary, often-embarrassing political spectacle.
But as reactionary, often-embarrassing political spectacles go, it was a pretty effective one. Tea Partiers may have had trouble spelling their slogans correctly, but they managed to block a lot of Obama’s progressive agenda.
Now a group of former congressional staffers with years of experience fighting against the Tea Party are urging fellow progressives to adopt some of that group’s most effective tactics to thwart the incoming Trump regime. In an already much-discussed document called Indivisible: A Practical Guide for Resisting the Trump Agenda, these activists urge Trump opponents to
stand indivisibly opposed to Trump and the members of Congress (MoCs) who would do his bidding. Together, we have the power to resist — and we have the power to win.
We know this because we’ve seen it before. The authors of this guide are former congressional staffers who witnessed the rise of the Tea Party. We saw these activists take on a popular president with a mandate for change and a supermajority in Congress. We saw them organize locally and convince their own MoCs to reject President Obama’s agenda. Their ideas were wrong, cruel, and tinged with racism— and they won.
We believe that protecting our values, our neighbors, and ourselves will require mounting a similar resistance to the Trump agenda — but a resistance built on the values of inclusion, tolerance, and fairness. Trump is not popular. He does not have a mandate. He does not have large congressional majorities. If a small minority in the Tea Party can stop President Obama, then we the majority can stop a petty tyrant named Trump.
One of the great strengths of the Tea Party, the Indivisible authors note, is that it offered unified opposition to virtually everything Obama and his allies stood for — and punished those Republicans who wavered in the anti-Obama crusade.
The Tea Party focused on saying NO to Members of Congress (MoCs) on their home turf. While the Tea Party activists were united by a core set of shared beliefs, they actively avoided developing their own policy agenda. Instead, they had an extraordinary clarity of purpose, united in opposition to President Obama. They didn’t accept concessions and treated weak Republicans as traitors.
Local Tea Party groups focused their attention on their local representatives in Congress, and made life uncomfortable for those Republicans who weren’t willing to be “their voice of opposition on Capitol Hill.” In doing so, they garnered political influence out of proportion to their relatively small numbers.
By adopting a similar strategy, Indivisible argues, the anti-Trump movement could
Stall the Trump agenda by forcing [MoCs] to redirect energy away from their priorities. Congressional offices have limited time and limited people. A day that they spend worrying about you is a day that they’re not ending Medicare, privatizing public schools, or preparing a Muslim registry.
Sap Representatives’ will to support or drive reactionary change. If you do this right, you will have an outsized impact. Every time your MoC signs on to a bill, takes a position, or makes a statement, a little part of his or her mind will be thinking: “How am I going to explain this to the angry constituents who keep showing up at my events and demanding answers?”
Reaffirm the illegitimacy of the Trump agenda. The hard truth is that Trump, McConnell, and Ryan will have the votes to cause some damage. But by objecting as loudly and powerfully as possible, and by centering the voices of those who are most affected by their agenda, you can ensure that people understand exactly how bad these laws are from the very start – priming the ground for the 2018 midterms and their repeal when Democrats retake power.
Indivisible runs through these lessons from the Tea Party fairly quickly, and follows them up with a good deal of very practical advice on how to best get the attention of local MoC’s — from organized phone calling to office sit-ins.
The guide is free. I think it will prove invaluable to anti-Trump activists over the next several years.
To quote a Tumblr text post:
“carrie fisher did not drown in moonlight, strangled by her own bra, so that the rest of us could sit on our asses in 2017.
¡viva la revolución!”
I don’t think anyone’s proposing that people block literally anything Trump proposes even if it’s something we want like, I dunno, universal healthcare or something. However, as he has thrown his lot in with the GOP and probably doesn’t plan on actually doing anything himself but let the GOP and possibly Putin and other flattering foreign leaders use him like a puppet, we can be pretty confident that most, if not all, of his proposals will be worth opposing. There is also value in making political alliances strong enough for the minority political party (with majority support of the population, remember) to block these things, even if that
means blocking things only a small number of the alliance actually opposes. That’s the nature of political alliances of all stripes. As with a lot of politics, the morality of this kind of thing is shades of gray, but I would say that viewing it as bad because we didn’t like it when the other guys did it as being oversimplistic as well.
@Michael
*raises hand*
I see. What’s the logic behind cutting off your own nose to spite your face, then?
Dissent is the highest form of patriotism…as long as Democrats or progressives are in office.
Dissent against a conservative-led government is unpatriotic and ridiculous, to these people.
(Seriously I will never stop being bitter about growing up in a family of progressives during the George W. Bush years and hearing everyone tell us how disrespectful to the troops, etc. we were being…and then having the Tea Party acting like protesting was their God-given right for eight years (which it is, but), and then during this election acting like they were this oppressed minority whose candidate would never get a chance at a fair election (like the 2000 debacle never happened) and now they’re BACK to advocating against free speech and dissent against the government.
