Everything Everywhere All at Once: A Strategy for Democrats

Last weekend, I was on MSNBC, and after a segment on the economic horrors heading our way due to Donald Trump’s irrational tariffs and erratic policies, we shifted to some political inside baseball—namely, the conflict within the Democratic National Committee between Ken Martin, its chair, and David Hogg, a vice chair, who each were recently elected to their posts. The two are at odds because Hogg, a 25-year-old who first came to prominence as a survivor of the 2018 Parkland school shooting, argues the party, with its subterranean standing, must rejuvenate with young blood and is leading an effort to support younger Democrats in primary elections against old-guard incumbents. Unsurprisingly, Martin would prefer that the vice chair of the party not expend money and energy dis-electing fellow Democrats.

Two of the three co-hosts of the show were former party leaders. Michael Steele once was chair of the Republican National Committee (which is still hard to believe), and Symone Sanders Townsend was a committee member for the DNC. And they squared off, with Steele hailing Hogg for bringing a dose of disruption to the old grumps of the Democratic Party, and Sanders voicing concern over Hogg spurring intraparty warfare. When it was my turn to speak, I tried to suggest that what would be worse than either sticking with the status quo or targeting a few Democratic veterans for replacement would be to turn this face-off into a major conflict that would allow the political world and the media to reach for one of their most-cherished clichés: Democrats in disarray!

Right now, in this moment of crisis for American democracy, the overall focus ought to be on confronting the rise of authoritarianism, not on disputes over methods and strategies. Most certainly, at times participants in the anti-Trump coalition will disagree with one another and see advocates on their side charting a path they consider unwise or counterproductive. The best thing to do? Let it slide. Many of these political differences cannot be easily resolved. The Trump opposition must strive to prevent these disagreements from becoming major disruptions.

Overall, the strategy for the anti-Trump majority ought to be simple: Everything, everywhere, all at once. Marches, demonstrations, Capitol Hill obstructionism and clever legislative ploys, electoral organizing, litigation, Tesla protests, boycotts, rowdy town hall meetings, you name it. Some Democratic officials may want to prove they’re better than Trump and the Republicans in governing by delivering tangible policies that address voters’ needs. Others may concentrate on resistance-style rhetoric. Some might try to do both. Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker recently delivered a fiery speech to Democrats in New Hampshire and vowed not to grant Republicans “a moment of peace.” He declared, “It’s time to fight everywhere and all at once. Never before in my life have I called for mass protests, for mobilization, for disruption. But I am now.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) mounted a “fight oligarchy” tour that drew enormous crowds in red states, but Sen. Elissa Slotkin, a moderate Democrat who in November won a close race in Michigan, says her party ought not to use the term “oligarchy,” noting it’s a term embraced by coastal progressives. And even Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, a prairie populist, chimed in to criticize fellow Democrats for using phrases like "oligarch" and "food insecurity" instead of "hungry" and "greedy billionaires."

A few Democrats have started raising the prospect of a third Trump impeachment. After the news broke that Trump intends to give White House tours to people who purchase the cryptocurrency he recently created, Sen. Jon Ossoff of Georgia said, “When the sitting president of the United States is selling access for what are effectively payments directly to him, there is no question that that rises to the level of an impeachable offense.” Given the history of these efforts during Trump’s first term, other Dems, I imagine, are nervous about even mentioning the I-word.

There’s not going to be consensus on such matters. And arguments over rhetoric and tactics will only feed the media beast that savors Democrat-on-Democrat squabbling.

One reason why the recent anti-Trump protests have been so successful is that many were marches, not rallies. That means no speakers. And no speakers means no fighting over who gets to speak, what messages are spoken, and what messages are not. People show up for different reasons—Social Security, climate change, foreign aid, Medicare, scientific research, social program cuts, mass deportation, tariffs, Gaza, and the list goes on and on. But they are all united by an overarching desire to prevent Trump from wrecking the nation and imposing an oligarchic (sorry, Gov. Walz) autocracy. Without speakers and a central committee deciding the agenda, there are no messy negotiations of the sort that have burdened or sunk progressive efforts in the past. And these grassroots actions are largely decentralized.

