January 26th, 2017

PK Icon

Should Dems Vote No As a Block On Trump Nominees? And How Should The Base React.

Should Dems vote no as a block on Trump appointments? And should activists express their displeasure with them voting yes on some and no on others when they want to see a united front?

These are complicated questions. I will not answer yes or no, but will suggest the factors to consider.

Collapse )

Just remember. Passion is supposed to be our rocket fuel, the thing that propels us and gives us energy. We must embrace our passion, not fear it. At the same time, this is not some kind of political Pon Far that strips us of our reason and gets us into combat to the death with our friends. Anger does not need to lead to hate (which, as we all know, leads to fear, etc.) Anger should lead to calculated and sustained action. Fear should lead to energy, not panic. Anger and fear are rational responses to what we see unfolding before us. Make them serve reason, and make reason serve your passions. We should neither repress our passion as the enemy of reason, nor reject reason as the enemy of passion. We should delight in their synergy, which will make us unstoppable.

PK Icon

I know this is gonna sound weird and wrong, but . . .

I'm thinking about whether we need a "white guys against Trump" March.

I just feel that we need to break the mindset that Trump has unqualified support from white guys. I think it would be beneficial for a lot of the Trump voters who were very uncomfortable voting for Trump but did so anyway from latent misogyny and racism (among other reasons) to see that "look, you can be a white guy and totally oppose Trump. it doesn't make you less manly or anything. Lots of white guys hate Trump."

It also denies the media narrative that this is a "white guy v. everyone else" issue. Lots of white guys voted for Hillary. Lots of white guys have been opposing Trump. The media should not get a free ride on framing this as "white guys support Trump." It is a particular subset of white guys (and smaller subsets of white women and Latinos).

OTOH, this is classic conservstive MRA tactic of setting things up as an opposite. "Oh, you wanna say Black Lives Matter? I think All Lives Matter!" This could easily be perceived as trying to take agency and leadership away from women and the Women's March.

I think the other marches help to push back on this perception. We now have climate deniers and scientists planning to march, and giving credit to the Women's March for inspiring them. Another follow on March explicitly crediting the leadership of the Women's March and with a clear statement of goals -- while not eliminating the potential for misinterpretation -- could also concievably reenforce that, yes, there are plenty of white men who are quite happy to be led by and inspired by women.

But the arguments I saw play out between folks on whether men should or should not participate in the Women's March have somewhat disheartened me on the subject. I am not sure I am up for the inevitable dissent nd argument with people with similar or identical overall policy goals. This is why I always say "I am no one's ally, I am a fellow traveller."