Skip to main content

How Do We Fight Back Against What We All See Coming?

The country is heading over a cliff and the brake lines have been cut. This is readily apparent to anyone paying attention.

A rogue political party with malign intent and vast resources is bent on dismantling our entire system, and they’re doing it in plain sight. They assume we’ll just let them. The question is what to do about it.

Yes, we hold slim majorities in the legislative branch, but those majorities are frighteningly fragile. If the filibuster is altered — which seems both necessary and inevitable — it could backfire spectacularly when Republicans next take power. Which is more than possible, even as soon as 2022. Democracy itself seems to be backed against the wall.

This leaves @Shoq — who takes this all quite personally — perplexed and frustrated. Most of his 25,000 Twitter followers get nourishment from his acerbic but cogent analyses of the ills we face, and they know that his alarmism is well backed by facts, reason, and perspective.

The trouble he sees — and what makes him crazy — is that liberals freeze up when it comes to hard choices. There is a failure of both imagination and nerve, as well as a default to defeatism. This is certainly understandable, given the setbacks and meager progress of the last fifty years. But I agree with Shoq that we’re now in an emergency, and the institutions that should save us are severely damaged. A certain ruthlessness may be called for.

Our instincts are to cling to the rule of law for salvation, but that’s not especially comforting right now. We have to start thinking outside the box.

We have the brains. We have the talent. We have data skills, communications savvy, and critical thinking. We have facts and objective reality — both battered but still useful — and we have most of our population on the side of truth and justice.

Yes, our enemies are smart, but their constituencies are deeply stupid. We can take advantage of that, but we need ideas.

Ideas are what Shoq is screaming for, and he’s getting crickets in return. So this is me, throwing some spaghetti at the wall.

Lean on the corporations

Shoq singles out corporations as a key pressure point. Building on that idea, I think the business world needs to be dragged into the fight, kicking and screaming if need be. We must convince them to make a serious investment in democracy — for their own good, if not for ours.

Corporations put plenty of money into politics, but they put much too much of it into groups that have abused the system and seem bent on taking it down. This is shortsighted — companies have as much to lose as we do — but we can’t wait for them to come around. We have to make them much less comfortable with financing seditious behavior. We have to get them to put their money on our side.

Yes, some companies have stepped up in reaction to the obscene new voting laws in Georgia, Texas, and other states. But you don’t get the feeling their hearts are in it. You can tell by their carefully measured statements that their public relations people are driving the bus. That’s not good enough. We need involvement at the top of the org chart, and that won’t happen without real pressure, deftly applied.

Companies live in terror of bad PR. They keep crisis management firms on retainer to react to any shade thrown on their reputations.

So a little sunlight might go a long way. The political spending of public corporations is a matter of public record, so exposing those records could lead to awkward questions, first in their boardrooms, then at their stockholders’ meetings.

The success of large businesses is tied to the happiness of their customers, employees, suppliers, and shareholders, all of whom are fickle. Media attention is exactly what companies don’t want. Confront them with reputational harm and they might just be convinced to do the right thing.

And the heat can be turned up. Organized consumer groups could pressure companies on social media, tie up their phone lines, buy and return merchandise in large numbers, file class action lawsuits. The idea is to hit them where it hurts: in their wallets.

Whether corporations realize it or not, this is ultimately in their interest. Democracy and free enterprise have a long and prosperous relationship, and the business world rarely thrives in fascist systems that stifle talent and crush free thinking.

In short, free and fair elections are good for business. The best business people already know this. The rest need to be taught.

Mobilize Big Law

Even as we put pressure on big corporations, we might also draw on a largely untapped source of activism: major corporate law firms.

Many of the lawyers at these deep-pocketed firms are smart, middle-class liberals who have knowingly gone over to the dark side, representing a wide array of unsavory corporate interests. They do it for the money, which they make a ton of, but they don’t always like themselves for it.

For the sake of their souls, they compensate by throwing themselves into pro bono work. Their firms sponsor forays into legal aid, where they represent the indigent and the persecuted. Most important, they turn out in droves on election days to help counter the rapidly proliferating atrocities at polling places.

Since the rule of law is core to their business model, all lawyers have a vested interest in keeping it around.

