Trump is doomed.

Trump says he is in charge and a winner.  His core brand is at risk.  Virtue can lose and remain virtuous, but winners have to win to stay winners.

Trump isn't in charge.  Lots of people are in charge.   James Madison saw to that.

Trump will learn others disagree

Some thoughtful political observers, including Larry DiCara of Boston, have speculated that Trump is heading for a constitutional crisis similar to FDR's court packing or Nixon's assertion that "when the President does it, that means it is not illegal."  In a Playboy interview in 1990 Trump expressed his admiration for the Chinese government exercising raw power. "They were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength.  That shows you the power of strength."   

Trump shares power in the constitutional system.

Some think Trump will be unwilling to accept the limitations of his office.  HIs condemnation of the "dishonest press" and references to "so-called judges" are troubling to people looking for early signs of constitutional abuse.  

Trump's core brand requires him being the center of attention and power.   Trump presents the values of strength, authority, getting things done, confidence, status, and winning.  Trump doesn't represent "virtue" or "empathy" or "getting along."  Trump represents power and domination and winning.  Virtue can lose and remain virtuous, but winners need to win.

Trump can only be in charge if he ignores the Constitution, which will set up a clear constitutional crisis, one which will empower his opponents.  If he acts constitutionally the Trump message of decisive action will be muddled, then countered, by the ambitions of others and the design of the constitution.  Either way, Trump's brand is injured.

James Madison wrote in Federalist #51 "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition," so the constitutional system was established with checks and balances, with each body and each member owing their office to a different electorate.    As other presidents have learned, presidents are unique in their ability to command attention, but they share power.  

Who, or what, will stop Trump?  The constitutional process.  The process destroys presidential ambitions.    Remember, Obama was elected with a real landslide in 2008, had a majority in the House and barely, temporarily, 60 votes in the Senate, yet he could not pass a clean health care bill without multiple compromises.   Trump had a fluke-like electoral vote victory, marred by Russian involvement, and a two seat majority in the US Senate and nothing like Obama's mandate.  Both presidents generated enthusiastic opposition.

Old Guard opposition

As this blog has noted repeatedly, Trump has vastly over-promised on the replacement of Obamacare.  There is no common denominator that will please anyone, much less a majority.  There was no consensus on immigration, which is why the House backed away from passing immigration reform   20 Republican Senators Oppose Trump on Immigration  

Sen. Ben Sasse

Trump has to contend with senatorial ambition and animus.   John McCain and Lindsey Graham were both humiliated by Trump who called them both "losers."   Now Trump needs them but they represent long time established GOP orthodoxy on the American military and our policy toward Russia.  They don't just dislike him.  They disagree with him.

 Trump crushed "Lying Ted" Cruz.  Susan Collins represents Maine in blue New England.   Trump has a fragile Senatorial majority.

Sen. Tom Cotton

Younger senators are emerging. The Washington DC joke is that every US Senator sees a president in the mirror.  Multiple Republican Senators are jockeying for advantage and their advantage does come from echoing Trump, but from opposing him in ways that capture Republican support.  Both Sasse and Cotton graduated from Harvard, both made their way quickly to the US Senate.  They perceive themselves as president.  Ted Cruz (Princeton, then Harvard Law) is just getting started.   Marco Rubio was in Franklin, New Hampshire serving pancakes last year and he is not done either.

Sen. Marco Rubio

I list these Senators not to begin early commentary on the 2020 presidential election but to remind readers of the present political environment.  Donald Trump's core brand is power, success, shaking things up, and getting things done.  

He faces a gauntlet of opposition from ambitious opponents and from a process that is designed to prevent the core Trump brand message from being fulfilled.  There are Senators eager to call Trump a loser and a con man and a fraud, someone who did not know how to get things done constitutionally.   People are watching closely to see if he usurps non-constitutional power, in which case the opposition gets even stronger.

Trump painted himself into a trap:  his core brand is at risk and he needs the help of people he humiliated to succeed.  Trump wants the story to be: "Trump the winner who gets things done."  It will be nearly impossible to sell that story if, as things play out, he cannot get things done.

There are people emerging who want to be sure he fails.  They are fellow Republicans but they don't like him.  They don't agree with him.  They want him to lose.  They want his job.

Voters see something they like in Trump

Julius Caesar 

"A Republic, if you can keep it."

