On "Resistance Moms" and 2020

Today on Twitter, I made some observations about some 2020 polling data from Indivisible:

This is interesting on several levels.

One, if it's true that Indivisible disproportionately includes "resistance mom," I think there are many reasons this group doesn't support Bernie. For one, he dredges up a lot of history from 2016 and can't seem to admit he lost to a woman. https://t.co/4GxCGPEdTZ

— Fannie Wolfe 🌈 (@fanniesroom) July 3, 2019

The data shows that this group of voters - said to be disproportionately white, female, and suburban - disproportionately support Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris. The numbers also show that more within this group do not support Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden, than do.

As I tweeted, these findings are interesting on several levels. Regarding Bernie, I think he dredges up a lot of history from 2016, most notably that he can't seem to admit that he lost to a woman. But in addition to that, I think he has earned the distrust many women probably have of him due to his consistent 1960s socialist rhetoric that dog-whistles the mantra that white working class men are to be prioritized with respect to the political solutions he's proposing.

There's also the reality that a good portion of the online left has spent far too much time and energy mocking "wine moms" and the "hashtag resistance" for not sufficiently feeling the Bern. Back in January 2019, I wrote about this. The refusal of the online left to take "the hashtag resistance" seriously as a political movement is, I believe, in no small part due largely to the fact that white, cisgender, straight men are not at the center of it.

We've seen some of these dynamics play out over the past three years, a notable example of which is the way many women have bristled at times when The Women's March has appeared to be a vehicle for channeling women's support toward a Bernie 2020 run, such as his invite to give what some were presented as a keynote speech at the organization's Women's Convention in 2017. (He accepted the invite, which caused a huge backlash, and then later backed out without acknowledging that invite/acceptance were controversial.)

The Biden numbers on the Indivisible poll are interesting, as well, not the least of which is because I think there is some "conventional wisdom" on Twitter that "resistance moms" are "neoliberal centrists" who probably disproportionately support him (or course, you have to factor in that "neoliberal centrist" has some bizarre definitions these days, most of which center around the degree to which one does/doesn't like Bernie Sanders).

I'm not sure what to make of Gillibrand's numbers, other than that she most likely has taken huge hits because she called on Al Franken to resign. So, perhaps these voters are resentful of her for that and/or they think other people would remain too resentful of that (ie, misogynistic) to vote for her.

Remember: a lot of women have internalized misogyny, and it's also pervasive among the moderate-to-left side of the political spectrum. It's fully possible to support some female candidates, while not supporting others for misogynistic reasons.

All in all, it's still early. Biden and Bernie have near-universal name recognition, however, and I suspect that the more people see of the other candidates, the more people will realize that neither man is particularly well-equipped for this political moment.

I know Bernie's team is pushing the narrative that everyone is stealing his ideas*, but demeanor - among other things matters - and he simply doesn't have it. (*If everyone is stealing Bernie's ideas and supporting "his" agenda, are they also still neoliberals centrist sellouts? Hmmm, ponder the paradox).

Quiet, Revisited

NPR ran a story last week about the song "Quiet," which women performed at the 2017 Women's March and subsequently went viral.

Two years later and I still tear up whenever I hear the song and get chills thinking about my experience at the Women's March. During that first protest, I felt hopeful for the first time since the 2016 election about our capacity to resist and endure Trump's Republican rule, after weeks of profound sadness, anger, and fear.

During these past two years of actually living through it, I've wavered now and then. We continue to live in a moment of both feminist resurgence and deep backlash, as we've done throughout our nation's history. More than ever, I believe that justice will never be a "one and done" thing, but something each generation will have to continually strive for. And, just as important, every gain must be vigilantly protected and never taken for granted.

I desperately want a progressive woman to win the presidency in the United States. I don't know if it will happen in my lifetime, particularly as so many on the left remain just as resentful of "identity politics" and threatened by women's progress as those on the right. I may not see that anytime soon, even in my lifetime, perhaps.

At the same time, we've seen a record number of women in the House of Representatives, as a result of the 2018 mid-term elections. That is no small thing.

