Anger at Dems is not a left/right issue

. That makes it an opportunity.

Image: Bill Kristol, 2011 by Gage Skidmore, CC

Democrats are really angry at their representatives. A Qunnipac poll found that 49% of Dem voters were dissatisfied with their representatives compared to only 40% satisfied. A CNN poll was even more dire, with 73% dissatisfied vs. 22% satisfied. Data for Progress had similar numbers: 67/29.

A lot of commenters—both on the left and in the center—have tried to frame these numbers along ideological lines, as a battle between do-nothing spineless centrists and untrustworthy anti-D leftists (to use the more invidious stereotypes on each side).

But this breakdown doesn’t really work, despite the fact that it would in some sense make people on every part of the ideological spectrum more comfortable. The demand for a more determined antifascism is not necessarily a left demand. And I think it would help everyone to recognize that, and think through what it means.

—

If I were paywalling, this is where I’d paywall. But! I hate paywalling. So, if you find my writing valuable, and are planning to read this whole thing, consider becoming a subscriber. It’s $5/month, $50/year. Your donation makes it possible for me to keep scribbling.==

—

Not just the left

There is both empirical and anecdotal evidence that the fight harder/sit on your hands divide is not a left/right split.

The empirical evidence is straightforward; if you’ve got 73% disapproval, or 67% disapproval, or even 49% disapproval, that’s not just leftists. I couldn’t find a good poll indicating what percentage of Democrats identify as leftist, but I think it’s fair to say that if the left was 73% of the party (or even 49%), we would win a lot more primary contests than we do.

Normie Dems are called normie Dems because partisan Democrats are the bulk of the party. And if you have 73% (or even 49%) of Democrats saying they are angry at their reps, that has to mean that a lot (a lot) of normie Democrats are angry at their representatives.

The anecdotal evidence is pretty overwhelming as well. There are just a huge number of people who are not leftists who have expressed anger and frustration with the Democrats’ failure to forcefully and consistently oppose Trump. As a brief list:

—J.B. Pritzker and other Democratic governors have been demanding that Chuck Schumer do more to oppose Trump.

—Tom Nichols, a former Republican turned conservative Democrat, lambasted the Democrats in the Atlantic: “America does not need a 'resistance,' or stale slogans, or people putting those slogans on little paddles. It needs an opposition party that boldly defends the nation’s virtues, the rule of law, and the rights of its people.”

—Charlotte Clymer, a consistent partisan Democrat who generally boosts people like Schumer and Pelosi, has been consistently criticizing the party since Trump’s term began. Recently for example she laid into the party for not standing up for Al Green when he heckled Trump during his Congressional address. “There is no credible excuse for the ten Democrats who voted to censure Congressman Al Green. None. It is a cowardly capitulation to asymmetrical warfare from the GOP out of fear, at best, and incompetent political opportunism at worst. And I will not forget those who tossed him aside. Ever.”

—Bill Kristol, a longtime figure in the neoconservative movement and now an anti-Trumper, has also been kicking Democrats for their failure to resist effectively—and defending Al Green. “Am I the only person who was actually kind of happy to see, in a sea of Democrats waving little paddles with lame messages, someone literally standing up to Trump?"

It’s also worth pointing out that some of the left representatives in Congress have not always been leaders against Trump, and have often sounded more wishy washy than Bill fucking Kristol. Every Democratic Senator, including Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, voted to confirm Marco Rubio as Secretary of State. Sanders rushed out early to say that RFK was “exactly correct” on food issues (though he didn’t vote to confirm him, thank god.) He also gave an interview in which he said that resistance to oligarchy needed to come from the public rather than from Congress—which, coming from a literal Senator, sounds more than a little like passing the buck.

Do something ffs

I think it’s clear, then, that while different people have different agendas, overall the anger against Democratic representatives is not really anger over policy per se. Rather, it’s anger over procedure. Democrats want their representatives to fight and to be seen as fighting for the causes they claim to believe in. They want them to use the tools they have, and the platform they have, to fight for traditional Democratic causes and constituencies, those causes and constituencies including democracy itself and all those who think that fascist authoritarianism is a bad idea.

So, what might it look like for Democrats to be more forceful and consistent in fighting for democracy?

First of all, they need to stop putting decorum above resistance—as Bill Kristol says, the Democrats should be rallying around and showing support for Al Green, not censuring him because he thought wearing pink and holding up little paddles was not sufficient pushback against fascism. They should be boosting and lifting up Jasmine Crockett for being outspoken and effectively channeling outrage; they shouldn’t be trying to shut her up.