That is the answer Benjamin Franklin is said to have told a woman who asked him what kind of government was being devised by the members of the Constitutional Convention.   Another form of government has historically been more stable: dynastic power, in the form of monarchies and dictatorships.  

The Founders understood Greek and Roman history and the history of then-modern Europe.  Democracies evolve into autocracies.  They are simpler, more orderly, and the public eventually demands it, choosing safety over democracy.  

A college classmate, Larry DiCara, made this point in reflections on Donald Trump's authoritarian orientation.  Boston area readers will know Larry DiCara's name.  He was elected to the Boston City Council in his early 20s, took principled positions attempting to allow peaceful and orderly integration of Boston's schools during the tumultuous period of student busing,  and as an attorney and prominent civic leader he has been closely involved in the transformation of Boston's politics, economy, and physical condition from a depressed regional backwater into a vibrant technology and financial hub.  Boston used to be grimy; now it is upscale.  Housing used to be cheap; now it is Manhattan-ish in prices because people with high incomes want to live there.  Boston has always been cold in the winter; now it is cool and trendy all the time.

Tomorrow I will share his thoughts and concerns about Trump and offer some advice to Democrats.  Spoiler alert:  He thinks there may be a constitutional crisis.  Dicara thinks there are indications Trump simply does not understand and appreciate constitutional government.    If there will be a Nixon/Watergate event, who will be the Elliot Richardson-type Republicans?  Which Republican Senators will do what Barry Goldwater did, and tell Nixon he needed to resign?

Today this blog will list a set of parallel values.  Both lists are "good."  Both lists show generally admirable characteristics.  Readers will observe two different world views.  The list on the left essentially reflect the Trump view.  The list on the right reflect an Obama view.  Obama's politics of globalism and his mild tone created backlash and response, a pull of the pendulum away from Obama and his style, and away from the virtues of the column on the right.  Republican voters rejected Jeb Bush, Lindsey Graham, and John Kasich whose tone seemed mild and agreeable and respectful.  They wanted a candidate who was more angry, more authoritarian, more clear about who was right and who was wrong.

Here is the list:

From:Click Here: Seth Godin

Donald Trump was not alone in reflecting the values on the left column.  Ted Cruz and Chris Christie also reflected them, but Trump was the better showman and more effective communicator.  His rallies did a better job of reflecting power, agency, entitlement, getting things done, authority, compliance, profit-seeking, victory, and spoils.   Trump said it clearly and unapologetically, without subordinate clauses or hesitations reflecting reservations or supposed balance.   He was forthright.  We should invade Iraq and take their oil.  We should be cruel and torture Muslim suspects, we can win and win and win, we can do it on Day One, we can make America Great Again.

The lists are useful for helping readers get out of their bubbles.  A Fox News or Huffington Post view of the world tends to see other values as good versus bad, our team versus the enemy team.   These lists show the attitudes in the manner that each worldview sees itself, as positives.   Trump voters don't consider themselves suckers or evil; they see themselves as realistic in understanding that it is a tough world with real enemies and we need to protect ourselves from them and stick up for our side.   Obama supporters don't see themselves as soft-minded kumbaya hippies; they see themselves as realistically understanding that there cannot be prosperity and peace unless their is a fair and just world.

Democrats astonished that people actually voted for Trump might take a moment and re-read the list.  Voters who respond to the left-side list felt Obama was weak and they described him as feckless.  They considered him disloyal to America--or at least insufficiently loyal and dedicated to defending America's interests.   Trump voters did not want to elect  a tyrant or dictator and they find the implication that they did to be ridiculous, unfair, and offensive.  But they did want a can-do guy who is strong and who appeared to live in the real world of hard competition.  

Time will tell whether in fact Trump will charge boldly into un-Constitutional territory.  A politician can be authoritarian but stop short of tyranny.   Andrew Jackson would be such an example, and Trump has a portrait of Jackson over his desk.  Trump may simply be an oscillation of the pendulum.   Or this might be the opening rounds of a major constitutional crisis.  Trump speaking of "so-called judges" worries many people.  Trump's criticism of the news media is another.  Trump's assertion that "his facts" are more credible than the "fake news" presented by third parties is a third.  Trump skeptics and opponents have reason to be concerned.

Republican push back on Trump.  Ambition counters ambition.

