I’ll offer my thoughts on the gathering here, both positive and critical.
Some background: I work for an organization related to the attack on the Rule of Law, so my day-to-day leaves me emotionally exhausted. I also have medical issues, and by the time Saturday rolled around I wasn’t sure I was going to go, but I’m glad I did.
I’m hesitant to call what happened a “protest,” but since that’s the vernacular, let’s go with that.
Whatever it was, it was exactly what I needed. I’ve spent most of the past six months feeling like Cassandra and as though I’m overreacting about, well, everything. That hasn’t entirely changed, but I feel *less* despair and *less* alone given the sheer scope of the protests and the huge number of people who came out — not just in the big blue cities but in the small red ones as well.
That being said, the way liberals (mostly, to be frank, white women – of which I am one) are talking about the protests is really infuriating. If I have to hear one more person say that they were “good trouble,” I think I’m going to scream. And no one seems to stop and think about why it might be that LEO were so polite and kind to such large numbers of people.
When I point out that if it had been hundreds of thousands of Black people in the streets, the news stories would be very different, I’m told I’m being negative. And when I ask them if they know what kind of “good trouble, necessary trouble” John Lewis got in that caused him to say that, and push for what might have happened on Saturday along the lines of those things, I’m told I’m being critical.
(It’s the same sort of response when I point out that Cory Booker’s stunt didn’t do anything and was inconsistent with his votes to confirm four cabinet positions, including Marco Rubio and Scott Bessent.)
Again, I found value in what happened on Saturday in terms of community building and visibility of dissent. But it wasn’t “good trouble” — and on a number of levels I found it unsettling *because* the state allowed it to happen so peacefully and with no violence.
That's a perfectly reasonable thought to have. I suggest finding people who are excited about good trouble (even if you don't think it is) and directing them to what you see as good trouble. It might be off putting, but at least they're taking action!
Chris Hedges calls them "boutique leftists"; Catherine Liu goes with "Brahman leftists". Musa al-Gharbi calls them "symbolic capitalists"—they embrace social justice causes not because they actually have any desire to do anything about them but because the venues where they seek advancement in position and power require they pay lip service.
That said, it's appalling how deeply indoctrinated the US culture is in the Cult of Personality. Combined with the fact many are the damaged product of 45 years of the General Education Board curriculum that's designed to turn eager learners into passive recipients of information who are only rewarded when they repeat the acceptable answer, and here we are.
That's why it's so essential that people see the wisdom in what my fellow DSA-er has here. As I pointed out elsewhere, the undereducated, media-hypnotized masses aren't going to break free unless someone is there to gently deprogram them. As Rabbi Hillel said, “If I am not for myself, who will be for me? But if I am only for myself, who am I? If not you, then who? If not now, when?"
Now we have in writing why so many with such high ideals are sitting in silence watching the country burn. They’re butt-hurt. News flash: the people have always had to fight the establishment AND change hearts and minds to make our causes popular in the group consciousness. Unfortunately, as Lincoln said, Public Sentiment is Everything…
Yes, that’s what I’m attempting to do (I’m trying to organize a sit-in at Dick Durbin’s office or in front of the local social security office, for example). The challenge is that none of the people I talk to are willing to do even that. I’m frustrated that such (what I consider to be) a small thing is not palatable.
We are mostly grey-haired middle-aged (honestly, by society’s standards, “old”), highly educated white women; realistically, the optics of violence toward us would be really, really bad, so the risk is not very high.
I’m also doing Garrett Bucks’ community building course, which may or may not be helpful.
Joe, I love your work in general and I’m grateful for everything you do and write. I just want to make that clear up front before I question something you said.
Why is opposition to NATO a “default” position among Leftists? In most contexts I would be considered a Leftist, but I do broadly support NATO. I know its history is far from perfect. I know it’s been a willing participant in American imperialism, to the detriment of the world. But I look at the NATO countries, and I look at the CIS countries, and the former seem like a far better approximation of “democracy” than the latter, with notable exceptions (Turkey and Hungary especially come to mind).