Two years ago, I wrote that I had hoped the moderate-to-left side of the political spectrum could unite in their opposition to Trump. I think that has happened in some ways, but not in others. Perhaps this is too much of a generalization but a significant division seems to rest on whether our strategy should be defeating Trump vs. whether we need to defeat Trump and also usher in the socialist revolution at the same time.

The former assumes that it will be enough of a challenge to defeat Trump. The latter assumes that 2020 will be an easy election, so we may as well make the most of it. I have grave doubts about that logic, given the existential threat Trump poses to our democracy.

Fox News essentially acts as the Trump/Republican state media channel, brainwashing millions of rightwing Americans. They are already now hate-obsessed with Rep. Ocasio-Cortez and have amped up the socialist fear-mongering now that the mainstream media has anointed Bernie Sanders as the leader of the Democratic Party. I also have serious doubts as to whether the 2020 election will be free and fair. And, even if a Democrat were to win, I question whether Trump would ever concede. Remember, in 2016, he had already primed Americans for drawn-out battle, if he lost, to contest what he was calling an election "rigged" for his opponent.

A lot of this danger seemed more obvious in 2017, as Trump opponents united in staunch opposition to him. Despite whatever internal conflicts we may have had with one another, I think many people were alarmed by the norms he had already violated. What changed? Have Americans become inured and numb to his transgressions? Does the US not look like what they think an authoritarian regime stereotypically looks like? Do people think it hasn't been as bad as they thought it would be? Have people given up on a female president out of fear, and are investing hope in a white male savior? Do they truly think the Democrats are worse, or just simply weak?

I don't know. I remain fearful, angry, hopeful, and inspired.


Related:
Friday Feeling: Political Music

On the Hashtag Resistance

From time to time, I think about the folks who deride, sneer at, and otherwise denigrate what they refer to as the hashtag resistance.

This happens on Twitter a lot. As folks across the political spectrum engage in this ridicule, a common bond is often, although not always, that its purveyors are straight white cisgender men.

With the Trump Administration disproportionately targeting those who are women, people of color, LGBTQ, disabled, immigrants, and/or poor, this ridicule is no coincidence, but part of a backlash to social justice activism and, especially, feminism. For one, many men, whether they will admit it or not, and regardless of political party, are likely following Trump's lead in the way that those on the center-to-left side of the political spectrum so often internalize Republican attacks and cruelty.

Is there a person who is on the left side of the political spectrum who would ever admit or acknowledge that they've been affected or swayed by Republican attacks and talking points?  Probably not, and yet.

Remember that rash of post-2016 election articles telling us to give up on identity politics since that's what led to Trump?

Let's also look at the way the right obsessively attacks Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Many center-to-left folks love her, but over the years, we're going to see that change. Now, a change in popularity is bound to happen to any politician, but with a woman of color in the US, it's always going to be complicated and tainted by misogyny and racism. Rightwingers know this, and know that they can taint liberal-left politicians by simply putting attacks "out there" and letting them seep into the minds of receptive liberal-left audiences.

Also, millions of kids are growing up in conservative homes only learning the Fox News perspective that she is terrible. These kids will grow up to be voters one day, with some of them leaving behind their conservative roots and yet, how many of them will have echoes of the constant attacks against Ocasio-Cortez ringing through their heads?  There's just something about her, they'll say, they just can't fully trust or like.

We'll see.

And two, regarding the hashtag resistance, it's not straight white cisgender men who are leading it.  It's women, primarily. And, an eternal political question in the USA seems to be whether, if men are not at the center of a political movement, does it exist as all a serious phenomenon?

The men who are part of the hashtag resistance, meaning that they understand the reality that Democrats and Republicans have significant differences and they are not at all "the same," are also ridiculed, probably in no small part for their association with something associated with pink pussy hats and wine moms.