One of Trump’s successful tactics is to aim a firehose of outrageous actions (including arguably illegal moves) at the public. It can be overwhelming, dizzying, hard to absorb and process. How do you stand up to a firehose? But perhaps in response you throw everything you can, everywhere you can, all at once at the Trumpers.

Yes, I’m being a bit naive here. As hard as it is to cope with Trump’s flood-the-zone demagoguery, it is also difficult to suppress internal conflicts. A few days ago, Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) announced that his esophageal cancer had returned and that he would step down as the ranking Democrat on the House Oversight Committee. He won that spot months ago by beating back a challenge from AOC. Now that this slot is again vacant, a battle is brewing between House Democratic veterans, including the 70-year-old Rep. Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts, who is angling for the position and who has the support of the old guard, and younger Ds yearning for this job, a roster that might come to include AOC, Rep. Jasmine Crockett of Texas, and others.

The Dems may be heading toward a generational civil war in the House, which would offer ammo for the Ds-in-disarray narrative. At this point, to improve the image of the party and to avoid this clash, the elders should yield to the young ’uns. But I wouldn’t bet on that. However, what’s most vital is to not let a dispute like this get in the way of the multi-front EEAAO strategy. Michelle Obama once famously exclaimed, “When they go low, we go high.” Not sure how well that has worked in recent years. Yet the anti-Trump movement should proclaim, “When they go all-out, we go all-out”—and not bicker over what that “all” means.

Got anything to say about this item—or anything else? Email me at ourland.corn@gmail.com.

During the weekend of the annual White House Correspondents’ Dinner, I attended several receptions full of journalists and media people. It was a good chance to gauge what others are thinking about the current political moment and the role of reporters in covering and addressing it. By and large, most folks I spoke with acknowledged this is a unique period that presents a challenge to the Fourth Estate, with the Trumpers assaulting the media and the foundations of American democracy. But what to focus on? How do you engage readers, listeners, and viewers? How do you produce content that cuts through the clutter and mayhem and has a chance of making an impact? How do you characterize Trump’s march toward authoritarianism? How do you cover all that shit that never stops flooding the zone? And how to do all this within an industry in financial trouble?

The ensuing conversations did not generate any grand solutions. But people are pondering these questions, and that was encouraging. There was one conversation I had, though, that left me troubled. It was with a media poohbah who runs a well-regarded online publication that features well-crafted reporting and analysis. I won’t mention his or her name because this was cocktail chatter, not an interview.

I said something about the difficulties of covering what might be the end—or, at least, the weakening—of American democracy. My interlocuter quickly pooh-poohed my premise, declaring that American democracy was not at risk. “We have the biggest and strongest economy in the world and the most powerful military,” this person proclaimed. “American democracy will survive. We are strong and resilient. There’s no need to worry.”

I replied by mentioning the GOP-controlled Congress’ self-evisceration, Trump’s ever-closer-to-the-brink confrontation with the courts, the Elon Musk-led decimation of federal agencies, and the adoption of police-state tactics to implement Trump’s deportation crusade. Wasn’t all this enough to prompt concern about the future of the American experiment? “We’ll be fine,” this person said. For a moment, I assumed they were joking. Then I realized they weren’t. Time for another drink, I told myself and offered a plausible excuse for moving along. As I headed toward the bar, I was disturbed. If this highly educated, well-informed media person of, no doubt, a somewhat liberal bent—no Trump supporter—doesn’t see the threat, that’s worrisome. Maybe they were just trying to duck a downer conversation while searching the crowd for the stars of The White Lotus.

The Atlantic magazine is one of the best and most important magazines in US history. It has been doing an admirable job covering Trump and the threat he poses to the nation. But the judges noticed a line in its recent cover story on Trump’s comeback that irked them. Here was the passage:

So, although it’s true that Trump is delivering on commitments to impose tariffs, cut government waste, and aggressively deport immigrants, many of his voters are only now beginning to realize the effect these policies will have on their daily lives.

Can you spot the slip-up? Cut government waste. Trump and Musk have not been “cutting government waste”; they’ve been cutting and decimating government itself. They have slashed vital programs and annihilated offices that were performing important services: providing day care for low-income Americans, assisting veterans, supplying health care and food to people in dire circumstances overseas, researching cures and treatments for serious diseases, developing policies to address the climate crisis, funding local libraries, maintaining national parks, helping recipients of Social Security, and so much more. No one should accept the propaganda that they are eliminating “waste.”