Obviously the NATO states are still very far from perfect in terms of their adherence to the Platonic ideal of a worker-centric, non-imperialist, non-exploitative democracy. But compared to the Russian-aligned countries, they still seem markedly better to me. NATO offers a credible deterrent against Russian aggression, and I guess I don’t see why that shouldn’t factor in to our moral analysis. I guess at bottom I’m wondering why, if it’s permissible to “meet workers where they’re at” in terms of organizing at the national level, it couldn’t be permissible to do the same thing at the international level? Obviously we’re very far from that possibility today- but in the future, it’s what I would hope for.
It also seems inevitable to me, given how interconnected the world is, and the complex global climate crisis we face, that we will always be able to get by without genuine, transnational bodies and agreements. Again, NATO is very imperfect, but how does a world without it leave us better off?
Great question! I agree we should meet people at their level, with domestic and foreign issues alike.
My overarching problem with NATO today is that it's a military alliance without a purpose. It was devised to counter the Soviet Union, but the Soviet Union is gone. So why is it still here? NATO hasn't given an answer. Yes, it counters modern Russia, but Russia isn't the global superpower it once was. In my opinion, NATO is the classic problem of when you're holding a hammer; everything looks like a nail.
I believe the US should spend far less time on combative foreign policy and far more on diplomacy. Look at Afghanistan. Twenty years of NATO-backed occupation achieved nothing. It's outdated, ineffective, and keeps the world thinking we can solve our problems through bombing.
Plus, there's the VERY problematic history you spoke of: couping government and arming terrorists in the name of "democracy" throughout the Cold War.
Agreed - I think even the limpest liberal protests serve their purposes, one of which is to steel the nerves of children and teenagers and make them feel less alone.
Hilarious. To sum: Hey everybody, let's infiltrate and take over the protests, wear it as a skin suit, and pretend our failed socialist anti-western policies are mainstream.
"Don't worry your pretty little heads about it, proles! As soon as we get (back in) power -- in fact, *in order to* get back in power -- trust our vanguards, to tell you what to do and how to do it! Only then will the milk and honey flow once again! Victory will be ours!! That is, I mean yours-- the proles' -- of course!"
Hang it up, Democrats. You effed up a generation worth (or 2, or 3) of the powerless. As the cancer grows in your party down to even the most ignorant, it ain't coming back anytime soon.
You guys exaggerate so much. We had a democracy. Maybe “workers” are not in your camp because they know it would be worse. Why can’t people at least acknowledge that we were in a pretty good place from a historic standpoint?
Who's "You guys"? I'm to the left of Marx -- first of all, because I *actually believe* in democracy. You know, where all points of view are respected as valid, even when you believe them factually and/or morally wrong, because you respect the dignity of *all* to have an equal say.
Trust me, the ignorant and even the anti-social will start to follow leaders *when those leaders begin again to treat them right*, instead of repeatedly giving BS song-and-dances decade after decade while America burns. I've watched it for a very long time now. Their trust has been burned to the ground, and thus a monstrosity such as Trump could arise, as people flailed around for a "Hail Mary" pass..
that sounds a lot like impatience and defeatism born of depression, not that that doesn't make sense. what do you want to happen? if i had to state my ideal form of government it would be pure democracy and city-states small enough to include everyone in most decisions. i know this is just not possible any time soon.
but my priority is actually dealing with apocalyptic threats--climate catastrophe especially for the global south & nuclear war. if you want to somehow dismantle our system and magically erect a new one in its place, i just don't see what you mean to do with all the nukes in the meantime--whoever's in control of them not to mention all the other weapons is going to have a lot of authority. i'm not willing to go through anything like that torture.