Consider a piece in bro-rag Vice, in which its author actually spent time curating "The Worst Anti-Trump #Resistance Pop Culture of 2018." His examples are things like Jim Carrey's art and JK Rowling's Twitter presence and oh who gives a fuck, why is this even a battle someone would want to fight right now? The big kicker, though, is his intro, in which he snarks:

"Donald Trump is a demonstrably corrupt and narcissistic con man. Two years into his presidency, this is not a novel thing to say. Actually, you would think that pointing out his loutish personal behaviour, destructive policies, or chaotic governing technique as if it were a new observation would be regarded with the same sort of derision reserved for people who still say Nickelback sucks. Yes, and your point is."

Yes yes. It's so interesting that many people - many women, including that crone Hillary Clinton - were warning about Trump more than two years ago and while so many media men stood around with their dicks in their hands, literally in some cases, they have now come to understand the danger and also, by the way, they don't think it's, like, even very interesting to point out anymore.In fact, it's so uninteresting to say nowadays, that anyone pointing it out ought to be mocked.

This sentiment has to be something pretty close to peak privilege these days.

Imagine thinking that, let alone putting it in writing, when Donald Trump's approval rating currently hovers around 42%, meaning literal millions of people actually do think he's doing an okay job and don't yet see or care that he's a con man. Contrary to this writer's dopey assertion, we don't actually have collective agreement in our nation, at all, about Donald Trump.

Trump fans approve of his cruelty. The indulge it, celebrate it, and engage in it themselves and, worse, they weaponize it via their votes and continued support of this man who is actively hostile toward marginalized people.

My point?

This Vice piece is part of a toxic online ecosystem that privileges the viral, marketable "hot take" over the accurate, but no longer new, statement of fact..

The center-to-left Cool Guy on the Internet mockers of the hashtag resistance never seem to care about what a gift their smackdowns of a woman-led movement are to the millions of rabid, bigoted Trump fans that exist in the US. They don't have to, because so much of politics is an abstraction to them, an ironic joke to make, or a quippy, one-liner re-tweet that he desperately hopes will help him build his Twitter brand.

Entertaining is the point, rather than informing.

Which, coincidentally, is also how the normalization of Trump has functioned.

Enough! National School Walkout Held Today

Earlier today, I attended a rally in support of the students participating in the National School Walkout. This protest is being held in schools across the US today, on the one month anniversary of the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school in Florida.

Via the Women's March website:

"Women’s March Youth Empower is calling for a National School Walkout to protest Congress’ refusal to take action on the gun violence epidemic plaguing our schools and neighborhoods. Our elected officials must do more than tweet thoughts and prayers in response to this violence. Students and allies are organizing a National School Walkout to demand Congress pass legislation to keep us safe from gun violence at our schools, on our streets and in our homes and places of worship. We view this work as part of an ongoing and decades-long movement for gun violence prevention, in honor of all victims of gun violence ㅡ from James Brady to Trayvon Martin to the 17 people killed in Parkland."

Student organizers and the nonprofit organization Everytown For Gun Safety are also planning a march for later this month, on March 24th, in Washington, DC and across the US, called the March For Our Lives.

For many years, it's been hard for me not to feel helpless about gun violence in the United States. I want to feel hopeful, particularly in light of the recent waves of activism, but feeling hopeful sometimes just feels naive because so often, nothing ever changes with respect to gun violence.

Still, I choose to show up, if only to stand in solidarity with those who are in mourning, those who are fearful, those who are angry, and those who have more hope than I do.

Millions Protest Trump, Again

For the second straight year, millions of people in hundreds of cities around the world marched in protest of the Republican Trump Administration as part of the Women's March.

Major cities in the US reported six-figure crowd sizes, possibly eclipsing the turnout from last year's historic protests. I'm not surprised. As I wrote on the year anniversary of the 2016 election, Trump is both cruel and historically unpopular.

True to his delusional, gaslighting, and lying form, Trump himself got on Twitter and pretended that the marches were a celebration of him and his "successes":

Folks, if I ever found myself with nothing to live for, I would find it in me to live only so that when this piece of shit kills masses of people, there will at least be someone other than him to write history.