Trump was elected because he won majorities in enough states to win.  Trump has voter appeal, a fact Trump-opponents need to understand and integrate.   If, in fact, Trump does un-Constitutional things he will find some resistance from among the people who voted for him.   Trump voters were not intending to elect a tyrant.   

They had in mind the strengths and virtues of the list on the left.

Warning to Democrats: Fight Trump, not each other.

Trump is selling an idea:  "I inherited a mess."

This isn't subtle.  He is blaming Democrats. They better get cracking because Donald Trump is not wasting any time.

Trump is selling the "I inherited a mess" story loud and hard because he raised expectations so high in the campaign ("You will win and win and win and win. . . .") that he is now stuck with explaining the grim reality of governing, not promising.   He needs to lower the bar in the face of statistics on unemployment, budget deficits, crime, and health care that show dramatic improvement over the past 8 years.

Trump was using the "mess" word back in early January 

Trump is putting a word out into the public mind that is stronger and stickier than mere data:  a "mess."   In his press conference, emphasis added:

"As you know, our administration inherited many problems across government and across the economy   To be honest, I inherited a mess.  It's a mess.  At home and abroad, a mess.  Jobs are pouring out of the country.  You see what's going on with all the companies leaving our country, going to Mexico and other places, low pay, low wages, mass instability overseas, no matter where you look.  The Middle East is a disaster.  North Korea--we'll take care of it, folks.  We're going to take care of it all.  I just want to let you know, I inherited a mess." 

He repeated saying "mess" in South Carolina

Trump knew the headline he wanted, and he got it.  "Mess."  

Trump is doing what Obama neglected to do: lock in the blame on the predecessor.   Obama did it weakly throughout his presidency, was criticized for it by Republicans and its media, but never drove home the point.  Obama pointed to statistics but never really sold a visual image, which is why even though unemployment statistics showed only 4.8% unemployment on election day, 2016, Trump on the campaign  dismissed data out of hand, and said the numbers are 20 and 30 percent and that unemployment is "through the roof."  Obama hesitated to worsen the sentiment during the financial collapse by emphasizing the negative.  It was a catastrophic political decision for him.  Obama almost immediately owned the recession politically. He was blamed for high unemployment and collapsing home prices within days of his inauguration and then for the slow rate of recovery.   Trump learned from Obama's error.

This created a problem: things aren't great yet.

Trump has a special urgency in selling the "mess" idea.   Trump has a second message: Trump is the man of action who changed things on Day One and Trump is an honest politician defined as one who keeps his campaign promises.   Trump wants to show he is in charge and change is happening.

Trump has a conundrum:  either he is responsible or he is not.  Trump sold the notion that on Day One things will be done the Trump way, and that image is out there loud and clear.  And yet Americans are not winning and winning and winning.  The news has changed to symbols of action but government appears to be in chaos, not yet "running like a fine tuned machine."

Feb, 2017, Democrats still fighting each other

Trump gave Democrats an opening with his Day One talk, but I do not see evidence that Democrats are seizing this opportunity. Instead, I see Democrats unable to pick a DNC leader and I see deep division within Democrats.  The Sanders people are more angry with Hillary than with Trump.  Meanwhile,  I do see Trump rapidly attempting to lock in the frame.  Blame Democrats.  That is why Trump is in charge on Day One but America is not yet Great Again.   Change--if it happens at all--will be slow.  Obamacare replacement will be contentious and unsatisfactory.  There will be fights over taxes, over Medicaid changes, over middle class entitlements, over the deficit, over infrastructure.   Trump's assertion: Blame Democrats.  I inherited a mess.

Democrats should have the advantage here, but only if they seize it:  Trump and Republicans made such a point of taking charge on Day One that this is now Trump's government.  Trump is front and center in the news, daily.  Trump 24/7 helped win the office but it now locks him in as the strong man in charge, for better or worse.  

Democrats need a message as clear and strong as Trump's:  Trump's mess.  He wanted the  job, he started messing everything up on Day One, he is in charge, the mess is his.   He broke Obamacare.  He makes the rules.  Unhappy?  Blame Trump from Day One.

Never Apologize

Trump has a style:  Never Apologize.

Apologies show weakness.  Double Down and Attack the Accuser.  The tactic is working for Trump.

Book Cover: Ed Battistella

Good Apologies reaffirm the moral order.  