if you want to make our current system more democratic, why not just advocate for the simplest solution--getting as many dems as possible (or republicans or independents) to pledge to not taking non-small-dollar, individual donations? I think a good many dems are moving toward this already. it would take way longer to get enough people together to somehow go full-on socialist. this world is so complex right now, and while we have major threats to what is still a much better standard of living than most places on earth, why not admit that in all probability whatever you conceive of as "democracy" that isn't this representational model is highly unlikely to materialize and surface as the top pick amidst chaos, and that capitalism works enough to provide decent lives for people but we just need to balance it with regulations and incentives and a comprehensive welfare state? almost all democrats actually agree with this.
masses are just able to be manipulated, things can get way way worse, and to me leftists fail miserably to keep this under account. then there's AI. we are not in early industrial times or something. this world is huge, this country is huge, and threats are everywhere. safety first. look, i'm on disability, i have severe depression that never gets better and is debilitating, i can't work, and i need my meds. a lot of people are like me, but worse--autistic, schizophrenic. those who voted third party or none at all totally didn't give a shit about people like me, and in our system, somewhat miraculously, we still have power. those who didn't vote or refused to vote for dems sacrificed relative order for your own little halos, but workers will pay for the tariffs, the elderly and disabled and uninsured and children and poor people will pay in their cuts to medicaid and social security and the education department--these are all inadequate anyway--we are also threatened by world plagues and this desperately needs to be watched--another threat to everyone that any mass instability f-s over but already which is gravely threatened--and usaid mattered. immigrants are being terrorized and unfairly imprisoned. it's just not worth it to be so hopeless about the people who might or even do represent us. you'd be sacrificing a hell of a lot for total uncertainty and probable defeat of anything like what YOU, and very few others by the way, think is best. idealism can be quite cruel, actuallty
I’ll offer my thoughts on the gathering here, both positive and critical.
Some background: I work for an organization related to the attack on the Rule of Law, so my day-to-day leaves me emotionally exhausted. I also have medical issues, and by the time Saturday rolled around I wasn’t sure I was going to go, but I’m glad I did.
I’m hesitant to call what happened a “protest,” but since that’s the vernacular, let’s go with that.
Whatever it was, it was exactly what I needed. I’ve spent most of the past six months feeling like Cassandra and as though I’m overreacting about, well, everything. That hasn’t entirely changed, but I feel *less* despair and *less* alone given the sheer scope of the protests and the huge number of people who came out — not just in the big blue cities but in the small red ones as well.
That being said, the way liberals (mostly, to be frank, white women – of which I am one) are talking about the protests is really infuriating. If I have to hear one more person say that they were “good trouble,” I think I’m going to scream. And no one seems to stop and think about why it might be that LEO were so polite and kind to such large numbers of people.
When I point out that if it had been hundreds of thousands of Black people in the streets, the news stories would be very different, I’m told I’m being negative. And when I ask them if they know what kind of “good trouble, necessary trouble” John Lewis got in that caused him to say that, and push for what might have happened on Saturday along the lines of those things, I’m told I’m being critical.
(It’s the same sort of response when I point out that Cory Booker’s stunt didn’t do anything and was inconsistent with his votes to confirm four cabinet positions, including Marco Rubio and Scott Bessent.)
Again, I found value in what happened on Saturday in terms of community building and visibility of dissent. But it wasn’t “good trouble” — and on a number of levels I found it unsettling *because* the state allowed it to happen so peacefully and with no violence.
That's a perfectly reasonable thought to have. I suggest finding people who are excited about good trouble (even if you don't think it is) and directing them to what you see as good trouble. It might be off putting, but at least they're taking action!
Chris Hedges calls them "boutique leftists"; Catherine Liu goes with "Brahman leftists". Musa al-Gharbi calls them "symbolic capitalists"—they embrace social justice causes not because they actually have any desire to do anything about them but because the venues where they seek advancement in position and power require they pay lip service.
That said, it's appalling how deeply indoctrinated the US culture is in the Cult of Personality. Combined with the fact many are the damaged product of 45 years of the General Education Board curriculum that's designed to turn eager learners into passive recipients of information who are only rewarded when they repeat the acceptable answer, and here we are.