Donald knows full well that the #WomensMarch2018 isn't a celebration of him or his "successes." Like all misogynists, he thinks he can speak fabrications about women's experiences into reality just by uttering them.

— Fannie Wolfe (@fanniesroom) January 20, 2018

The anti-Trump resistance is real, and it's being led by women, just as it should be. Today, I want to share two related observations about the revitalized women's movement:

One, much like the mainstream media largely missed the Trump-Russia story when it was happening in real time during the 2016 election, their coverage of the women's movement is largely inadequate. For instance, on the day after this year's Women's March, Nina Mast at Media Matters noted that "the major Sunday political talk shows were nearly silent on the historic protests, only briefly mentioning the topic across all five shows."

I posit that the mainstream media is largely overlooking this women-led movement in real time, precisely because it's led by women. Men still rule in the media world and they primarily view only other men as leaders of political movements. See also, their endless fascination with Trump voters and the assumption some have that Bernie Sanders is the leader of the resistance.

As I tweeted over the weekend (excuse the typo, ugh):

Of course it is, because it's led by women, while the media is ruled by men who look primarily only view men as leaders of movements. https://t.co/j4nSM8ayWS

— Fannie Wolfe (@fanniesroom) January 21, 2018

Secondly, Louisa, on Twitter, had a very good thread about the embedded misogyny that some activists show when mocking women protestors as suffering from a lack of coolness. From time to time, I see people sneering at "soccer moms in pink pussy hats." Like Louisa, I think that while some newer activists might have a lot to learn, we should be embracing the people who show up, are operating in good faith, and who are enthusiastic, rather than ridiculing them and tearing them down.

As a related point, I've seen some commentators say that it's "easy" to show up for a march and that anyone can do it. And, like I said on Twitter, I think that assumption should be interrogated. Protesting is political labor, and it's actually not easy for everyone.

I'll add that we should also interrogate the assumption that showing up to a March is "easy." For many, it's not - eg, if you have a small child, lack transportation, are sick, are disabled, work on weekends, and/or fear police presence.

— Fannie Wolfe (@fanniesroom) January 21, 2018

All in all, I'm pleased that the Women's Marches had another huge turnout, even as it remains a tragedy that the marches are necessary at all. Onward, we continue resisting.

And don't forget to register to vote, if you haven't already.

Related: 
Me, at Shakesville last year: Women's Marches Prove Historic

Maxine Waters' Speech at the Women's Convention

Maxine Waters is a national treasure and I'm so glad she's a leader of the resistance.

In her speech at this past weekend's Women's Convention in Detroit, she called Donald Trump "the most dishonorable and despicable human being to ever serve in the office of the presidency."

I'm here for it and her speech is 100% worth watching in full.


Related:
Women's Marches Prove Historic 
We Walk Together: Thoughts on the Women's Convention 
Bernie Backs Out Of Women's Convention

Wayback Wednesday: Quiet

Joss Whedon. Harvey Weinstein. The Republican Administration's ongoing assaults on women's rights. Millions of Americans and a Republican Congress supporting and condoning an admitted sexual predator as head of state. The ongoing demands that Hillary Clinton shut up and/or say only precisely what other people want her to say. The dirtbag left mocking a rape survivor without apology (to her).

Lately, I've been thinking a lot about this song, "Quiet," which went viral during the Women's March the day after Trump's inauguration.

These women never met till today and practiced this song online. Show them some love. #Icantkeepquiet #WomensMarch #WomensMarchOnWashington pic.twitter.com/rPA4dDTIYz

— Alma Har'el (@Almaharel) January 21, 2017

It's not a shocking revelation to say that times are tough.

People across the political spectrum often treat women's rights, and specifically violence against women, as a game in which they can make some larger "gotcha" against a political opponent.

What becomes frustrating is when the voices of progressive feminists who have long condemned rape culture in its varied manifestations - left, right, and center - continue to be ignored in these mainstream point-scoring narratives. Many men who do get it (or at least appear to publicly), often self-promote their own performances of "getting it," rather than promoting the women who have been making these observations for a very long time.