Adopting the terminology of Trump and Musk legitimizes their vile crusade—which itself is costing the US government money. So, the judges would like to pass on this dollop of constructive criticism to one of the great periodicals of all time.

On to this week’s contestants. Defense Secretary and make-up aficionado Peter Hegseth is in the running for an idiotic tweet:

This morning, I proudly ENDED the “Women, Peace & Security” (WPS) program inside the @DeptofDefense. WPS is yet another woke divisive/social justice/Biden initiative that overburdens our commanders and troops — distracting from our core task: WAR-FIGHTING. WPS is a UNITED NATIONS program pushed by feminists and left-wing activists. Politicians fawn over it; troops HATE it. DoD will hereby executive the minimum of WPS required by statute, and fight to end the program for our next budget. GOOD RIDDANCE WPS!

What made this so dumb? The WPS program was established by the first Trump administration. As the White House noted at the time, 

The Trump Administration is committed to advancing women’s equality, seeking to protect the rights of women and girls, and promoting women and youth empowerment programs. The United States Strategy on Women, Peace, and Security (WPS Strategy)…is the first legislation of its kind globally, which makes the United States the first country in the world with a comprehensive law on WPS, and de facto, the first with a whole-of-government strategy that responds to such a domestic law. The WPS Strategy recognizes the diverse roles women play as agents of change in preventing and resolving conflict, countering terrorism and violent extremism, and building post conflict peace and stability.

That was quite the ringing endorsement of a government program to center women. I guess Trump was too woke for Hegseth.

Another terrible Trump appointee, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, was back in contention. Appearing on NewsNation, he dropped this bombshell: “The MMR vaccine contains a lot of aborted fetus debris."

Wut? Those incendiary words—“aborted,” “fetus”, and “debris”—can certainly discourage parents from vaccinating their kids, the dream of anti-vaxxer RFK Jr. Who wants pieces of aborted fetuses coursing through their kids’ blood streams? But, no surprise, Kennedy was pushing a widely inaccurate and dangerous mischaracterization. The MMR vaccine was developed in fetal cells obtained from two elective abortions in the early 1960s. That does not constitute abortion debris floating around in the vaccine.

As the History of Vaccines projects explains, “Descendant cells are the medium in which these vaccines are prepared. The cell lines under consideration were begun using cells taken from one or more fetuses aborted almost 40 years ago. Since that time the cell lines have grown independently. It is important to note that descendant cells are not the cells of the aborted child. They never, themselves, formed a part of the victim's body.”

By the way, the not-exactly-pro-choice Catholic Church has said it’s morally okay to accept vaccines developed from these cell lines.

But it was White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller who claimed top honors this week with a double entry. At a press briefing, Trump’s mini–Roy Cohn defended Trump’s remark that his tariffs might lead to fewer and costlier products and that American tykes might have to settle for “two dolls instead of 30 dolls.” Miller ranted:

If you had a choice between a doll from China that might have say lead paint in it that is not as well constructed as a doll made in America that has a highly environmental and regulatory standard…and those two products are both on Amazon, that yes, you probably would be willing to pay more for a better-made America product.

It takes a lot of chutzpah for Miller to shout that Americans ought to buy American toys because of the better regulations here, as the Trump administration is waging war on a vast array of regulations and the agencies that enforce them.

In the same briefing, Miller bellowed,

Children will be taught to love America. Children will be taught to be patriots. Children will be taught civic values for schools that want federal taxpayer funding… We're going to make sure these funds are not being used to promote communist ideology.

This was demagogic and fascistic rhetoric. Show me where American children are being taught “communist ideology.” Miller is using scare-words that have no real meaning in this context. He’s ginning up fear and hate for him and Trump to exploit. It’s despicable, but, for this contest, winning.

A few weeks ago, I wrote about an inspiring trip I recently took to Yosemite National Park. Now I see that activists there and at other national parks have come up with a clever way to protest Trump’s assault on government, the environment, our national values, and our parks. They are placing signs decrying Trump and his policies in front of the live webcams many parks operate.