That's why it's so essential that people see the wisdom in what my fellow DSA-er has here. As I pointed out elsewhere, the undereducated, media-hypnotized masses aren't going to break free unless someone is there to gently deprogram them. As Rabbi Hillel said, “If I am not for myself, who will be for me? But if I am only for myself, who am I? If not you, then who? If not now, when?"
I've been at events like this which literally ended with white women literally hugging the cops
Now we have in writing why so many with such high ideals are sitting in silence watching the country burn. They’re butt-hurt. News flash: the people have always had to fight the establishment AND change hearts and minds to make our causes popular in the group consciousness. Unfortunately, as Lincoln said, Public Sentiment is Everything…
Very much so. I am not happy the public doesn't share my politics. I can either sit and stew in the anger, or I can change their minds.
Yes, that’s what I’m attempting to do (I’m trying to organize a sit-in at Dick Durbin’s office or in front of the local social security office, for example). The challenge is that none of the people I talk to are willing to do even that. I’m frustrated that such (what I consider to be) a small thing is not palatable.
We are mostly grey-haired middle-aged (honestly, by society’s standards, “old”), highly educated white women; realistically, the optics of violence toward us would be really, really bad, so the risk is not very high.
I’m also doing Garrett Bucks’ community building course, which may or may not be helpful.
Joe, I love your work in general and I’m grateful for everything you do and write. I just want to make that clear up front before I question something you said.
Why is opposition to NATO a “default” position among Leftists? In most contexts I would be considered a Leftist, but I do broadly support NATO. I know its history is far from perfect. I know it’s been a willing participant in American imperialism, to the detriment of the world. But I look at the NATO countries, and I look at the CIS countries, and the former seem like a far better approximation of “democracy” than the latter, with notable exceptions (Turkey and Hungary especially come to mind).
Obviously the NATO states are still very far from perfect in terms of their adherence to the Platonic ideal of a worker-centric, non-imperialist, non-exploitative democracy. But compared to the Russian-aligned countries, they still seem markedly better to me. NATO offers a credible deterrent against Russian aggression, and I guess I don’t see why that shouldn’t factor in to our moral analysis. I guess at bottom I’m wondering why, if it’s permissible to “meet workers where they’re at” in terms of organizing at the national level, it couldn’t be permissible to do the same thing at the international level? Obviously we’re very far from that possibility today- but in the future, it’s what I would hope for.
It also seems inevitable to me, given how interconnected the world is, and the complex global climate crisis we face, that we will always be able to get by without genuine, transnational bodies and agreements. Again, NATO is very imperfect, but how does a world without it leave us better off?
Great question! I agree we should meet people at their level, with domestic and foreign issues alike.
My overarching problem with NATO today is that it's a military alliance without a purpose. It was devised to counter the Soviet Union, but the Soviet Union is gone. So why is it still here? NATO hasn't given an answer. Yes, it counters modern Russia, but Russia isn't the global superpower it once was. In my opinion, NATO is the classic problem of when you're holding a hammer; everything looks like a nail.
I believe the US should spend far less time on combative foreign policy and far more on diplomacy. Look at Afghanistan. Twenty years of NATO-backed occupation achieved nothing. It's outdated, ineffective, and keeps the world thinking we can solve our problems through bombing.
Plus, there's the VERY problematic history you spoke of: couping government and arming terrorists in the name of "democracy" throughout the Cold War.
Agreed - I think even the limpest liberal protests serve their purposes, one of which is to steel the nerves of children and teenagers and make them feel less alone.
Your kindness, empathy, and intelligence come through in every one of your pieces. Thank you.
That's so kind of you to say! Thank you for that, and I'm glad this article resonated.
Thank you, Joe. Now, I want to know more about how to organize a tenants' union.
I'll direct you to this resource from JP Hill. He interviewed a tenant's rights author, and provided some resources for organizing at the bottom.
https://www.jphilll.com/p/abolish-rent
Thanks, Joe!
Hilarious. To sum: Hey everybody, let's infiltrate and take over the protests, wear it as a skin suit, and pretend our failed socialist anti-western policies are mainstream.