Yet, one of the most important things men can do as progressive allies is to refuse to participate in rape culture with other men. This refusal is often done in quiet, everyday acts: calling out shitty behavior of other men, not bonding with men over the subordination and abuse of women, and not participating in "locker room talk."

Also, listen to women. Rape culture places a lot of pressure on women to be quiet about our experiences within this system. If we're talking about our experiences with rape and gendered-abuse, be aware that doing so usually results in more negative consequences than positive for us.

Tired of Winning Yet?

Via the New York Times, on the Republican failure to repeal the Affordable Care Act last week:

"....[I]t was the biggest defeat of Mr. Trump's young presidency, which has suffered many.  His travel ban has been blocked by the courts. Allegations of questionable ties to the Russian government forced out his national security advisor Michael T. Flynn. Tensions with key allies such as Germany, Britain and Australia are high, and Mr. Trump's approval ratings are at historic lows."

Stay engaged. Resist. Speak out. Write. Call. Email. Do what you can.

And remember to celebrate every goddamn win.

As another reminder, the actual world we live in still imposes constraints on the executive branch of the US government. I make this observation because politicians, from time to time, often make sweeping promises of revolution and other forms of really big anti-establishment change. Yet, in our political reality, the Affordable Care Act has not yet been repealed, even with a Republican-controlled executive and legislative branch.

Please please please, I beg of you (again): I would love for the US to have more than two major political parties. But, when Jill Stein or any third party candidate runs for President despite their party holding exactly zero seats in Congress, remember that there's close to zero chance of them being able to actually implement a radical platform given the constraints of our political system. If this candidate were somehow able to widely implement their platform without garnering legislative support and building political allies, it would likely mean we were, unfortunately, living in a dictatorship.

Tired of Winning Yet?

That's what Internet neo-nazis say to each other, you know, about their god-emperor, Trump.

And yet, are they winning as much as they think they are? In some ways, yes, I suppose. In others, not so much.

Via Michael Shear at The New York Times:

"In record time, the 45th president has set off global outrage with a ban on travelers from Muslim-majority countries, fired his acting attorney general for refusing to defend the ban and watched as federal courts moved to block the policy, calling it an unconstitutional use of executive power.

The president angrily provoked the cancellation of a summit meeting with the Mexican president, hung up on Australia's prime minister, authorized a commando raid that resulted in the death of a Navy SEAL member, repeatedly lied about  the existence of millions of fraudulent votes cast in the 2016 election and engaged in Twitter wars with senators, a sports team owner, a Hollywood actor and a major department store chain. His words and actions have generated almost daily protests around the country."

Shear goes on to note that Trump's loyal base, of course, is unperturbed by any of these issues. Many, in fact, think Donald has accomplished a great deal, more than President Obama ever did!

Outside of that pro-Trump-bubble wherein The New York Times is "fake news," we continue to see signs that many believe the executive branch of the government now lacks legitimacy.

He lost the popular vote, of course. He's reached high unpopularity levels in record time. He seems confused about how being the head of a state might be different than being the head of a company. For instance, in our political system, he can't make a law come into being with the wave of a hand and the bark of a CEO-like command. With more evidence that Russian interfered with the election, and Trump aides might have known about it or have been complicit in it, it's clear what "winning" looks like for Team Trump: ignorance, incompetence, authoritarian, juvenile, unfair, illegitimate, and proud of it.

We must continue to resist. It is effective. And, because it's effective, we must also be wary of the Trump administration taking actions or spreading propaganda to manufacture legitimacy. For instance, this Tweet. He might be hoping to get the chance to use again one day, in the event of a terror attack on US soil:

The judiciary checked his power as unconstitutional, so now the judiciary is added to the ongoing tally of Trump enemies.

So now, Trump has a ready-made excuse in the event a terror attack does occur. The attack wasn't his fault, he'll say. After all, he's the tough guy who tried to stop it until the judiciary meddled. Thus, a future attack becomes not something he mourns as a tragedy or is in any way responsible for, but a "win," especially if the person who committed were from one of the above 7 countries.