One rule of thumb is that a good apology works to clear the air and repair the honor and dignity of the person who erred by showing that he accepts the moral order.   For it to be a good apology one must recognize that a legitimate moral rule has been broken, that the guilty party acknowledges and respects the rule, acknowledges his guilt, and says he or she is sorry to the people injured by the error.   I am grateful to Edwin Battistella, an Ashland, Oregon linguist, whose book Sorry About That: The Language of Public Apology, published by Oxford University Press, got national recognition for teasing out what constituted a real apology. 

Politics is filled with bad apologies.  "I'm sorry if anyone was offended" is the classic bad apology.  It puts the blame on the victim for being touchy and oversensitive, rather than the person who erred, and doesn't acknowledge the truth that a legitimate rule was broken.

Donald Trump's style is very different.  He does not acknowledge his breeches of rules.  He looks the TV camera in the eye and accuses his accuser or victim of dishonesty or weakness.  It is a position of strength because it shows the person is above the law and not beholden to it, or that it is a bad law in the first place.   There is a famous rule for Hollywood celebrities.  "Never complain, never explain, which makes the point that celebrities carry on without giving others the satisfaction of excuses.  They are above it.  his early career young army officer Winston Churchill advised his senior officers not to correct an unfavorable newspaper story about a battlefield setback.  "No matter how good the arguments were, the mere fact of advancing them would be everywhere taken as a sign of weakness."  

Apologies show weakness.  They recognize the legitimacy of both a moral order higher than the individual and the dignity of the people who were offended.   

Trump does not apologize, but he complains.  He denies guilt, and accuses his accusers.  He demonstrates that he is impervious to the law.  Rules of honesty or consistency don't apply to him.  

Good apologies, as understood by Battistella, reaffirm moral order.   Trump's insight is that Americans are not insisting that the moral order be affirmed by their president.  They want an affirmation of the hierarchy of power.  That is what Trump affirms, in part by acting oblivious to inconsistency and obvious untruths.

Trump's tactic has appeal.  A great many Americans are unsettled by the USA being a smaller industrial power than China, the realization that Middle Eastern jihadists are not overwhelmed by the American military, that American workers are being squeezed by automation and foreigners, and that women, blacks, Hispanics, non-Christians, the LGBTQ community and others are all asserting equality with traditional social and power order.   Trump denies the morality of those rules, dismissing it as "political correctness" and weakness.   Equality may exits in law but traditional privileges still exist in tradition and practice.  By not apologizing Trump shows his rejection of rules requiring respect.  People liked his open disrespect to Mexico, Australia, and China and his taunting of the press.  He shows his contempt for political correctness. 

The vicious lie of birtherism was Hillary's doing

Trump does not apologize for the hypocrisy of saying in speeches that we should hire American and buy American simultaneously with his Virginia winery making application for  H-2 workers at $11.27 an hour .Click Here    Or Here   Similarly his manufacture of ties in China and suits in Mexico.  Similarly his recent openly false assertion that his electoral college margin was a landslide greater than any since Reagan in 1984.  The hypocrisy and inaccuracy is a breach of a moral order of honesty and integrity, but he ignores it, then insults his accusers.   

When he announced that "birtherism" was a Hillary's doing and that he should be credited for ending the lie he did not look sheepish.  He was an actor committed to the story and he stuck to it with conviction.   His supporters did no object to his 180 degree turn.  Trump himself did not look back and he appeared to have no memory of the past and he was unconcerned with libraries full of videotape showing his story was blatantly untrue.   He sold the story and he didn't apologize.  Then he attacked the dishonest press for calling him on it.

Trump's gamble--which has paid off--was that Americans do not really demand honesty and consistency in a president.  Enough voters wanted something else in a president: unapologetic assertion of power. 

We see that not apologizing works politically.   Honesty is not necessarily the best policy, and Trump has proven it.  If people wanted morality in government presumably they would have elected someone other than Trump.  Voters like the fact that he broke the rules.  The slogan was not Make America Good Again.  It was Make America Great Again.  It is about power.  

Trump harkens back to the rule of monarchs, an undemocratic but very stable form of government. Great Men don't apologize.  They don't need to.  They don't follow the rules.  They make the rules.   They are the rules.

Call him a Putin Puppet??

Democrats saw first hand that the Trump technique of De-Legitimization works.   It appeals to dark conspiracy and fantasy thinking.  It is Ugly and Divisive.  It feels like payback.