These people don’t care about any amendment but the 2nd unless someone they don’t agree with is in power.
I’m so bitter LOL.)
@Ooglybogglea And for like the fifth time, I’m not saying you shouldn’t try to influence that system, I’m saying how we do so is as important as why we do so. I’ve also said multiple times now that I don’t think Trump will actually do the few good things he spoken of, but it isn’t impossible either. If he does then yes we should work to support those things, because helping others is more important than proving we’re right.
Nor did I say we’re the “mirror party” all I said was that this specific guide which proposes the use of obstruction and other underhanded tactics is wrong. We don’t get to abandon our principles now that assholes like Trump have authority.
@Axecaliber According to what you’ve said it certainly seems to be, you are the one who said “whatever works”. Also “I don’t do sides” the hell does that even mean?
@Michael Brew And by and large I agree with you, this specific Indivisble thing does though and that’s all I was saying. It seems to me that at least a few people here are taking the black and white stance though and as a rule I’m not going to argue against that. Sometimes things are black and white but it’s very rare in my experience.
@Mattie I hear you about that, sometimes bitter is completely understandable. XD
And re: the obstructionism thing, I honestly think I agree with @Axecalibur. I’m tired of being a registered member of the party that’s always trying to act like adults while their opponents throw temper tantrums. I’d like the Democrats to start throwing some tantrums IMHO (also this election broke whatever little faith I have left in our system, from the DNC thing with Bernie Sanders to this Russian hacking of the election to just all the people who honestly supported Trump).
And the sad thing is with Mike Pence and the rest of these people in the White House, a ton of marginalized people will suffer or die no matter how cooperative and supportive Democrats try to be.
Not to mention the whole “appeasement’s failed track record with fascism” thing. (And as a disabled Jewish queer I feel like I can make that comparison.)
@Mattie And I’ll agree to a degree, Obama failed completely as a progressive champion in my opinion, he didn’t use the bully pulpit he compromised instead of fighting. The Democrats to my mind have largely become a corporatist party, with some notable exceptions, such as Warren, Sanders or Ellison. Still though I just can’t believe that abandoning a principled defense of progressive values is the right course. We can fight and fight hard, but it has to be done the right way as well as for the right reasons.
@Pendraeg
You seem to keep forgetting that not only does any form of concession gives political sway to Trump but also can be used to excuse the countless actions his cabinet will inflict, this isn’t speculation this is historical fact. Our “principles” in a nutshell are for the people, not for tyrants.
@Michael Brew
The logic being “if I give them any inches they’ll take the whole mile”, “if I give them concessions they’ll press on as the party that lost are spineless and didn’t have the guts to push for gun freform when hey had the advantage will continue to allow the GOP to get whatever they want.”
I am so done with having to act like an adult against petulant misanthropic brats.
If they propose the policies we want, how are we giving them an inch, though? They’d be giving us the inch, and we can take the mile from there. Not that I expect someone like Trump and especially not the Tea Partiers to do any such thing, but on principle I don’t know that I’d be willing to sacrifice millions of people’s health and well being because it might make the other team look marginally better (i.e. “more progressive/liberal”).
In theory if Trump and the GOP congress are trying to pass something completely beneficial, we should work with them. I can’t see that happening though. I’m struggling to recall the last time the Republican party passed something beneficial on a federal level. The last thing I can think of off the top of my head was Reagan and a Democratic congress working together to increase payroll taxes so that SSI would be adequately funded. The last time a Republican president and Republican congress did anything good? I couldn’t tell you. Maybe something in the Teddy Roosevelt era?
Obstructing isn’t inherently bad if it’s for a good cause. Labor strikes obstruct business. Protest marches obstruct roads, walkways and by extension the normal functioning of government and business. Not only is obstruction effective, it’s necessary. Liberals in the US have been taking the high road for decades now and we have little to show for it. Politics is rough and tumble and contrary to what the people nostalgic for the good times that never were will tell you, it always has been.
Not adopting oppressive tactics is not necessarily the same as playing nice.
@Ooglyboggles That’s a nice catch phrase but you can’t force people to agree with you and if you don’t get people to agree with you of their own volition then you aren’t actually accomplishing anything with your dissent. What sort of long term effects do you think it’ll have when you act like a petulant brat as well?
I think it’s obvious that Pendraeg is not on board and never will be, therefore this will have to be done without Pendraeg.
@WWTH I’d say we have a lot to show for it. Our society is more open, more tolerant and has improved. It’s far from perfect and yes there’s been setbacks in recent years but that doesn’t change that things are improving.
