There have been very few times in my eleven years writing Captain Obvious blogs that my post has been redeemed so quickly and decisively. As you know, I broke with my usual weekly cadence because I felt compelled to write a recap of how I saw the Presidential address to Congress. I was appalled at what I saw and frankly how few were willing to call out the bad behavior on the part of the Democrats. The only thing I thought was that it was mostly because they were trying to toss “fresh meat” to their supporters to bait them into believing they still were ready to fight for their causes.
I still remember how unified the Democratic Party was when Hillary ran and the party stayed united right through Biden’s presidency. Now, they seem like wounded cornered animals all snarling at each other with fractious perspectives. I fully understand that losing the recent election so soundly sent them searching for those within their ranks to blame, but I thought the recent spate of sour grapes would naturally coalesce once again. But, without a leader around which to do that, the up and comers are all trying to grab the spotlight, perhaps so they can be crowned the new leadership, but they have utterly fractured the party. Then, a day later, I read the article I copied here below from the NY Times and felt I had to write a follow-up blog.
We need checks and balances in our political system, and our founders knew that. Yes, the acrimony and name-calling are an important part of the process. We have all grown up watching debate and argument and can still feel the confusion this can create when truly controversial decisions are made, such as bombing innocent civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end World War II. Perhaps it is best when both sides of an issue can see the complexity and perplexity of these questions.
As so many of my blogs have indicated, we seem unwilling to truly listen to all sides of a situation and humbly admit it is complex. We have the right to our opinions and the freedom to express them, but we also have the responsibility to do the right things in life as we learn from our past and consider the higher narrow road. Democracy favors the easy roads with broad consensus driving our direction. For all its strengths, that is also its essential weakness, and while attempting to educate the unwilling can seem a fool’s errand, we all must accept our responsibility to keep trying.
We are in a precarious position on the world stage and are not privy to the full backstory to many issues on the table. There is the distinct possibility that we have been fed a crock about what we think we know. Time will certainly tell but remember that the victors always write the history of any situation. We like phrases like “trust but verify” but now realize how futile it is to know virtually anything for sure about what is really going on.
It sure seems like insanity to me. Perhaps it is an addiction to power, and like alcohol and drugs is very hard to break. If Alcoholics Anonymous is right, we must at some point recognize that our success depends upon recognizing a “higher authority” who some will also call God. We can’t break from true addictions without this recognition and daily admission and support by others on the similar journeys. Plus, it takes positive counsel and support from others to achieve this in most cases. We must work together as a community … not finding fault … but not enabling through listening and attesting to what works in our own lives.
Perhaps this is the right time for a new awakening not only here but around the world?
Article on The New Resistance by Lisa Lerer
Yesterday, several Democrats disavowed one of their own.
Representative Al Green of Texas had jumped up during President Trump’s address to Congress on Tuesday. The lawmaker yelled that Trump had no mandate to cut Medicaid, shook his cane at the dais and refused to sit down. Eventually, the House speaker ejected him. It was a showy protest on national TV. And two days later, 10 of his fellow Democrats joined a Republican censure of him, renouncing his call for “righteous indignation and righteous incivility.”
How should Democrats resist Trump this time around? The answer isn’t clear. Eight years ago, liberal voters flooded the streets, week after week, to protest Trump’s actions on immigration, climate change and women’s rights. This time, they’re much quieter and far less unified. They lack a galvanizing leader. They’re divided over ideology, strategy and tactics. Elected Democrats aren’t sure how to battle a president whom more voters wanted than didn’t. And many of their supporters are demoralized and resigned, choosing to tune out the news altogether.
Their party is still grasping for a coherent response, and the speech on Tuesday captured their disorganization. Some Democratic lawmakers boycotted; some didn’t. Some walked out of the chamber during the speech. Others held up signs, heckled Trump and wore hot pink suits in protest. Afterward came a sober-minded official Democratic response from Senator Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, a rising star who won in a swing state.
Today’s newsletter looks at the fractured Democratic opposition to Trump 2.0. It falls roughly into four categories.
The compromisers
Lawmakers, party leaders and strategists in this group point out that Trump won the election, so clearly voters wanted some of what he was selling. Governors — such as Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan and Jared Polis of Colorado — have given some political ground on issues where surveys indicate popular support for Trump’s position. Think of immigration, tariffs and transgender athletes on girl’s sports teams, which California’s governor, Gavin Newsom, recently described as “deeply unfair.”
Some of this approach is driven by the need of governors to work with the federal government. Before Trump took office, Newsom positioned himself as a leader of the opposition, calling a special session of the state legislature to craft lawsuits and “safeguard California values.” After the fires ravaged Los Angeles in January, he adopted a less confrontational style. For instance, he suspended provisions of some state environmental laws while he appeals to the federal government for aid.
The resisters
These Democrats — a younger and more liberal group — argue that the party must stridently oppose nearly every action taken by the administration. They want to update the 2017 strategy of outrage and protest for a new era.
Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut embodies this approach. As my colleague Annie Karni detailed last month, he assails the administration in videos on social media, posts on X, floor speeches, interviews and essays. “The case I’m making to Democrats is that we have to fight every single day,” he said on CNN’s “State of the Union” this week. “We have to be on the offensive 24/7.”
Green, the censured Texas congressman who heckled Trump, is an adherent of this view. Many others in the House agree.
The lawyers
Another set of Democratic officials believes the best place to fight Trump is in court. With Democrats locked out of federal power, the party’s 23 attorneys general have become the front line of the opposition.
They’ve already filed seven lawsuits against the administration, challenging executive actions to end birthright citizenship, freeze federal funding and other moves. The attorneys general of Arizona, Minnesota, New Mexico and Oregon even held their own town hall meeting this week in Phoenix, responding to voters in an unusual joint event.
The pragmatists
This group of Democrats argues that the party needs to find a message that works and not just reflexively oppose everything Trump does. The most extreme version was articulated by the strategist James Carville, who says Democrats should let Republicans and Trump sink under the unpopularity of their initiatives. “Roll over and play dead,” he told Democrats.
But in Congress, Democrats have largely chosen an economic focus, stressing issues like the cost of eggs, the potential of higher prices from tariffs and the threats to popular programs like Medicaid and Social Security.
Many of those championing this approach are more experienced members of Congress, like Senator Chuck Schumer, the minority leader. But not all: Slotkin, who won in a state where Trump prevailed, stuck to bread-and-butter issues during her response to Trump on Tuesday.
Wrapped within her message was a far more basic plea: “Don’t tune out. It’s easy to be exhausted, but America needs you now more than ever,” she said. “If previous generations had not fought for democracy, where would we be today?”
To her and other Democrats, there are two dire problems. Trump is one. The other is the apathy of their own voters.