Warning to Democrats:  It is important to pick the correct Trump weakness.

"Birtherism" employed the technique that became the Trump trademark:  don't disagree, de-legitimize.

It helped Trump get elected and the Republican base bought it. Obama was a Kenyan Muslim.

Donald Trump is attempting to reset American relations with Russia.   He has been steadfast in saying it is better for America to work with Russia than to consider them a cold war enemy.   

Trump's position is politically dangerous and possibly very brave. There is a bi-partisan constituency and one hundred years of tradition and inertia for opposition to communist Russia and the Soviet Union, and now a post-Soviet Putin-led Russia.  The cold war was comforting.  People knew whom to hate and fear.  The anti-Russian constituency includes John McCain and Lindsey Graham among Republicans, neoconservative opponents in think tanks, the Hillary Clinton hawks among Democrats, Jewish intellectuals pushing back against Russian anti-Israel policies and politicians of all varieties who feel vulnerable against an opponent's charge that he or she is "pink" or "soft on Russia."  

Putin Lapdog Meme

Democrats are enjoying the "birtherization" of Trump.   Turnabout is fair play.

Conspiratorial ideas circulate on the web and with late night comics.   Supposedly--maybe-- Trump was videotaped with Russian prostitutes and is being blackmailed.   Maybe Trump is girlishly starstruck by Putin.  Trump has billions of secret loans from Russian lenders.   Maybe the Intelligence Community is keeping information from Trump out of fear he will turn it over to Russia.  Russia helped Trump get elected and Trump owes them big time.

There is evidence to feed the idea, when aided by confirmation bias.

  *** A Russian spy ship 30 miles off the Norfolk Navy Base and the Groton Submarine Base is a provocation and test and Trump does nothing, and indeed dismisses its importance.  Why is he protecting Russia?

   ***Trump is trying to cooperate with Russia in Syria and Russia's interest is in backing Assad, while American policy has been that Assad is a mass murderer.  Maybe he owe Russians money?

  ***Trump campaign officials pre-election and National Security Advisor Michael Flynn had a phone conversation co-incident with Obama adding economic sanctions on Russia, presumably to assure Russia that the policy would change.  Flynn then lied about it to the FBI.  There must be some kind of election payback going on?

People eager to believe a conspiracy can find evidence for it.  Democrats are toying with this idea.   It is the wrong idea.   

Trump and Jackson:  Powerful executive vs. the elites

The "President is a Russian stooge" is a hard sell. Constitutional law professor Obama was generally soft spoken and respectful to everyone--so it was plausible to perceive him as being soft spoken and respectful to Muslim interests.  The "Obama-a-Kenyan-Muslim" was not directly countered by his tone and image. However, Trump presents as a bellicose American bully, and he is constantly reinforcing that image.  A quick impression of Trump is not that he is somebody's anti-American patsy.

Trump is vulnerable, but not to the charge he is in thrall to a foreign bully.   Political judo needs to exploit a true and obvious characteristic.  It needs to be an easy sell, not a hard one.  Trump doesn't come across as a puppet or a weakling or un-American.

Idi Amin Dada

Pinochet

Quite the opposite.   He comes across as hyper-American, larger than life, with thin-skinned bellicosity characterized by exaggeration, obvious lies, self aggrandizement, and grandiosity.  He won't get himself or America in trouble because he follows someone else's lead.   He will get himself and America in trouble because he may not listen to advice of caution.  He thinks he knows more than everyone else.  He has to win every encounter.  



His weakness is that he conflates what serves his ego with what serves American interests.   

This is understood to be dangerous when we see it in Third World dictators and strongmen, or in American political figures like General McArthur or Richard Nixon in the closing days of the Watergate crisis.  They are feared because they feel entitled to flout laws and the Constitution and they are mocked for their pretensions.  

General McArthur

  Trump as Putin's puppy doesn't feel plausible but Trump as silly/dangerous egotist does.

Democrats will have more success when they change aim.

Trump to Obamacare: "You're Fired!"

Trump is in Charge, with big changes on "Day One."  There is downside to that.

Trump made a big show in his first days in office.   There was a new sheriff in town.  He signed Executive Orders.  He immediately reversed Obama decisions and held the documents up for the cameras.  The optics were clear: he was strong, decisive, making changes. 