"Don't worry your pretty little heads about it, proles! As soon as we get (back in) power -- in fact, *in order to* get back in power -- trust our vanguards, to tell you what to do and how to do it! Only then will the milk and honey flow once again! Victory will be ours!! That is, I mean yours-- the proles' -- of course!"
Hang it up, Democrats. You effed up a generation worth (or 2, or 3) of the powerless. As the cancer grows in your party down to even the most ignorant, it ain't coming back anytime soon.
You guys exaggerate so much. We had a democracy. Maybe “workers” are not in your camp because they know it would be worse. Why can’t people at least acknowledge that we were in a pretty good place from a historic standpoint?
Who's "You guys"? I'm to the left of Marx -- first of all, because I *actually believe* in democracy. You know, where all points of view are respected as valid, even when you believe them factually and/or morally wrong, because you respect the dignity of *all* to have an equal say.
Trust me, the ignorant and even the anti-social will start to follow leaders *when those leaders begin again to treat them right*, instead of repeatedly giving BS song-and-dances decade after decade while America burns. I've watched it for a very long time now. Their trust has been burned to the ground, and thus a monstrosity such as Trump could arise, as people flailed around for a "Hail Mary" pass..
that sounds a lot like impatience and defeatism born of depression, not that that doesn't make sense. what do you want to happen? if i had to state my ideal form of government it would be pure democracy and city-states small enough to include everyone in most decisions. i know this is just not possible any time soon.
but my priority is actually dealing with apocalyptic threats--climate catastrophe especially for the global south & nuclear war. if you want to somehow dismantle our system and magically erect a new one in its place, i just don't see what you mean to do with all the nukes in the meantime--whoever's in control of them not to mention all the other weapons is going to have a lot of authority. i'm not willing to go through anything like that torture.
if you want to make our current system more democratic, why not just advocate for the simplest solution--getting as many dems as possible (or republicans or independents) to pledge to not taking non-small-dollar, individual donations? I think a good many dems are moving toward this already. it would take way longer to get enough people together to somehow go full-on socialist. this world is so complex right now, and while we have major threats to what is still a much better standard of living than most places on earth, why not admit that in all probability whatever you conceive of as "democracy" that isn't this representational model is highly unlikely to materialize and surface as the top pick amidst chaos, and that capitalism works enough to provide decent lives for people but we just need to balance it with regulations and incentives and a comprehensive welfare state? almost all democrats actually agree with this.
masses are just able to be manipulated, things can get way way worse, and to me leftists fail miserably to keep this under account. then there's AI. we are not in early industrial times or something. this world is huge, this country is huge, and threats are everywhere. safety first. look, i'm on disability, i have severe depression that never gets better and is debilitating, i can't work, and i need my meds. a lot of people are like me, but worse--autistic, schizophrenic. those who voted third party or none at all totally didn't give a shit about people like me, and in our system, somewhat miraculously, we still have power. those who didn't vote or refused to vote for dems sacrificed relative order for your own little halos, but workers will pay for the tariffs, the elderly and disabled and uninsured and children and poor people will pay in their cuts to medicaid and social security and the education department--these are all inadequate anyway--we are also threatened by world plagues and this desperately needs to be watched--another threat to everyone that any mass instability f-s over but already which is gravely threatened--and usaid mattered. immigrants are being terrorized and unfairly imprisoned. it's just not worth it to be so hopeless about the people who might or even do represent us. you'd be sacrificing a hell of a lot for total uncertainty and probable defeat of anything like what YOU, and very few others by the way, think is best. idealism can be quite cruel, actuallty
Hamas commander Mahmoud al-Zahar:
"The entire planet will be under our law; there will be no more Jews or Christian traitors."
Tell me again, how this is just about land?
Anyone noticing a trend of creeping "left-punching" showing up on their feeds again; from identified and unidentified Democrat surrogates?
I have; + it seems to have a tie or two to these big protest movements. The timing is there.
Anybody else seeing that?