Properly deployed, this is a gold mine of talent. It could bring enormous legal firepower to bear against the likes of Fox and OAN. Against state legislators suppressing voting rights. Against “frauditors” challenging elections on specious grounds. Against governors whose willful Covid denial costs constituents their lives.

These lawyers could file a blizzard of lawsuits. There is no dearth of GOP-affiliated organizations to go after, each with the legally fraught stink of Trump on them. It’s a target-rich environment, and surely there are thousands of young attorneys eager to make the bastards pay.

Share the knowledge

Shoq is right that ideas are necessary. But they’re not sufficient. They need to be shared to be effective. The technology certainly exists to expand our range of tactics, but it starts with finding good ways to spread good ideas around.

To that end, we could use a clearinghouse for strategies and tactics. Imagine a crowd-sourced venue that curates ideas and matches them with people who can run with them.

As it happens, Shoq has some thoughts about this as well. Don’t get him started.

Comments

  1. How many deliveries did you or Shoq, get from Amazon this week? I don’t even have a prime account. Yes, I do order from them but I look everywhere else first. They are my last resort.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Be careful that what you promote doesn't end with blood on your hands.
    “A ballot is just a substitute for a bullet. If your vote isn’t backed by a bullet, it is meaningless. Without the bullet, people could ignore the election outcome. Voting would be pointless. Democracy has violence at its very core!” ~Muir Matteson, “The Nonviolent Zone”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I just watched The NY Times 40 minute video on Jan 6th. We have a huge, angry mob across this country who are not afraid to use their guns. We don’t have them in the numbers they do and we aren’t inclined to use them. Many of us would rather die ourselves than kill another. Hard to see how this can end well without a large military response if all hell breaks loose. What I want to do is a class action law suit against Fox, Newsmax and OAN forcing them to present the facts or be taken off the air. I’d join that suit!

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Mainstream Media Continues to Disappoint

  Since I began this blog in 2020, one of my obsessions has been the culpability of the press in our current political predicament. Given the stakes we face this year, I feel we all need to be reminded that these mainstream news organizations are necessary, but not sufficient. Accordingly, I am revisiting this piece, which I wrote last May, because it’s particularly illustrative of the problem, especially in its depiction of The Washington Post’s shameful spinning of the final Durham Report.   The awkward term "both-siderism" has, at long last, stepped into the limelight, thanks to the graceful gravitas of CNN icon Christiane Amanpour (full disclosure: our dog used to play with her dog). In one brilliant commencement address , to the Columbia School of Journalism, she dope-slapped her own profession and, indeed, her own boss, both of whom richly deserved it. That takes guts, not to mention a reputation for integrity. Both of which she has in abundance.

Is Nikki Haley Working on a Take-Down of Trump?

  Every now and then I like to engage in a bit of speculation. Not prediction, mind you, but something hopefully less presumptuous. In this case, I’ve been musing about Nikki Haley’s path forward, if she has one. Not whether she’ll win the nomination, which is unlikely. I’m more interested in her potential as an irritant, as a person ideally positioned to tamper with Trump’s fragile psyche. She now has the unmistakable opportunity to attack Trump from inside the Fox media bubble, something few have been able to do. Haley just might be the focus of a novel strategy that does two things at once: It holds the door open for the slim chance she has of winning the nomination this summer, while at the same time, it lays the groundwork for a 2028 run at the presidency. Given the debased state of today’s Republican party, this is surely as good a strategy as any, though it risks doing more for Joe Biden than for her. More on this later. For now, let’s presume that ther

What Could Be Worse than the Dobbs Decision?

  I’ve tried to be a bit more optimistic in my posts of late. I’ve focused on the evidence — of which there’s plenty — that maybe Trump and the Republican party are driving themselves, as opposed to us, off a cliff. The politics of preserving democracy have indeed been somewhat encouraging, especially when one considers the virtually unbeaten record of Democrats in every election since the fall of Roe v. Wade . I’d like nothing more than to give up the gloom-and-doom thing on a permanent basis. But not today. Today, once again, I have to bum us all out. I have to tell you about one of those boring and esoteric legal issues that tend to slip right by us, but which, in this case, carries a level of threat arguably more alarming even than the tanking of Roe . Once again, the Supreme Court is up to no good, and it has nothing to do with the criminality of Donald Trump. One of the decisions they’re cooking up for this June could dwarf the Dobbs decision, both in