Voters wanted change.  They got it.

Message Loud and Clear

Meanwhile, there is inertia of programs already in place.  In the weeks prior to his inauguration there was a flurry of people signing up for the ACA, Obamacare, trying to grab what they could before it disappeared.  Maybe they would be grandfathered.  Maybe there would be some months of coverage.  This took place in the context of Trump resolute it would be repealed promptly and Trump and Congress saying they would replace it. 


The important news isn't interesting enough to be newsworthy.  Problems are accelerating in the insurance marketplaces established by Obamacare.  News of this is drowned out amid big dramas of Trump's tweets and Flynn's being fired and Trump meeting Abe and House Members arguing over whether to investigate Flynn's contact with Russia or the leakers who revealed he had lied to Pence and that possibly he was simply following the orders of President-elect Trump.   Still, whether Humana remains in the ACA marketplace is of critical importance to whether the ACA can survive.  The future was uncertain at best, the rules might change, insurers were losing money because the sickest people were signing up and financial support for younger and healthier people was fading away.

The inertia of Obamacare was a death spiral of collapse.  When insurers leave the marketplace people will not be able to buy insurance at any price.   Republican opposition made certain there would not be a backstop of a public option.  

Who gets blamed for the impending mess?   Republicans made it easy for Democrats.

They succeeded in selling this

Trump, and Republicans generally, wanted credit for taking charge, for being decisive, for changing everything-Obama on Day One.  Trump liked that bull in a china shop image.  He was a CEO, saying "You're Fired!"

Had Republicans handled the campaign differently, and the transition differently things might be better for them.   They might have been able to sell the notion that the chaos belonged to Obama, not them.  

They are trapped by their own base and how they amped up that base.  Republican voters did not want to hear that "Obamacare has a lot of things going for it, that it was actually a Republican/Heritage Foundation program that we are going to improve.    No.  It was essential that they communicate that they are going to repeal it.   The House made a show of this with dozens of votes communicating that if they had the chance they would kill Obamacare.  Now they have the chance.   

If people see a corpse of Obamacare people know whom to blame--the people who bragged about killing it.  Republicans. 

Ideal for Republicans would be to blame the collapse on Obama.  It was failing already!  See what a mess he left?  Blame Obama.

It won't work because Republicans were so successful in communicating that they would change Obamacare immediately, that they were pulling the rug out from under it.  As the spotlight shines on the mess it will be them holding the rug.  They own the collapse.

There will be controversy over this.  Republicans and Fox News and Trump will point back and try to undo their previous message,saying the mess was really Obama's.

Too late.  They presented themselves as Obamacare's executioner so when Obamacare dies people will assume they did it.  

I

Indivisible. Up Close in protest of Donald Trump and Greg Walden

"Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."    Bill of Rights

Three Hundred people gather in Medford with a message:   Shame on Greg Walden.  Resist Trump.

Some political actions are very effective.   The Indivisible group in southern Oregon had another of their "Resist Trump Tuesday" rallies.   They followed the rules of sensible, effective democratic protest.  

Doing it right is not a secret.  Indeed, a small volunteer group of former Congressional staffers wrote it out and put it on line for everyone in America to Read:  Indivisible: A Practical Guide for Resisting the Trump Agenda.  Click to Read. Take Ten Minutes to Learn how Representative Government Works

Me, on the right, a Congressional Aide, 1979

Note that the guide makes sense for every kind of political group, regardless of policy position or political party: left or right, anti-abortion or pro-women, anti-Obama or anti-Trump.  The guide was intended to help channel resistance to the Trump agenda but it openly recognizes the effectiveness of the Tea Party protests that began when Obama was elected.  It copies some of their methods.  (It does criticize TGea Party policy positions and the times it became violent or targeted fellow citizens.) 

The formula is simple.  It reflects exactly what I learned as a District political person for a US Congressman forty years ago (1976-1980.) My job was to help the Congressman have happy constituents and for the Congressman to look good.  What was true then is true now and the shorthand version can be summarized:

Senators and Congressmen want to be elected and stay in office.   They want good press and happy constituents.  They mostly care about the thoughts of their own constituents, not the thoughts of people elsewhere.  Citizens who bring direct, challenging questions, or who are angry and visible, make them look beleaguered and unpopular and they hate that and will try to avoid it.  Citizens can make their representatives change their policies by putting pressure on them.

