Some Resistance Strategy

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand emphasized her opposition to Trump the first time around. She voted against nearly all of his major nominees. More so than most. Now, she seems not to be as firmly against. 

The Secretary of Interior nominee received eighteen "no" votes. She was not one of them. I also caught a piece of her calmly asking Tulsi Gabbard questions. Gillibrand ran for re-election this time as someone who in a non-partisan way supported the public welfare. She seems a bit less resistance-y now. 

The head of Talking Points Memo noted:

One of the big things I’ve seen over recent days is people being really upset that this or that Democrat voted for this or that relatively (everything is relative) innocuous nominee. For me, I just can’t get that worked up about what amounts to purely symbolic “yes” or “no” votes for a Sean Duffy or a Kristi Noem. But I also see that to a lot of people, those votes send a signal of business as usual. And that’s totally in conflict with any sense of a crisis that you’re focused on battling back against and winning.

I understand why people are not that worked up about the Secretary of the Interior. The nominee is a run-of-the-mill type who some other Republican president could easily have nominated. Still, it is not "purely symbolic," especially (as with Marco Rubio) if senators toss in words of support.

Rubio has already followed Trump's lead by cutting off "X" passports as part of Trump's anti-trans policies and going after the United States Agency For Aid and Development. The subtitle of that article: "The secretary of state accused USAID, which oversees food aid, emergency relief, and health programs in more than 100 countries, of being out of step with U.S. interests." Also, just to toss it in, he doesn't have the authority to abolish an agency established by law.

The TPM piece had this key bit of strategy:

The overarching thing that is missing from what Democratic leaders in Washington are saying right now is a clear statement that this is bad, and that it’s likely to get worse for a while. 

But we don’t accept this; we have power too. We’re going to fight this in the courts; we’re going to gum up the works in Congress; and more than anything we’re going to fight this in the court of public opinion. And we’re going to win. 

And to do that we need all of you to be on our side. And as we claw back power we’re going to repair the damage and hold the people who broke everything accountable and build something better.

I don't know the exact ways to do these things though find it tiresome that the usual people are in default "Democrats members of Congress are losers" mode. It does sound like an appropriate outline.

Trump and the Republicans are both dangerous and violating our basic values. This is not business as usual. Here are some soundbite reasons why as well as some more in-depth details. For instance. More. 

We are fighting back. It's a long haul. We can see some small victories (which for p.r. reasons will be exaggerated at times) in the short term. 

We are fighting this for the long haul. Join us. We will win in the end. The reference to Churchill and WWII is suitable. I hope not for the likely death toll.  

There have to be events that invite a media presence including showing up at USAID offices. Satire can be a useful tool. Well-organized protests. 

A supermajority was allegedly not enough to pass health care reform in the Obama years. Illegal, disgusting, stupid, and simply bad (we dream for simply bad) is not justified by "democracy" now with a small majority in Congress and a plurality in the presidential vote. A fraction supported Trump. 

(The data there is interesting. We have a reason to be upset more didn't vote in 2024 but it was actually a reasonable turnout given historical trends.)  

Welcome to two weeks in. I saw someone note that the Democrats will have some more influence when they will help fund the government.  Republicans will not completely unite there, most likely.

We cannot wait that long though it is not surprising that people who have been in government for a long time (or newbies) are playing the long game. 

There are also ways to toss him little and he can claim victory. Meanwhile, we say he got nothing. I understand the game. I am worried that if you give an illegal bully anything, even the image of a win, it will only encourage him to do more. And, no matter what, that will cause pain. It's a risky game of triage. 

The link discusses Canada and tariffs. Others discussed his threats to Colombia over military flights for deportees. Colombia "gave in" in return for a promise of respectful treatment. Both sides can be happy there since it doesn't seem to mean much. 

I have no magic answers and am not out there in the streets. I find calling people hard. Still, I'm made to think things through. Just offering my .02.