That is what "winning" looks like in the Trump era.

Resistance Quotes of the Day

From Traitors or Patriots?: A Story of the German Anti-Nazi Resistance, Louis Eltscher notes Hitler took power "after suffering a significant electoral defeat":

"Just how did Hitler and the Nazis secure power? The answer is as simple as it is tragic. The tipping point of 30 January 1933 came when these three men and their supporters, thinking they could control Hitler, named him chancellor."

The "three men" referred to were the president of the Weimar Republic Paul von Hindenberg, Minister of Defense General Kurt von Schleicher, and former military officer Franz von Papen. Author Eltscher describes these three men as conservatives who saw Hitler as a means to the end of restoring Germany to its traditional values.

Eltscher further describes resistance movements that existed throughout Hitler's reign. However, it lacked both organization and leadership:

"Germany never had a political leader capable of challenging Hitler's almost magical - one might say it was black magic - ability to dominate public life."

As I've alluded before, I struggle with being simultaneously wary of making gratuitous comparisons between Trump and Hitler, and with the masses potentially not making these comparisons soon enough.

What continues to give me hope, for now, is that we can dissent, still, and not be killed or censored. Although, when Trump labels critique "fake news," polls showing he's unpopular "rigged," and protestors as "paid," and have his followers believe him, he doesn't have to censor or kill us in order to be effective. He can claim that we still live in a free society as long as he is the god who defines reality.

The left, however, does need a charismatic leader who can effectively challenge Trump. Relatedly, we need factions on the left to not tear down whoever this person is going to be when that person turns out to be imperfect. I am no "Berniecrat" lover but I would support one over Trump a million times over.  Republicans in Congress, as they confirm Trump's Cabinet of Incompetence, have demonstrated that as deplorable as Donald is, he is a means to achieving their conservative ends - restricting immigration, banning abortion, passing anti-LGBT laws, and de-regulating.

They tolerate imperfection, rarely denounce their neo-nazis and extremists, and they win. The left demands purity, gazes into its navel about the propriety of giving white supremacists speaking platforms, and we lose.

And, importantly, as the Democratic Primary* continues to be re-litigated, we need a leader who can appeal broadly to people who supported both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton.


(*Spoiler alert: I'm not going to be that person who orders people on any side to "get over it," because that's not helpful either. All I will say on this point, for now, is that I don't think calling someone "an ass" in an email constitutes an event that tipped the primary to Clinton, let alone rises to the level of "rigging." The vote tallies were not close.)

McConnell Fuels the Resistance

You might be super surprised to learn that I had some thoughts about Republican Mitch McConnell silencing Senator Elizabeth Warren two days ago, as she attempted to read the words of Coretta Scott King in opposition to racist Jeff Sessions' nomination as US Attorney General.

I wrote about it Shakesville today.

Why Women Are (and Should Be) Leading the Resistance

I struck a nerve with this tweet last night.

Literally no woman familiar with watching incompetent men consistently rise to the top is stunned by this. https://t.co/AR5jA0d6Od

— Fannie Wolfe (@fanniesroom) February 6, 2017

For some context regarding the number of likes and re-tweets, I usually get less than 10 per any given tweet.

To me, this Tweet elicited the reaction it did because Trump's win reinforced the fact that women exist in a state of subordination to men.

The misogyny, and widescale gaslighting regarding its existence, is a key reason why the Women's March, held the day after Trump's inauguration, was the largest protest in US history.

A resistance is rising from the ashes of Election 2016 and it is (and should be) led by women.

Many women are seeing their experiences validated, some perhaps for the first time.

To those liberal and progressive men who seem largely unaware of the conditions under which many women live in the US and still possess the capacity to be "stunned" by the fact that an incompetent authoritarian predator man-child can "win" over a highly-qualified woman, I can only suggest that you get out of whatever male-discourse-dominated bubble you're living in, and listen more, to women.

Listen especially to black women, 94% of whom voted for Hillary Clinton over the disastrous Donald Trump.