I’d say there’s a difference between blocking something harmful and obstructionism. Obstructionism is the attitude of “no matter what I’ll work to stop the Republicans” even if it means people will be hurt. It’s the attitudes the Republicans have had towards the current administration.
@Michael
I want a bigger nose. There should be 2 responses to Republicans:
1)’that is a disgusting idea, it shall not pass’
2)’nope, not good enough’
Republicans say ‘$12 minimum wage’, the response should be ‘nope, not good enough. $15’. Republicans say ‘create 5m jobs thru infrastructure projects’, the response should be ‘nope, not good enough. 10m’. Republicans say ‘raise capital gains taxes to 25%’, the response should be ‘nope, not good enough. 40%’
The genius (I use that term loosely) of the tea party was that they were able to consistently get 98% of what they wanted. They bragged about it. 98%. A Trump healthcare package is gonna be swill. But, even if it isn’t, you can always get more. The last 8 years have proven that. Besides, don’t legitimize Trump. Simple as that
@Pendraeg
The Democrats are in the trenches with me. For now. There’s lotsa brogressives who I know will throw me and mine under the bus in an instant if it suits em. The road to perdition is paved with the misguided actions of decent people. I recognize that any coalition I’m in has a shelf life. There is no ‘we’, there is no ‘side’
I agree that a major difference in this situation is that while President Obama came into office willing to play ball, while we can’t expect a person like Trump and the Tea Partiers to be at all willing to do anything but force through their conservative wishlist with no regard for the opposition. That perhaps justifies obstruction in a way that it wasn’t justified the past eight years. Obviously, if Trump does somehow figure out how to actually politic instead of acting like he literally owns the country like he does his businesses, the Democrats should do so, because cooperation will generally be more beneficial for us than political war. That only applies if the GOP is willing to make concessions, however.
@Axecaliber And if they give you that $15 dollar minimum wage? Still no then by your philosophy? It seems to me that it’s more important to you that your side is the one that accomplishes good than that good be accomplished.
And all you’re saying there is that you just view the world as being you and everyone else who is expendable and not to be trusted. Which sounds pretty damn right wing to me.
Here’s the difference between us and them, Pendraeg: people have responded to you patiently and tried hard to explain to you even though you are being infuriating. On the other side, people would have shouted that you’re a traitor to the United States at your first post and David’s equivalent would have banned you immediately.
In terms of legislation, government programs and court decisions we’ve got almost diddly squat. I was born in 1980 and the only major progressive victories in my lifetime have been marriage equality and the VAWA. The ACA is better than nothing but isn’t a major overhaul and benefits the insurance industry more than the people. Lily Ledbetter is nice but it’s a minor tweak to existing anti-discrimination laws.
In some ways attitudes are shifting on a lot of issues but that’s certainly not being reflected in our government’s policies.
If we want something along the lines of the New Deal, Great Society, Civil Rights Act etc, we’re not going to get it by playing nice. There has to be political consequences to not be progressive and there isn’t.
Okay, that was harsh of me. But here’s the reality:
The Tea Partiers got shit done because they were the loudest and most active of Obama’s opponents. You’re naive if you think that Obama had no opponents who weren’t Tea Partiers. He had “principled objectors” who only objected to some of his agenda, and went along with those parts they liked, the way you want.
Those aren’t the people you hear about, and those aren’t the people who actually got their way. They weren’t as motivated as the Tea Party, because they only opposed some of the agenda, and they weren’t as loud, because they only talked some of the time and they took a softer stance. They are in the dustbin of history. They are forgotten and ignored.
If you want to emulate the forgotten and the ignored, feel free, but stop trying to convince everyone else to step along the path of failure with you.
@Policy I’m not trying to be infuriating I think I’ve posted here often enough and for long enough to show that I’m arguing from good faith. My point is this, the bad behavior of the other side does not justify our side devolving to the same level. I’m not even saying it has resulted in that de-evolution. (sp) Just that it could and that this particular twitter guide or whatever the heck you’d call Indivisible seems to pushing towards that sort of behavior.
In short it’s not that “this will have to be done without Pendraeg” it’s that when people push to help others or to keep others from being hurt I’ll be there, when people fight against something that will help people because they don’t like the people who are proposing it, you’re damn right I’ll oppose that.
How about we cross that bridge if we ever come to it.
@ pendraeg
The fact is, I don’t see the Trump administration proposing anything worth supporting. The infrascture plan that has been proposed by Trump is actually a terrible plan. What else is there? Nothing of any value that I can see. So either we can argue about the rights and wrongs of opposing a hypothcal administration or we can deal with the one we’ve got. There is nothing wrong with obstructing a fundamentally reactionary, bigoted and corrupt agenda.