You can read about this in a report from SFGate.

The recent issue on the obvious contradiction between Trump’s war on children and the right’s call for boosting America’s birthrate provoked much ire among readers. Good ire.

Vicki Kilroy wrote:

This article was so right on! It is horrifying to watch the policies that will damage the health, education and safety of children and families. The high cost of housing and low wages have already made it tough for people to raise their children. Thank you for putting it all into one article.

A number of readers made a certain historical comparison, as did Linda Jack:

The push for more babies is to ensure a large pool of cheap labor and plenty of cannon fodder. Perhaps the right will establish Lebensborn, the Nazi baby farms, to produce the racially pure white babies they desire. People aren't having more babies because they can't afford them. A $5000 birth payment is a drop in the bucket regarding the cost of raising a child. A healthy baby will cost the parents $14,000-$20,000 the first year, not including delivery and childcare. Over 40 percent of babies born in the US have their delivery cost paid for by Medicare.

And Linda shared this bit from the great George Carlin:

Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're fucked.

David Forman emailed:

Yes, it's all very true (and scary) but who is reading this that doesn't already understand it? I'm in your silo as are the rest of your readers. The question is how do we take down the silos and get others to see and understand this? Or for that matter all the other truth and logic of which you speak. Time is running out! 

Thanks, David. I obviously cannot force anyone to read what I write. I do think that a quarter of the population is in Trump's cult and out of reach. But if we can get good information into the hands of people who can then talk to friends, relatives, and neighbors who might be in the muddy middle or even leaning toward the GOP, perhaps we can change a few minds. Given how America is generally split down the middle, only a slight margin need be persuaded. 

Trina Aguila reacted to an item about three assistant US attorneys in New York City resigning rather than accede to improper pressure from Trump’s Justice Department: 

Although I respect the inspiration sentiment you discuss regarding those that resign in protest from the government, I also am concerned about the void left to be filled by more Trump loyalists, those with Project 2025 approaches, those more inexperienced. I am thinking it would be more helpful in the long run if more ethical people stayed put to do what they can to help avert chaos from within their positions.

That's a good point, Trina. In some situations, staying and burrowing in to protect valuable government programs is worthwhile, for now. But I understand that in certain circumstances one cannot acquiesce to the corruptions of Trump and his cronies. In those instances, it may be best to call out their corruption and violations of ethics and publicly defend American values.  

My recent interview with Guardian correspondent Julian Borger about his new book on the escape of his father and other Jewish children from Vienna in 1938 prompted much mail.

Nancy Bruski wrote:

Thanks so much for sharing this powerful story. Of course, there are significant differences between the rise of the Nazis in Germany and what is happening today in the U.S. However, the fragility of the line between civility and cruelty, of respect and pathology, was the most gripping element of the story.

Ann Marie Doley shared this:

Thank you for this beautiful and very sad story. I read about the Holocaust and Anne Frank every day on Instagram as a prayer. I am not Jewish or religious, but it is a way to remember people who perished, those who survived, and how any so- called civilized society can descend into evil. That is why I am so terrified of Trump and all of those around him. This man has zero empathy and compassion, vindictiveness off the charts, combined with an uncanny ability to attract a loyal, mass following. Most people have numbed themselves with “it can’t happen here” beliefs. It is already happening.

Debra Kanter sent in this observation:

The full human toll of the Holocaust will probably never be known, but the more we discover, the more our present-day radars can process what we need to know in order to respond appropriately to current developments. 

Good point, Debra. History is just the tip of what we've forgotten or never knew. 

Fred Moncrief wrote:

Your Holocaust story left me with a complex set of emotions impossible to describe. It also brought back the memory of a dear friend who died not long ago at 90. She was French, not Jewish, and had served in the Resistance. Her tales were riveting, and she, like most veterans, never addressed the horrors of her time.

Glad it hit home, Fred. And I'm glad you got to know her story. 

“Did you put garlic and onions in the scrambled eggs?”
“Why are you asking, Moxie?”
“Uh, just curious.”
“Well, I didn’t. But there is dill.”
“Dill we can live with.”