Dispatches From the Queer Resistance

Exit polls suggest that 77% of LGBT people voted for Hillary Clinton in Election 2016. As you might imagine, many of us have some opinions about Trump.

Over at Shakesville, I have started a series documenting acts of queer resistance. 

Feel free to send me tips and news items as you encounter them!

Throwback Thursday: ALT-POTUS 45

Somewhere, in a parallel universe so very far, far away, Day 9 happened for Madam President, and for the other, luckier versions of ourselves:

DAY 9: STILL NO NAZIS ON THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL OR IN MY MOTHERFUCKING WHITE HOUSE.

— ALT-POTUS 45 (@IfHillaryHad) January 30, 2017

Also in this parallel universe, Susan Sarandon and Jill Stein didn't Thelma & Louise certain segments of the left off a motherfucking cliff by acting like Trump and Clinton were both just as bad as one another. FUN TIMES!

And yes, one of my coping strategies is dark humor, ha ha HA, why do you ask?

Resistance is a Marathon

Feeling fatigued, overwhelmed, uncertain?

Who isn't?

Over at Shakesville, I share some thoughts about the Resistance and endurance.

Quote of the Day: Angela Davis at the Women's March

The Guardian has posted a transcript of Angela Davis' speech at the Women's March on Washington. Here's a snippet:

 "Over the next months and years we will be called upon to intensify our demands for social justice to become more militant in our defense of vulnerable populations. Those who still defend the supremacy of white male hetero-patriarchy had better watch out.

The next 1,459 days of the Trump administration will be 1,459 days of resistance: resistance on the ground, resistance in the classrooms, resistance on the job, resistance in our art and in our music.

This is just the beginning and in the words of the inimitable Ella Baker: ‘We who believe in freedom cannot rest until it comes.’ Thank you."

Women's Marches Prove Historic

The Women's Marches this past weekend are said to be the largest protests in US history. I wrote about it at Shakesville:

That we are living in a historic moment cannot be overstated. Trump continues to fill his Cabinet with unqualified extremists as though he has the strongest of mandates, even though by key measures he has no mandate to do so.

His electoral college win, temperament, lack of competence, lack of knowledge, and bigotry have inspired the largest protest in US history. He lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes. And, via Media Matters, he is "the least popular president-elect since modern polling was invented."

For posterity, I note some reactions to this historic weekend.

Check out the whole piece!

Friday Feeling: Political Music

Via Curve:

“'Quiet,' the second debut single for Chinese-American singer/songwriter MILCK, born Connie Lim, will be released in conjunction with the Women’s March this Saturday.

MILCK will perform 'Quiet' in multiple guerrilla-style a cappella performances at the Women’s March, joined by a full choir from the George Washington University Sirens and the D.C. Capital Blends, who will lend their voices as well.

The song and video attempt to shed light on the struggles women around the world how feel they don’t have a voice in this political climate."

It always boggles me when people, of any political leaning, tell musicians to "shut up and sing." To stick to music and not be political.

Do..... do such people know about music, at all?  Bob Dylan, Madonna, Ray Charles, Bikini Kill, Sweet Honey in the Rock, Pink. The list of artists who have, to varying degrees, used their music to make political statements is nearly endless. Isn't, perhaps, all music political to an extent, even if the statement is that the musician has chosen to focus on something frivolous in spite of life's tragedies?

Remember when the Dixie Chicks were vilified for criticizing George W. Bush circa 2003? The same people who sang along to, say, Toby Keith's "Courtesy of the Red, White, and Blue" (which I guess we're to believe is politically neutral?) were outraged at Natalie Maines for injecting politics into a concert (ps - FUTK). I suspect it's not so much that people object to musicians expressing political opinions, but rather, to musicians expressions political opinions that are disagreeable.

(I support Ted Nugent saying whatever diprod things he wants to say at his concerts. I'm 100% certain I'll never be there to listen or give him money).

Anyway, my dear Nasty Women, Brother-Sestras, and those who identify outside this binary, have a watch/listen to "Quiet," if you're able:

On the Marches

I have some more thoughts on the upcoming Women's March on Washington and the Sister Marches to take place on January 21, 2017, the day after Trump's inauguration.