They should also stop babbling about bipartisanship or looking for ways to find common ground with fascist authoritarians who are currently intent on destroying the Constitution. Don’t vote for fucking Marco Rubio. Don’t look for nice things to say about antivax abusive ghoul RFK.

Democrats should also use their power to obstruct more regularly, and link it more clearly to a principled stand against fascism. Progressive org Indivisible has been begging Democrats to refuse unanimous consent and to use quorum calls to slow down congressional business. They’ve also called on Democrats to refuse votes on any continuing budget resolution until and unless Trump and Musk cease illegally sequestering funds and destroying agencies without congressional approval.

There are real limits on what Democrats can do in the minority; procedural tricks only go so far, especially since the majority can (and will) change the rules if they get too frustrated. (People cite Tommy Tuberville’s blanket hold on military appointments—but it’s worth remembering that Tuberville eventually lost that fight.)

But there are other things Democrats can do. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, for example, hosted a know your rights session for undocumented people and others in ICE’s crosshairs. This so incensed Trump’s fascist border czar Tom Homan that he threatened to prosecute her. W3hat if every Democratic member of Congress shared that webinar with their constituents in solidarity? It’s possible that Homan would have a conniption, which is reason enough to try.

There are other grassroots organizing efforts that Democrats could participate in as well. There is currently a nationwide effort to protest Tesla dealerships. Democratic elected officials could show up at these protests, which would probably bring them much more national media attention (not least because Musk and Trump would go apeshit.)

Indivisible and some Democratic leaders like Minnesota Govenor Tim Walz are calling on Democrats to hold town halls in Republican districts now that GOP members are too afraid of backlash to hold their own. Again, this would be a good way for Democrats to speak to and encourage popular outrage and anger, rather than attempting to squash it.

Finally, one important tool is the primary challenge. Representatives and Senators that refuse to oppose Trump’s agenda, who vote for his nominees, and who censor outspoken Democrats like Al Green, should face primary challenges. In the past, progressive Democrats have not necessarily had great success in unseating incumbents. But in the past, 60-70% of Democrats weren’t saying that they were upset with their leadership.

If some primary challengers can’t win now, they can never win. And the thing about primary challenges is that you don’t need to win them all; a few credible threats and one or two victories could be enough to get across the message that we’re looking for representatives to fight for us, not spineless slugs.

Policy vs. procedure

Again, the anger at Democrats isn’t necessarily left energy. Some challengers to incumbents may be progressives, but every one won’t necessarily be.

This may not be the moment when the Democrats turn to policy radicalism. But it could be a moment when the Ds are pushed towards procedural radicalism. That would mean, in the near term, refusing votes for bullshit censure resolutions or for continuing resolutions funding fascist unconstitutional governance.

Longer term, it could mean more than that. One of Biden’s major failures was his appointment of norm-obsessed bipartisan shithead Merrick Garland as Attorney General, and his acquiescence in a hands-off approach to prosecuting Trump and punishing insurrection and fascism.

More broadly, the Democratic party has been reticent to use its power when in office to confront the right-wing bias in our political system. They’ve been leery of adding justices to rebalance the Supreme Court; they’ve refused to prioritize voting rights and abortion rights over the filibuster; they’ve shilly-shallied around enfranchising DC, which is the most direct and quickest way to start addressing the imbalance in the Senate. They haven’t even vaguely made gestures towards adding House seats, which is vital if we’re going to make gerrymandering logistically more difficult. They haven’t discussed disqualifying representatives who voted for insurrection, as the Constitution mandates.

Most of these issues are not leftist per se; there’s no one left position on how many people should be in the House of Representatives or on the Supreme Court. But all of these changes are things which would help to make a left politics possible by fixing the white supremacist, conservative bias in our system.

What that means is that progressives and the left should consider supporting primary challenges and politicians who vigorously oppose fascism and who support procedural radicalism even if those politicians don’t necessarily support (for example) M4A, or aren’t anti Zionist. Similarly, procedural radicals who want a more determined opposition to Trump should consider trying to find common ground with the left rather than (for example) refusing to speak to Palestinians or trumpeting how much they like cops.

The future looks really bleak right now, and I’m not trying to downplay that in any way. Having arrived at this bleak place, though, I think a lot of Democrats (and not just Democrats) have come to recognize that their current representatives are by and large not the representatives we need. There’s an opportunity here to create a real antifascist coalition, and to build a better and more just country and a better and more just future. That will involve some odd coalitions, and perhaps some reordering of priorities. We should try to see those, at least provisionally, as opportunities. It’s weird to think that Bill Kristol and AOC may have more in common with each other than either does with Dick Durbin at this particular moment. But if Bill Kristol and AOC are willing to fight and Dick Durbin isn’t, we should be prepared to fight with them.