Indivisible Leader Jessica Sage.   No, not a relation.

The visible leader of the southern Oregon group is Jessica Sage.  (No relation.  We met for the first time yesterday.)  There was a gathering on the steps of a public building, the County Courthouse.   There was notice, approval, and permits for the gathering.   The gathering was orderly.  There was about fifteen minutes of speeches, then a walk to the branch offices of Senators Wyden and Merkley, passing by the office of Congressman Greg Walden.   People stayed on the sidewalks.  

Older crowd.  No surprise for a noon meeting. 

The subject matter of the speeches was simple:  1. Wyden and Merkley are good people who listen to reason and have good values and policies. 2. Congressman Walden is endangering millions of American by destroying access to affordable health care without having a realistic plan to replace it.  3. Good news!  We are already making Walden moderate his positions because is now getting pressure from progressives, not just from right wing Obama-haters.

The rally was very well handled.  It was focused and it avoided mistakes.

Meeting a Wyden aide at Federal Building

It was orderly.  I saw no visible police presence because none was necessary.  This is important and good.  Television and news reports showed peaceful protesters angry with Representative Walden and President Trump, not a clash or interaction between disorderly people and the police.

It was the right length and mostly stayed on message: resist Trump and blame Greg Walden. Sometimes rallies of this kind can go too long and go off message.  There are issues which motivate a crowd that are particularized and destroy the solidarity of the movement: natural gas pipelines, Indian sovereignty rights, marijuana legislation, bicycle paths, city or county issues, or resurrecting the Sanders-Hillary primary, what Hillary should have done, etc. 

Nice Signs, Orderly and Earnest Crowd

The optics were good.  Good signs and no bad signs.  All it would take is one sign with a swastika or one sign showing Trump with a noose and that sign would be the centerpiece of the media reports.   Then the optics would be "violent crazy people" against democratically elected government--a disastrous image.  In this case the optics were "resolute older people" versus Walden and Trump.  Perfect.

There is a meme being pushed by Sean Spicer and repeated on Fox News: Indivisible is "astro-turf".  Spicer said that the Tea Party was "very organic" but the Indivisible demonstration like this one in southern Oregon was "a very paid, Astroturf-type movement."  Congressman Steve King of Iowa made the same allegation: "I think it will be a demonstration a week until they run out of funding."   This allegation was echoed and amplified on Fox News.  It isn't true.  I was there.  I talked with people.  Look at them.  They are citizens.

These protesters are real, concerned, motivated citizens.  This being Medford, Oregon and this being mid-day on a Thursday, the audience was overwhelmingly white and older.  They are not representative of the whole of America but they are representative of this Congressional District's most reliable voters.  

Congressman Walden would have no illusions that these people are anything other that what they are: political opposition who could make trouble for him, and indeed already are doing so.

Nice signs, cooperative people, leaving open the walkway.

One task of Indivisible of the 2nd Congressional District is to put pressure on Greg Walden to change his policies better to reflect progressive values.  The second is to find and support a viable candidate to unseat him.  The keenest way to focus the attention of a Member of Congress or a Senator is to know that someone very viable is gaining political support and you are losing it.   Money is very nice but money only helps you indirectly.   People vote, and angry people are sure to vote.

The point of Indivisible--and the primary effect of the Tea Party during the Obama presidency--is to focus on the most responsive part of the American political system, the elected representatives.  Not the president, but the Member of Congress.  Public outcry puts pressure on ones political allies not to compromise--not to dare even thinking of it.   And it puts pressure on ones opponents to try to dampen down and mellow out the opposition.  Move their way.  Quiet them down.  Try to mollify them.   It worked for the Tea Party.  The intractable opposition to Obama by a unified Republican party, and the defeat of vulnerable Democrats, put the current majority of Republicans in office.   Now the same technique is being used against them.

As this blog as said several times in the past week, Walden is in trouble--or not in trouble--depending on how well he performs in the hot seat of Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.   No amount of party advantage and no amount of money will protect him if he is understood to have failed at his job.   On the other hand, if he can pass legislation that brings simple, affordable, universal, and excellent health care to the nation, health care that people are thrilled with, then he is home free.   

The Indivisible rally in southern Oregon is intended to let him know he is being watched and warned.

Medford Rally, Valentine's Day