Check out the full piece, over at Shakesville!

The Cynical Populists

The New York Times ran a series this week on the upcoming Women's March on Washington. The idea behind the series was for different women to discuss their opinions on whether such a march is useful.

I'm of the opinion that it will be useful for at least four reasons: (1) to communicate that, regardless of any electoral outcome, we are worth fighting for, (2) to be a symbol of mass resistance against the incoming Trump administration, (3) to send a message that the incoming administration is of questionable legitimacy given the yet-to-be resolved questions about Trump's ties to Russia, and (4) to go in solidarity with other marchers and like-minded individuals who are not able to attend.

In contrast, I find the following opinion, of a former Bernie Sanders delegate, featured in the Times to be mostly depressing:

"Protesting is good for awareness of a cause but if we think we are going to change anything with a march we are wrong. The Democracy Spring demonstrations against the power of money in politics brought little attention and no results. Any success by protests against the Dakota Access pipeline are likely to be short-lived. Thousands flooding Philly last June didn't change one super delegate vote. These were the best organized and most attended protests in years and they had absolutely no affect on their causes. We need to change our tactics.

If there is a march, it will be widely reported, and relatively no one will show up because we all know this is a fruitless exercise that will make us feel better but will have no effect on anything else. We already all know there is a problem with women's equality, yet we do nothing significant about it. It's because we all know legislation really isn't going to change it, only a societal shift in sexism will."

My point here isn't to harp on this particular woman too much. Rather, today I note a divide I see among the pragmatic and (what I call) the non-pragmatic left. One of the dangers I see in populist politicians like Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders is that what they seem to best at is stoking the embers of rage against a clearly-defined enemy - the Establishment, in both cases - and making grand promises of sweeping change that, when pressed for logistics and details, turn out to be not grounded in pragmatic realities.

Think: Candidate Trump leading his fans in chants about how Mexico would pay for his wall. Now, it turns out it's not going to happen like that. Or, Bernie's disastrous New York Daily News interview. When pressed for details on some of his signature talking points during the primary, he was unable to articulate nuanced details for implementation.

Both men consistently led huge emotion-laden rallies, tapping into people's real anxieties and desires for Big Change. Anger is not a bad thing. There is a lot to be angry about. Yet, sweeping change does not typically quickly or easily happen in the US (which is something that also gives me small hope in the years to come. We must pressure the media and all branches of government to resist - we do not, yet, live in a dictatorship). Yet, when Big Change doesn't immediately happen like their leaders said it would, angry people end up cynical. Notice how it takes about two "failed" rallies for the above-quoted woman to give up on protesting.

Rallies and protests don't always immediately result in the desired outcome. When we march January 21, 2017, Trump will not be impeached January 22. But, that's not really the point. We aren't living in a movie, or playing a video game, where Things Will Be Resolved if we undertake a sufficiently-dramatic action. In real life, political change often occurs because of the actions of many people using a variety of tactics, some who get credit and most who do not.

Consider: the woman quoted above rightly says that we need a "societal shift in sexism" to change attitudes, but she doesn't think marching or legislation is the way to go. Yet, pragmatically, how do these "societal shifts in sexism" occur? Is it elves in trees who plant feminist consciousness in people's minds while we're asleep? (She also says that Bernie taught her that we spend too much time on identity politics, so that's another mode she's given up on. In which case, good luck addressing sexism if we must take a "I don't even see gender" approach about it!)

Change occurs through a variety of modes. For a first necessary step, related to the populism we saw in 2016, we must eradicate from our minds the notion that big change can only happen if a Great Person (usually a man) leads the true believers to it. Secondly, big change happens through many people taking many small actions in their daily lives: conversations, writing, reading, marching, voting, lobbying, advocating. This is what I think President Obama was referring to this week in his Farewell Address. These are actions many of us have the capacity to undertake to some degree.

Teaspoon by teaspoon, we empty the sea.